Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

mWjkplOAFCNJY2ze

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-stormy-daniels-stuff-political-hoax-ally-words/story?id=54000127

Trump calls 'much of the Stormy Daniels stuff' a 'political hoax', ally says

President Donald Trump has referred to stories around his alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels as a 'political hoax , ' a friend of the president said . Interested in Donald Trump ? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Chris Ruddy , an ███ contributor and the founder and CEO of news and opinion site Newsmax who said he spoke to the president yesterday , told ███ “ This Week ” Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that Trump `` said he thought that , that much of the Stormy Daniels stuff was a political hoax . ” Stormy Daniels is the professional name of adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford , who filed a lawsuit against President Trump in early March seeking to nullify a non-disclosure agreement she signed less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election . The suit claims the contract is void because it lacked Trump ’ s signature . An interview with Clifford is scheduled to air today on the CBS News program , `` 60 Minutes . '' Clifford 's lawyer , Michael Avenatti , later tweeted a sarcastic response to the `` hoax '' reference . Cliffords has claimed that she was in a consensual relationship with Trump that began during the summer of 2006 . ███ reported last week that Clifford ’ s lawyer claimed she was threatened with “ physical harm ” to keep the alleged affair a secret . Ruddy said none of the allegations lodged by Clifford , which the White House has denied , have included claims of harassment . `` You know , at the bottom line , there ’ s just never been a claim of -- of -- of harassment , '' Ruddy said . “ So the president looks at this and I think he ’ s looking at it like I ’ m looking at it . This is politically motivated to hurt and embarrass him in some way . '' Ruddy continued that any such efforts to harm the president do n't appear to be working . `` You know what , [ at ] the end of the day , the poll numbers for the president are up , ” he said . The White House has denied the alleged affair with Daniels , but the president has not commented directly on the allegations . In January , The Wall Street Journal was first to report that Trump ’ s longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen had paid Daniels $ 130,000 before the 2016 election . Cohen acknowledged in a statement emailed to ███ that he made the payment from what he said were his personal funds , but he was mum as to the reason for the payment .

President Donald Trump has referred to stories around his alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels as a 'political hoax,' a friend of the president said. Interested in Donald Trump? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Chris Ruddy, an ABC News contributor and the founder and CEO of news and opinion site Newsmax who said he spoke to the president yesterday, told ABC News “This Week” Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that Trump "said he thought that, that much of the Stormy Daniels stuff was a political hoax.” “Again, those were his words,” Ruddy said. Stormy Daniels is the professional name of adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford, who filed a lawsuit against President Trump in early March seeking to nullify a non-disclosure agreement she signed less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election. The suit claims the contract is void because it lacked Trump’s signature. An interview with Clifford is scheduled to air today on the CBS News program, "60 Minutes." Clifford's lawyer, Michael Avenatti, later tweeted a sarcastic response to the "hoax" reference. Cliffords has claimed that she was in a consensual relationship with Trump that began during the summer of 2006. ABC News reported last week that Clifford’s lawyer claimed she was threatened with “physical harm” to keep the alleged affair a secret. Albert L. Ortega/Getty Images Ruddy said none of the allegations lodged by Clifford, which the White House has denied, have included claims of harassment. "You know, at the bottom line, there’s just never been a claim of -- of -- of harassment," Ruddy said. “So the president looks at this and I think he’s looking at it like I’m looking at it. This is politically motivated to hurt and embarrass him in some way." Ruddy continued that any such efforts to harm the president don't appear to be working. "You know what, [at] the end of the day, the poll numbers for the president are up,” he said. The White House has denied the alleged affair with Daniels, but the president has not commented directly on the allegations. In January, The Wall Street Journal was first to report that Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen had paid Daniels $130,000 before the 2016 election. Cohen acknowledged in a statement emailed to ABC News that he made the payment from what he said were his personal funds, but he was mum as to the reason for the payment.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

mWjkplOAFCNJY2ze

test

pe8YX4IEGaHQGRne

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/05/12/the-libertarian-party-critique-of-justin-amash/

The Libertarian Party Critique of Justin Amash

2020-05-12

Matt Welch, Judge Robert Bacharach, Josh Blackman, Matthew Petti, Charles Oliver, Veronique De Rugy, Jacob Sullum, Billy Binion, Lenore Skenazy

With less than two weeks left before 1,000 or so Libertarian Party delegates select their 2020 presidential and vice presidential nominees in an unprecedented online-only vote , you could probably forgive Jacob Hornberger for being a little irritable . Hornberger , the 70-year-old founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation , has , after all , won a clear majority of the party 's presidential primaries and caucuses , nonbinding though they may be . He has been in and out and back in Libertarian politics for more than two decades now . And yet ever since Rep. Justin Amash ( L–Mich . ) threw his hat into the ring on April 28 , Hornberger has been all but ignored by the mainstream media , while Amash galivants on cable news networks and HBO 's Real Time with Bill Maher . So it came as little surprise Saturday night that when the formerly Republican and independent congressman participated in his first Libertarian presidential debate , it was Hornberger—author of an eight-part blog series titled , `` Justin Amash , LP Interloper '' —who came out swinging hardest . `` Even the libertarian-leaning conservative members of Congress have websites that direct children to the website of the CIA—the most evil agency in U.S. history , '' Hornberger charged in his opening statement , reiterating his critique of a student resource page at amash.house.gov . `` Conservatives love free enterprise , but have long supported the evil , immoral , socialist , central-planning , Republican/Democratic system of immigration controls , which has brought death and suffering to countless people , as well as a brutal police state consisting of highway checkpoints and other initiations of force against innocent people . '' Running as he is a `` campaign of principle for the party of principle , '' in a cycle where many Libertarians seem particularly eager to shed their image as a refuge for ideologically alienated and/or politically opportunistic ex-Republicans , Hornberger portrayed Amash as someone merely tinkering around the edges of the welfare/warfare state . `` Conservatives love to 'reform , ' '' he said . `` But reform of tyranny is not freedom . Freedom is a dismantling of tyranny….In this election Libertarian Party members are asked to trade away our principles for a conservative/progressive/libertarian mush , all for the sake of big publicity and the hopes of garnering votes . If we make that trade , we become like them . We become conservatives and progressives . We become the party of expediency . '' Those who assume Amash will waltz to a first-ballot nomination over Memorial Day weekend should take a look at the Libertarian Party of Kentucky 's post-debate voting exercise among one-quarter of confirmed L.P. convention delegates . In the first round of polling , Amash received just 33.3 percent of the vote , compared to runner-up Hornberger 's 21 percent . ( The party requires winning candidates to earn 50 percent plus one vote , using an instant runoff process in which the last-place finisher in each round , and everyone under 5 percent , gets lopped off for the next . ) Amash eventually won the informal vote , but it took him six rounds . Here 's how the totals went , as reported : Round 1 : Amash 33.3 percent , Hornberger 21 percent , Jo Jorgensen 16.6 percent , Vermin Supreme 7.7 percent , Judge Jim Gray 6.6 percent , Adam Kokesh 6.2 percent , John Monds 5 percent , Arvin Vohra 1.5 percent . Round 2 : Amash 35.1 percent , Hornberger 23.3 percent , Jorgensen 18.5 percent , Supreme 9.3 percent , Kokesh 7.7 percent , Gray 7 percent . Round 3 : Amash 37.3 percent , Hornberger 22.4 percent , Jorgensen 21.6 percent , Supreme 10.1 percent , Kokesh 8.6 percent . Round 4 : Amash 39.3 percent , Jorgensen 24.8 percent , Hornberger 22.9 percent , Supreme 13 percent . Round 5 : Amash 43.8 percent , Jorgensen 30.5 percent , Hornberger 25.7 percent . Jorgensen , the 1996 Libertarian vice presidential nominee who caught Hornberger from behind in Round 4 and eventually elbowed him out , is campaigning in a sort of third lane between the no-holds-barred radicalism of Hornberger and anarchist Adam Kokesh , and the more pragmatic approach favored by Amash and Judge Jim Gray . `` I 'm offering something that 's principled and practical , '' she said in her closing statement Saturday night . Jorgensen was the only other debate participant to significantly challenge Amash , albeit in a much less abrasive way than Hornberger ( who said that he could not commit to endorsing the congressman should he win the nomination ) . In her opening statement , she asked Amash a series of questions , most of which he did n't address . `` Would you use your authority as commander-in-chief to end our involvement in foreign wars , stop subsidizing the defense of wealthy allies , and bring our troops home ? I will , '' Jorgensen said . `` Would you…use your pardon power to free people convicted of exposing government corruption , violating unconstitutional laws , or committing so-called crimes when there 's no victim ? I will . Would you immediately stop construction on President Trump 's border wall boondoggle , and work to eliminate quotas on immigration so that anyone who wishes to come to America could do so legally ? I will . And last , where do you stand on one of the most divisive issues in America : abortion ? Do you support the Libertarian Party platform ? I do . It 's not enough to be better than Trump or Biden . Our nominee must be deeply principled with a long commitment to our party . '' Amash did address abortion in the debate , saying at first : `` I 'm pro-life . I believe that the pro-life position is a Libertarian position , and my goal is to work outside of the Libertarian Party to convince people of that . I work with pregnancy resource centers , for example , here in West Michigan , to try to get the message out and spread the message about life . I do n't think that the government is most effective at doing that sort of thing . As a president , the Libertarian Party supports the idea of not funding abortion providers . So , the Libertarian Party is aligned with my position on that . '' Hornberger : … You of course pride yourself on being a strict constitutionalist , a supporter of the Constitution . And you supported a bill that called—I think it was in the past couple of years—that called for a nationwide criminal ban on abortion , in which people who were caught engaging in an abortion would be convicted of a federal felony involving a five-year jail sentence . Can you tell me where in the Constitution you rely on to support this federal felony offense for abortion ? Amash : So I 'm not sure about the particular bill you 're referencing , because it was in the past and I do n't know exactly which bill— Hornberger : It 's House bill 36 . Amash : But I can answer the question . The 14th Amendment provides the power to have the federal government address state violations of people 's rights . And as someone who 's pro-life , I believe that a baby inside the womb is a life . And if I believe that that person is a life , then I think it 's appropriate for the federal government to tell states that it is not okay to discriminate against these lives . Now , as a presidential candidate , as a presidential nominee , I wo n't be making the legislation ; the legislature will decide that . Congress decides on the legislation and sends things to my desk . With the parties very divided over this issue , nothing 's going to come to my desk that does that . That 's my view of it , and when I 'm voting in Congress , that 's how I would vote . But as a presidential candidate , with respect to people who are concerned within the party because there is a split within the party between pro-life people and pro-choice people , the president will have very little opportunity for that kind of thing , because there is a huge divide within the party . So the only thing that is likely to come to my desk as president is a bill to not fund abortion providers , no federal funding for abortion providers , and that is something that all Libertarians within the party agree on . At least , the vast majority of them agree on that . Hornberger 's most influential backers , at the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus and on the podcasting airwaves , have dinged Amash for backing the `` Deep State '' in the impeachment of President Donald Trump ( despite Amash 's lead role in nearly de-funding the National Security Agency 's domestic surveillance operations back in 2013 ) , and for potentially being another in a lengthening line of ex-Republicans who fail to ignite a lasting ideological fire . `` I even think that in some scenarios 1 percent might be better than 4 percent , '' libertarian comedian Dave Smith said to Hornberger on an episode of his Part of the Problem podcast last month . `` I think those votes are worthless if you did n't actually convert people or introduce them to liberty or change their way of looking at the world at all . '' Or as Ludwig von Mises Institute senior fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods , with whom Smith taped an Amash-criticizing podcast last week , said at a Mises Caucus-sponsored event down the street from the 2018 Libertarian National Convention : `` So yeah , we wo n't get the 70 million votes , but maybe we get 1 million people who say , ' I never looked at the world the same way again after I listened to those people . ' '' Amash 's answer to the broad critique is to remind people that most Americans are not self-identified libertarians , no matter how intrinsically libertarian they may be without knowing it , and that political actors wishing to have any kind of influence need to acknowledge the fallen world around them . `` I 've been a libertarian my entire life , a small-l libertarian , '' Amash said Saturday . `` And I believe that when you work within government , you have to make those changes that will convince people to come to your side….You have to present libertarianism to them with the issues that they care about or are concerned about right now . It ca n't be some kind of overnight experiment where we re-work all of society or re-work all of our government . '' `` In fact , '' Amash continued , `` that 's arrogance in the form of central planning of another sort , to come in and say , 'We 're just going to throw out everything we have overnight and start anew . ' We have to do things gradually and carefully , and we have to trust the people to make decisions through our constitutional system of government . ''

With less than two weeks left before 1,000 or so Libertarian Party delegates select their 2020 presidential and vice presidential nominees in an unprecedented online-only vote, you could probably forgive Jacob Hornberger for being a little irritable. Hornberger, the 70-year-old founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has, after all, won a clear majority of the party's presidential primaries and caucuses, nonbinding though they may be. He has been in and out and back in Libertarian politics for more than two decades now. And yet ever since Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) threw his hat into the ring on April 28, Hornberger has been all but ignored by the mainstream media, while Amash galivants on cable news networks and HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. So it came as little surprise Saturday night that when the formerly Republican and independent congressman participated in his first Libertarian presidential debate, it was Hornberger—author of an eight-part blog series titled, "Justin Amash, LP Interloper"—who came out swinging hardest. "Even the libertarian-leaning conservative members of Congress have websites that direct children to the website of the CIA—the most evil agency in U.S. history," Hornberger charged in his opening statement, reiterating his critique of a student resource page at amash.house.gov. "Conservatives love free enterprise, but have long supported the evil, immoral, socialist, central-planning, Republican/Democratic system of immigration controls, which has brought death and suffering to countless people, as well as a brutal police state consisting of highway checkpoints and other initiations of force against innocent people." Running as he is a "campaign of principle for the party of principle," in a cycle where many Libertarians seem particularly eager to shed their image as a refuge for ideologically alienated and/or politically opportunistic ex-Republicans, Hornberger portrayed Amash as someone merely tinkering around the edges of the welfare/warfare state. "Conservatives love to 'reform,'" he said. "But reform of tyranny is not freedom. Freedom is a dismantling of tyranny….In this election Libertarian Party members are asked to trade away our principles for a conservative/progressive/libertarian mush, all for the sake of big publicity and the hopes of garnering votes. If we make that trade, we become like them. We become conservatives and progressives. We become the party of expediency." Those who assume Amash will waltz to a first-ballot nomination over Memorial Day weekend should take a look at the Libertarian Party of Kentucky's post-debate voting exercise among one-quarter of confirmed L.P. convention delegates. In the first round of polling, Amash received just 33.3 percent of the vote, compared to runner-up Hornberger's 21 percent. (The party requires winning candidates to earn 50 percent plus one vote, using an instant runoff process in which the last-place finisher in each round, and everyone under 5 percent, gets lopped off for the next.) Amash eventually won the informal vote, but it took him six rounds. Here's how the totals went, as reported: Round 1: Amash 33.3 percent, Hornberger 21 percent, Jo Jorgensen 16.6 percent, Vermin Supreme 7.7 percent, Judge Jim Gray 6.6 percent, Adam Kokesh 6.2 percent, John Monds 5 percent, Arvin Vohra 1.5 percent. Round 2: Amash 35.1 percent, Hornberger 23.3 percent, Jorgensen 18.5 percent, Supreme 9.3 percent, Kokesh 7.7 percent, Gray 7 percent. Round 3: Amash 37.3 percent, Hornberger 22.4 percent, Jorgensen 21.6 percent, Supreme 10.1 percent, Kokesh 8.6 percent. Round 4: Amash 39.3 percent, Jorgensen 24.8 percent, Hornberger 22.9 percent, Supreme 13 percent. Round 5: Amash 43.8 percent, Jorgensen 30.5 percent, Hornberger 25.7 percent. Round 6: Amash 55.6 percent, Jorgensen 44.4 percent. Jorgensen, the 1996 Libertarian vice presidential nominee who caught Hornberger from behind in Round 4 and eventually elbowed him out, is campaigning in a sort of third lane between the no-holds-barred radicalism of Hornberger and anarchist Adam Kokesh, and the more pragmatic approach favored by Amash and Judge Jim Gray. "I'm offering something that's principled and practical," she said in her closing statement Saturday night. Jorgensen was the only other debate participant to significantly challenge Amash, albeit in a much less abrasive way than Hornberger (who said that he could not commit to endorsing the congressman should he win the nomination). In her opening statement, she asked Amash a series of questions, most of which he didn't address. "Would you use your authority as commander-in-chief to end our involvement in foreign wars, stop subsidizing the defense of wealthy allies, and bring our troops home? I will," Jorgensen said. "Would you…use your pardon power to free people convicted of exposing government corruption, violating unconstitutional laws, or committing so-called crimes when there's no victim? I will. Would you immediately stop construction on President Trump's border wall boondoggle, and work to eliminate quotas on immigration so that anyone who wishes to come to America could do so legally? I will. And last, where do you stand on one of the most divisive issues in America: abortion? Do you support the Libertarian Party platform? I do. It's not enough to be better than Trump or Biden. Our nominee must be deeply principled with a long commitment to our party." Amash did address abortion in the debate, saying at first: "I'm pro-life. I believe that the pro-life position is a Libertarian position, and my goal is to work outside of the Libertarian Party to convince people of that. I work with pregnancy resource centers, for example, here in West Michigan, to try to get the message out and spread the message about life. I don't think that the government is most effective at doing that sort of thing. As a president, the Libertarian Party supports the idea of not funding abortion providers. So, the Libertarian Party is aligned with my position on that." Hornberger then grilled the congressman further: Hornberger: … You of course pride yourself on being a strict constitutionalist, a supporter of the Constitution. And you supported a bill that called—I think it was in the past couple of years—that called for a nationwide criminal ban on abortion, in which people who were caught engaging in an abortion would be convicted of a federal felony involving a five-year jail sentence. Can you tell me where in the Constitution you rely on to support this federal felony offense for abortion? Amash: So I'm not sure about the particular bill you're referencing, because it was in the past and I don't know exactly which bill— Hornberger: It's House bill 36. Amash: But I can answer the question. The 14th Amendment provides the power to have the federal government address state violations of people's rights. And as someone who's pro-life, I believe that a baby inside the womb is a life. And if I believe that that person is a life, then I think it's appropriate for the federal government to tell states that it is not okay to discriminate against these lives. Now, as a presidential candidate, as a presidential nominee, I won't be making the legislation; the legislature will decide that. Congress decides on the legislation and sends things to my desk. With the parties very divided over this issue, nothing's going to come to my desk that does that. That's my view of it, and when I'm voting in Congress, that's how I would vote. But as a presidential candidate, with respect to people who are concerned within the party because there is a split within the party between pro-life people and pro-choice people, the president will have very little opportunity for that kind of thing, because there is a huge divide within the party. So the only thing that is likely to come to my desk as president is a bill to not fund abortion providers, no federal funding for abortion providers, and that is something that all Libertarians within the party agree on. At least, the vast majority of them agree on that. Hornberger's most influential backers, at the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus and on the podcasting airwaves, have dinged Amash for backing the "Deep State" in the impeachment of President Donald Trump (despite Amash's lead role in nearly de-funding the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance operations back in 2013), and for potentially being another in a lengthening line of ex-Republicans who fail to ignite a lasting ideological fire. "I even think that in some scenarios 1 percent might be better than 4 percent," libertarian comedian Dave Smith said to Hornberger on an episode of his Part of the Problem podcast last month. "I think those votes are worthless if you didn't actually convert people or introduce them to liberty or change their way of looking at the world at all." Or as Ludwig von Mises Institute senior fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods, with whom Smith taped an Amash-criticizing podcast last week, said at a Mises Caucus-sponsored event down the street from the 2018 Libertarian National Convention: "So yeah, we won't get the 70 million votes, but maybe we get 1 million people who say, 'I never looked at the world the same way again after I listened to those people.'" Amash's answer to the broad critique is to remind people that most Americans are not self-identified libertarians, no matter how intrinsically libertarian they may be without knowing it, and that political actors wishing to have any kind of influence need to acknowledge the fallen world around them. "I've been a libertarian my entire life, a small-l libertarian," Amash said Saturday. "And I believe that when you work within government, you have to make those changes that will convince people to come to your side….You have to present libertarianism to them with the issues that they care about or are concerned about right now. It can't be some kind of overnight experiment where we re-work all of society or re-work all of our government." "In fact," Amash continued, "that's arrogance in the form of central planning of another sort, to come in and say, 'We're just going to throw out everything we have overnight and start anew.' We have to do things gradually and carefully, and we have to trust the people to make decisions through our constitutional system of government."

www.reason.com

right

pe8YX4IEGaHQGRne

test

h47pxSkN3XeOVq7J

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/may/did-obama-admin-illegally-investigate-trump-campaign-a-new-investigation-aims-to-find-out

Did Obama Admin Illegally Investigate Trump Campaign? A New Investigation Aims to Find Out

2019-05-14

The president and his supporters have long contended that the Obama administration used the intelligence community to illegally spy on the Trump campaign in 2016 . Now , Attorney General William Barr has appointed John Durham , the US attorney in Connecticut , to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation and decide whether intelligence gathering methods involving the Trump campaign were `` lawful and appropriate . '' As the news broke late Monday several Republican senators applauded the move . Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) told Fox host Sean Hannity that the investigation will bring accountability to the Justice Department 's 2016 campaign investigation . `` We need to investigate how politicized it was and in particular , we need to see what were the roles of the political appointees and who signed off on it , '' he said . `` Was it Loretta Lynch ? Was it John Brennan ? Was it Joe Biden ? Was it President Obama himself ? '' Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) told ███ News that Barr `` wants to know if the spying that was done on the Trump campaign had a proper predicate , '' adding , `` I think a lot of Democrats are very worried about what that probe is going to turn up . '' President Trump nominated Durham for his current post last year and the Senate unanimously confirmed him . The two Democratic senators from Connecticut , Richard Blumenthal , and Chris Murphy , called him a `` fierce , fair prosecutor '' who knows how to try tough cases . Ken Starr , who served as an independent counsel during the Clinton presidency , praised Barr 's choice . `` He 's totally above politics , '' said Starr , noting that the Obama administration gave Durham some key assignments , including an investigation of CIA detainees . `` We really have an honest cop on the beat now , '' said Starr . Durham 's appointment comes just weeks after Barr told members of Congress that he was building a team to investigate spying against the Trump campaign . `` I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal , '' he said . `` The generation I grew up in which was the Vietnam war , people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people by the government and there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there 's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance . '' The Durham inquiry is separate from an investigation by the Justice Department 's Inspector General . That is also examining the Russia probe origins and Barr expects it to be complete this month or next .

The president and his supporters have long contended that the Obama administration used the intelligence community to illegally spy on the Trump campaign in 2016. Now, Attorney General William Barr has appointed John Durham, the US attorney in Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation and decide whether intelligence gathering methods involving the Trump campaign were "lawful and appropriate." As the news broke late Monday several Republican senators applauded the move. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Fox host Sean Hannity that the investigation will bring accountability to the Justice Department's 2016 campaign investigation. "We need to investigate how politicized it was and in particular, we need to see what were the roles of the political appointees and who signed off on it," he said. "Was it Loretta Lynch? Was it John Brennan? Was it Joe Biden? Was it President Obama himself?" Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) told CBN News that Barr "wants to know if the spying that was done on the Trump campaign had a proper predicate," adding, "I think a lot of Democrats are very worried about what that probe is going to turn up." President Trump nominated Durham for his current post last year and the Senate unanimously confirmed him. The two Democratic senators from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, and Chris Murphy, called him a "fierce, fair prosecutor" who knows how to try tough cases. Ken Starr, who served as an independent counsel during the Clinton presidency, praised Barr's choice. "He's totally above politics," said Starr, noting that the Obama administration gave Durham some key assignments, including an investigation of CIA detainees. "We really have an honest cop on the beat now," said Starr. Durham's appointment comes just weeks after Barr told members of Congress that he was building a team to investigate spying against the Trump campaign. "I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," he said. "The generation I grew up in which was the Vietnam war, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people by the government and there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance." The Durham inquiry is separate from an investigation by the Justice Department's Inspector General. That is also examining the Russia probe origins and Barr expects it to be complete this month or next.

www1.cbn.com

right

h47pxSkN3XeOVq7J

test

AFXh5MXzy8hXnxbw

nuclear_weapons

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles/north-korea-to-dismantle-nuclear-test-site-may-23-25-state-media-idUSKCN1ID0H5

North Korea details plans to dismantle nuclear test site

2018-05-13

Christine Kim

SEOUL/WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - North Korea has scheduled the dismantlement of its nuclear bomb test site for sometime between May 23 and 25 in order to uphold its pledge to discontinue nuclear tests , the country ’ s state media reported on Saturday a month ahead of a historic summit . The official Korean Central New Agency said dismantlement of the Punggye-ri nuclear test ground would involve collapsing all of its tunnels with explosions , blocking its entrances , and removing all observation facilities , research buildings and security posts . “ The Nuclear Weapon Institute and other concerned institutions are taking technical measures for dismantling the northern nuclear test ground ... in order to ensure transparency of discontinuance of the nuclear test , ” KCNA said . U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will hold talks in Singapore on June 12 , the first-ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader . Trump ’ s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday that North Korea can look forward to “ a future brimming with peace and prosperity ” if it agrees to quickly give up its nuclear weapons . “ North Korea has announced that they will dismantle Nuclear Test Site this month , ahead of the big Summit Meeting on June 12th , ” he tweeted . “ Thank you , a very smart and gracious gesture ! Thank you , a very smart and gracious gesture ! ” South Korea ’ s presidential office echoed the sentiment on Sunday , saying it shows Pyongyang ’ s willingness to denuclearize through actions beyond words . However , in spite of its pledge to stop testing , North Korea has given no indication it is willing to go beyond statements of broad conceptual support for denuclearization by unilaterally abandoning a nuclear weapons program its ruling family has seen as crucial to its survival . In announcing the plan to shut Punggye-ri last month , Kim said North Korea no longer needed to conduct tests because it had completed its goal of developing nuclear weapons . KCNA said journalists , including from the United States and South Korea , would be invited to cover the event , to “ show in a transparent manner the dismantlement of the northern nuclear test ground to be carried out ” . The exact date of the closure will depend on weather conditions , the agency said . Related Coverage South Korea welcomes North Korea 's schedule for dismantling nuclear test site To accommodate the traveling journalists , North Korea said various measures would be taken including “ opening territorial air space ” . South Korean officials said in April that North Korea also planned to invite experts from the United States and South Korea for the Punggye-ri shutdown , but KCNA made no mention of this . Last month , South Korean President Moon Jae-in had asked the United Nations to help verify the shutdown . South Korea ’ s deputy nuclear envoy Jeong Yeon-doo will visit the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) in Vienna this week to discuss the “ complete denuclearization of North Korea ” the foreign ministry said on Sunday . All of North Korea ’ s six known nuclear bomb tests have taken place at Punggye-ri , in the northeastern of North Korea where a system of tunnels have been dug under Mount Mantap . According to Chinese academic reports , North Korea ’ s most recent nuclear test in September of what Pyongyang said was a hydrogen bomb , was so large it triggered a collapse inside the mountain , rendering the entire site unusable for future tests . But U.S. intelligence officials have said it remains usable and could be reactivated “ in a relatively short period of time ” if it was closed . Jeffrey Lewis , director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at California ’ s Middlebury Institute of International Studies , said in a blog post this week that recent satellite images had shown the removal of some buildings from the site . On Saturday , he told ███ that closure of Punggye-ri did not mean much in terms of disarmament , given that the United States , for example , stopped nuclear testing in 1992 . “ It would , however , require North Korea to clear out the test tunnels and rebuild any infrastructure that might be removed — or dig new tunnels at the site or elsewhere . So , it ’ s a good confidence building measure , but not necessarily a sign of irreversible disarmament . ” Siegfried Hecker , a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States and a leading expert on North Korea ’ s nuclear program , said collapsing the Punggye-ri tunnels would be “ a big and positive step , ” given his belief that North Korea still required more nuclear and missile tests to reach the U.S. mainland with a nuclear-tipped missile . However , he said the other crucial steps North Korea needed to take to demilitarize its nuclear program were to shut its plutonium production reactor , and open its uranium processing to inspection .

SEOUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea has scheduled the dismantlement of its nuclear bomb test site for sometime between May 23 and 25 in order to uphold its pledge to discontinue nuclear tests, the country’s state media reported on Saturday a month ahead of a historic summit. The official Korean Central New Agency said dismantlement of the Punggye-ri nuclear test ground would involve collapsing all of its tunnels with explosions, blocking its entrances, and removing all observation facilities, research buildings and security posts. “The Nuclear Weapon Institute and other concerned institutions are taking technical measures for dismantling the northern nuclear test ground ... in order to ensure transparency of discontinuance of the nuclear test,” KCNA said. U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will hold talks in Singapore on June 12, the first-ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader. Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday that North Korea can look forward to “a future brimming with peace and prosperity” if it agrees to quickly give up its nuclear weapons. Trump welcomed the North Korean announcement. “North Korea has announced that they will dismantle Nuclear Test Site this month, ahead of the big Summit Meeting on June 12th,” he tweeted. “Thank you, a very smart and gracious gesture! Thank you, a very smart and gracious gesture!” South Korea’s presidential office echoed the sentiment on Sunday, saying it shows Pyongyang’s willingness to denuclearize through actions beyond words. However, in spite of its pledge to stop testing, North Korea has given no indication it is willing to go beyond statements of broad conceptual support for denuclearization by unilaterally abandoning a nuclear weapons program its ruling family has seen as crucial to its survival. In announcing the plan to shut Punggye-ri last month, Kim said North Korea no longer needed to conduct tests because it had completed its goal of developing nuclear weapons. KCNA said journalists, including from the United States and South Korea, would be invited to cover the event, to “show in a transparent manner the dismantlement of the northern nuclear test ground to be carried out”. The exact date of the closure will depend on weather conditions, the agency said. Related Coverage South Korea welcomes North Korea's schedule for dismantling nuclear test site To accommodate the traveling journalists, North Korea said various measures would be taken including “opening territorial air space”. NO MENTION OF EXPERTS South Korean officials said in April that North Korea also planned to invite experts from the United States and South Korea for the Punggye-ri shutdown, but KCNA made no mention of this. Last month, South Korean President Moon Jae-in had asked the United Nations to help verify the shutdown. South Korea’s deputy nuclear envoy Jeong Yeon-doo will visit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna this week to discuss the “complete denuclearization of North Korea” the foreign ministry said on Sunday. All of North Korea’s six known nuclear bomb tests have taken place at Punggye-ri, in the northeastern of North Korea where a system of tunnels have been dug under Mount Mantap. According to Chinese academic reports, North Korea’s most recent nuclear test in September of what Pyongyang said was a hydrogen bomb, was so large it triggered a collapse inside the mountain, rendering the entire site unusable for future tests. But U.S. intelligence officials have said it remains usable and could be reactivated “in a relatively short period of time” if it was closed. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at California’s Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said in a blog post this week that recent satellite images had shown the removal of some buildings from the site. On Saturday, he told Reuters that closure of Punggye-ri did not mean much in terms of disarmament, given that the United States, for example, stopped nuclear testing in 1992. “It would, however, require North Korea to clear out the test tunnels and rebuild any infrastructure that might be removed — or dig new tunnels at the site or elsewhere. So, it’s a good confidence building measure, but not necessarily a sign of irreversible disarmament.” FILE PHOTO: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (inside a vehicle) bids farewell to South Korean President Moon Jae-in as he leaves after a farewell ceremony at the truce village of Panmunjom inside the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, South Korea, April 27, 2018. Korea Summit Press Pool/Pool via Reuters Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States and a leading expert on North Korea’s nuclear program, said collapsing the Punggye-ri tunnels would be “a big and positive step,” given his belief that North Korea still required more nuclear and missile tests to reach the U.S. mainland with a nuclear-tipped missile. However, he said the other crucial steps North Korea needed to take to demilitarize its nuclear program were to shut its plutonium production reactor, and open its uranium processing to inspection.

www.reuters.com

center

AFXh5MXzy8hXnxbw

test

sSXLeXmubPjLuptw

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/5300d052a24cc050aabe9b370f865e56

Swift firings for Minneapolis officers in death of black man

2020-05-27

Amy Forliti, Colleen Long

People gather in front of the Minneapolis police standing guard , Wednesday , May 27 , 2020 , as they protest the arrest and death of George Floyd who died in police custody Monday night in Minneapolis after video shared online by a bystander showed a white officer kneeling on his neck during his arrest as he pleaded that he could n't breathe . ( Carlos Gonzalez/Star Tribune via AP ) People gather in front of the Minneapolis police standing guard , Wednesday , May 27 , 2020 , as they protest the arrest and death of George Floyd who died in police custody Monday night in Minneapolis after video shared online by a bystander showed a white officer kneeling on his neck during his arrest as he pleaded that he could n't breathe . ( Carlos Gonzalez/Star Tribune via AP ) MINNEAPOLIS ( AP ) — The mayor of Minneapolis called Wednesday for criminal charges against the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody . Based on the video , Mayor Jacob Frey said officer Derek Chauvin should be charged in the death of George Floyd . The footage recorded by a bystander shows Chauvin with his knee on Floyd ’ s neck as Floyd gasps for breath on the ground with his face against the pavement . The officer does not move for at least eight minutes , even after Floyd stops speaking and moving . “ I ’ ve wrestled with , more than anything else over the last 36 hours , one fundamental question : Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail ? ” said Frey , who is white . He later added : “ I saw no threat . I saw nothing that would signal that this kind of force was necessary . ” The day after Floyd died , Chauvin and three other officers were fired — an act that did not stem the flood of anger that followed the widely seen video shot on Memorial Day outside a convenience store . Protesters marched more than 2 miles Tuesday to the police precinct in that part of the city , with some damaging property and skirmishing with officers in riot gear who fired tear gas . Conflict erupted again Wednesday at the same precinct , with some protesters throwing rocks and bottles at police . News helicopter video appeared to show looting of nearby stores , including a Target , a Cub Foods and an auto parts store , with no evident police intervention . Another demonstration unfolded on the street outside Chauvin ’ s suburban home . An officer told protesters that Chauvin was not there . Red cans of paint were earlier spilled on his driveway , and someone wrote “ murderer ” in chalk at the end of his driveway . No one answered when an ███ reporter knocked on the door . Many activists , citizens and celebrities called for criminal charges before Frey did . But Floyd ’ s family and the community may have to wait months , if not years , before investigations are complete . Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump , a prominent civil rights lawyer , called for peaceful protests . “ We can not sink to the level of our oppressors , and we must not endanger others during this pandemic , ” Crump said in a statement . “ We will demand and ultimately force lasting change by shining a light on treatment that is horrific and unacceptable and by winning justice . ” Police Chief Medaria Arradondo , who rose to the top job after his predecessor was forced out following the 2017 shooting of an unarmed white woman by a black Minneapolis officer , urged protesters to “ be respectful. ” He said he was working to change the department ’ s culture . “ One incident can significantly bring people to doubt that , ” he said . The chief defended the department ’ s use of tear gas to break up Tuesday night ’ s protests , saying officers used it only after some people broke into a secure area that gave them access to squad cars and weapons . Gov . Tim Walz and Minnesota ’ s two top law enforcement officials — Attorney General Keith Ellison and Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington , both black — promised a thorough , transparent investigation . But Walz and Ellison didn ’ t endorse the mayor ’ s call to immediately charge the officer , saying the legal process needs to play out . “ I understand the emotions are running high , and I think it ’ s important for the mayor to channel the emotion of the people who he represents . But I think it is critical that we adhere very closely to the facts and the law and the normal process , ” Ellison said . The Hennepin County Attorney ’ s Office , which would prosecute any state charges , issued a statement saying that Floyd ’ s death had “ outraged us and people across the country ” and that the case “ deserves the best we can give . ” The FBI was investigating whether officers willfully deprived Floyd of his civil rights . Floyd ’ s death and that of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia have reopened the divide between minority communities and police that grew to a national uproar following the 2014 killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown , the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray and others . Speaking to reporters at Cape Canaveral , Florida , President Donald Trump called the death in Minneapolis “ a very , very sad event ” and said his administration was going to “ look at it. ” Later , he tweeted that he had asked for the federal investigation be expedited . Democrat Joe Biden said Floyd ’ s death was “ part of an ingrained , systemic cycle of injustice that still exists in this country ” and “ cuts at the very heart of our sacred belief that all Americans are equal in rights . ” It also “ sends a very clear message to the black community and black lives that are under threat every single day , ” Biden added , saying he was glad the mayor and the police department fired the officers , “ but I don ’ t think that ’ s enough . ” A 2017 Pew Research Center study found that police think the public does not understand the risks they face . A more recent study from September showed police were considered more trustworthy than Congress , but only 33 % of black adults and half of Hispanics say they believe officers treat racial and ethnic groups equally . Shocking videos of black men dying continue to emerge during the pandemic , which is hitting communities of color harder than white communities . Floyd himself had been laid off from his nightclub security job in the pandemic , a friend told the AP . Police say Floyd matched the description of someone who tried to pay with a counterfeit bill at the convenience store . It was unclear why Floyd was arrested in such a physical way for what would have been a low-level crime . Police in most large cities have backed away from certain arrests to guard against further spread of the virus . The officers in the video were not wearing masks . A Minneapolis Fire Department report shows that paramedics moved Floyd from the scene , and two fire crew members got into the ambulance to help . Medics were doing chest compressions and other lifesaving measures on an “ unresponsive , pulseless male , ” the report said . Floyd was pronounced dead at a hospital . An autopsy will be performed to determine if the neck compression led to his death . News accounts show Chauvin was one of six officers who fired their weapons in the 2006 death of Wayne Reyes , who police said pointed a sawed-off shotgun at officers after stabbing two people . Chauvin also shot and wounded a man in 2008 during a struggle after Chauvin and his partner responded to a reported domestic assault . Police did not immediately respond to a request for Chauvin ’ s service record . Chauvin ’ s attorney confirmed the officer ’ s identity on Tuesday . The department identified the other officers Wednesday as Thomas Lane , Tou Thao and J Alexander Kueng . In calling for charges , the mayor contrasted Floyd ’ s death with others involving police that turned on split-second decisions by officers . “ We are not talking about a split-second decision that was made incorrectly , ” Frey said . “ There ’ s somewhere around 300 seconds in those five minutes — every one of which that officer could have turned back , every second of which he could have removed his knee from George Floyd ’ s neck . ”

People gather in front of the Minneapolis police standing guard, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, as they protest the arrest and death of George Floyd who died in police custody Monday night in Minneapolis after video shared online by a bystander showed a white officer kneeling on his neck during his arrest as he pleaded that he couldn't breathe. (Carlos Gonzalez/Star Tribune via AP) People gather in front of the Minneapolis police standing guard, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, as they protest the arrest and death of George Floyd who died in police custody Monday night in Minneapolis after video shared online by a bystander showed a white officer kneeling on his neck during his arrest as he pleaded that he couldn't breathe. (Carlos Gonzalez/Star Tribune via AP) MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The mayor of Minneapolis called Wednesday for criminal charges against the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody. Based on the video, Mayor Jacob Frey said officer Derek Chauvin should be charged in the death of George Floyd. The footage recorded by a bystander shows Chauvin with his knee on Floyd’s neck as Floyd gasps for breath on the ground with his face against the pavement. The officer does not move for at least eight minutes, even after Floyd stops speaking and moving. “I’ve wrestled with, more than anything else over the last 36 hours, one fundamental question: Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail?” said Frey, who is white. ADVERTISEMENT He later added: “I saw no threat. I saw nothing that would signal that this kind of force was necessary.” The day after Floyd died, Chauvin and three other officers were fired — an act that did not stem the flood of anger that followed the widely seen video shot on Memorial Day outside a convenience store. Protesters marched more than 2 miles Tuesday to the police precinct in that part of the city, with some damaging property and skirmishing with officers in riot gear who fired tear gas. Conflict erupted again Wednesday at the same precinct, with some protesters throwing rocks and bottles at police. News helicopter video appeared to show looting of nearby stores, including a Target, a Cub Foods and an auto parts store, with no evident police intervention. Another demonstration unfolded on the street outside Chauvin’s suburban home. An officer told protesters that Chauvin was not there. Red cans of paint were earlier spilled on his driveway, and someone wrote “murderer” in chalk at the end of his driveway. No one answered when an Associated Press reporter knocked on the door. Many activists, citizens and celebrities called for criminal charges before Frey did. But Floyd’s family and the community may have to wait months, if not years, before investigations are complete. Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump, a prominent civil rights lawyer, called for peaceful protests. “We cannot sink to the level of our oppressors, and we must not endanger others during this pandemic,” Crump said in a statement. “We will demand and ultimately force lasting change by shining a light on treatment that is horrific and unacceptable and by winning justice.” Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who rose to the top job after his predecessor was forced out following the 2017 shooting of an unarmed white woman by a black Minneapolis officer, urged protesters to “be respectful.” He said he was working to change the department’s culture. “One incident can significantly bring people to doubt that,” he said. The chief defended the department’s use of tear gas to break up Tuesday night’s protests, saying officers used it only after some people broke into a secure area that gave them access to squad cars and weapons. Gov. Tim Walz and Minnesota’s two top law enforcement officials — Attorney General Keith Ellison and Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington, both black — promised a thorough, transparent investigation. But Walz and Ellison didn’t endorse the mayor’s call to immediately charge the officer, saying the legal process needs to play out. “I understand the emotions are running high, and I think it’s important for the mayor to channel the emotion of the people who he represents. But I think it is critical that we adhere very closely to the facts and the law and the normal process,” Ellison said. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which would prosecute any state charges, issued a statement saying that Floyd’s death had “outraged us and people across the country” and that the case “deserves the best we can give.” The FBI was investigating whether officers willfully deprived Floyd of his civil rights. Floyd’s death and that of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia have reopened the divide between minority communities and police that grew to a national uproar following the 2014 killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray and others. Speaking to reporters at Cape Canaveral, Florida, President Donald Trump called the death in Minneapolis “a very, very sad event” and said his administration was going to “look at it.” Later, he tweeted that he had asked for the federal investigation be expedited. Democrat Joe Biden said Floyd’s death was “part of an ingrained, systemic cycle of injustice that still exists in this country” and “cuts at the very heart of our sacred belief that all Americans are equal in rights.” It also “sends a very clear message to the black community and black lives that are under threat every single day,” Biden added, saying he was glad the mayor and the police department fired the officers, “but I don’t think that’s enough.” A 2017 Pew Research Center study found that police think the public does not understand the risks they face. A more recent study from September showed police were considered more trustworthy than Congress, but only 33% of black adults and half of Hispanics say they believe officers treat racial and ethnic groups equally. Full Coverage: Minneapolis Shocking videos of black men dying continue to emerge during the pandemic, which is hitting communities of color harder than white communities. Floyd himself had been laid off from his nightclub security job in the pandemic, a friend told the AP. Police say Floyd matched the description of someone who tried to pay with a counterfeit bill at the convenience store. It was unclear why Floyd was arrested in such a physical way for what would have been a low-level crime. Police in most large cities have backed away from certain arrests to guard against further spread of the virus. The officers in the video were not wearing masks. A Minneapolis Fire Department report shows that paramedics moved Floyd from the scene, and two fire crew members got into the ambulance to help. Medics were doing chest compressions and other lifesaving measures on an “unresponsive, pulseless male,” the report said. Floyd was pronounced dead at a hospital. An autopsy will be performed to determine if the neck compression led to his death. News accounts show Chauvin was one of six officers who fired their weapons in the 2006 death of Wayne Reyes, who police said pointed a sawed-off shotgun at officers after stabbing two people. Chauvin also shot and wounded a man in 2008 during a struggle after Chauvin and his partner responded to a reported domestic assault. Police did not immediately respond to a request for Chauvin’s service record. Chauvin’s attorney confirmed the officer’s identity on Tuesday. The department identified the other officers Wednesday as Thomas Lane, Tou Thao and J Alexander Kueng. In calling for charges, the mayor contrasted Floyd’s death with others involving police that turned on split-second decisions by officers. “We are not talking about a split-second decision that was made incorrectly,” Frey said. “There’s somewhere around 300 seconds in those five minutes — every one of which that officer could have turned back, every second of which he could have removed his knee from George Floyd’s neck.” ___ Long reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jeff Baenen and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis, Todd Richmond in Madison, Wisconsin, and Kevin Freking in Cape Canaveral, Florida, contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

sSXLeXmubPjLuptw

test

QXJNSnS2yJtMYZE5

education

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/16/barack-obama-to-2020-graduates-current-leaders-arent-even-pretending-to-be-in-charge/

Barack Obama to 2020 Graduates: Current Leaders ‘Aren’t Even Pretending to Be in Charge’

2020-05-16

Charlie Spiering

Former President Barack Obama said in a commencement speech on Saturday that current leaders during the coronavirus crisis were failing 2020 graduates . “ More than anything this pandemic has fully finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they ’ re doing , ” he said . “ A lot of them aren ’ t even pretending to be in charge . ” The former president did not directly criticize Donald Trump , but he repeatedly referred to leaders currently in power . “ Broad majorities agree on the ends , ” he said , urging graduates to seek unity . “ That ’ s why folks with power will keep trying to divide you over the means . That ’ s how nothing changes . ” The former president spoke online to recognize historic black college and university graduates on Saturday , offering a 2020 commencement speech for those who were unable to graduate due to the coronavirus . “ Even though half of the semester was spent in Zoom university , you ’ ve earned this moment . You should be very proud , ” he said . The president was joined by celebrities Kevin Hart , Steve Harvey , Chris Paul , Debbie Allen , Common the rapper , and Vivica Fox , as well as national politicians such as Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Tim Scott . Obama urged graduates to fight for “ economic and environmental justice and health care for everyone ” and to fight the “ system that looks out for the rich and the powerful and nobody else . ” He said that the virus only enhanced the understanding that the black community continues to suffer inequality in the United States , but that they should reach out and find others who suffered the same struggle . “ Meaningful change requires allies and common cause . As African Americans we are particularly attuned to injustice , inequality , and struggle but also that should make us more alive to other experiences of others , ” he said . Obama urged graduates to stand up for immigrants , refugees , the rural poor , the LGTB community , low-income workers , and women . The president also referenced 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery , noting that the injustice of “ a black man goes for a jog and some folks think they can stop and question and shoot him if he does not submit to their questioning . ” He said the same struggles were not new in the United States and asked all graduates to do their part to fight . “ What is new is that so much of your generation has woken up to the fact that the status quo needs fixing , ” he said .

Former President Barack Obama said in a commencement speech on Saturday that current leaders during the coronavirus crisis were failing 2020 graduates. “More than anything this pandemic has fully finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they’re doing,” he said. “A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.” The former president did not directly criticize Donald Trump, but he repeatedly referred to leaders currently in power. “Broad majorities agree on the ends,” he said, urging graduates to seek unity. “That’s why folks with power will keep trying to divide you over the means. That’s how nothing changes.” The former president spoke online to recognize historic black college and university graduates on Saturday, offering a 2020 commencement speech for those who were unable to graduate due to the coronavirus. “Even though half of the semester was spent in Zoom university, you’ve earned this moment. You should be very proud,” he said. The president was joined by celebrities Kevin Hart, Steve Harvey, Chris Paul, Debbie Allen, Common the rapper, and Vivica Fox, as well as national politicians such as Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Tim Scott. Obama urged graduates to fight for “economic and environmental justice and health care for everyone” and to fight the “system that looks out for the rich and the powerful and nobody else.” He said that the virus only enhanced the understanding that the black community continues to suffer inequality in the United States, but that they should reach out and find others who suffered the same struggle. “Meaningful change requires allies and common cause. As African Americans we are particularly attuned to injustice, inequality, and struggle but also that should make us more alive to other experiences of others,” he said. Obama urged graduates to stand up for immigrants, refugees, the rural poor, the LGTB community, low-income workers, and women. The president also referenced 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, noting that the injustice of “a black man goes for a jog and some folks think they can stop and question and shoot him if he does not submit to their questioning.” He said the same struggles were not new in the United States and asked all graduates to do their part to fight. “What is new is that so much of your generation has woken up to the fact that the status quo needs fixing,” he said.

www.breitbart.com

right

QXJNSnS2yJtMYZE5

test

oxA8bbycaecnmlgl

nuclear_weapons

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-kim/kim-jong-un-praises-nuclear-program-promotes-sister-to-center-of-power-idUSKBN1CD03V

Kim Jong Un praises nuclear program, promotes sister to center of power

2017-10-09

James Pearson

SEOUL ( ███ ) - North Korea ’ s leader Kim Jong Un said his nuclear weapons were a “ powerful deterrent ” that guaranteed its sovereignty , state media reported on Sunday , hours after U.S. President Donald Trump said “ only one thing will work ” in dealing with the isolated country . North Korean leader Kim Jong Un speaks during the Second Plenum of the 7th Central Committee of the Workers ' Party of Korea ( WPK ) at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun , in this undated photo released by North Korea 's Korean Central News Agency ( KCNA ) in Pyongyang October 8 , 2017 . KCNA/via ███ . Trump did not make clear to what he was referring , but his comments seemed to be a further suggestion that military action was on his mind . In a speech to a meeting of the powerful Central Committee of the ruling Workers ’ Party on Saturday , a day before Trump ’ s most recent comments , state media said Kim had addressed the “ complicated international situation ” . North Korea ’ s nuclear weapons are a “ powerful deterrent firmly safeguarding the peace and security in the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia , ” Kim said , referring to the “ protracted nuclear threats of the U.S. imperialists . ” In recent weeks , North Korea has launched two missiles over Japan and conducted its sixth nuclear test , and may be fast advancing toward its goal of developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland . North Korea is preparing to test-launch such a missile , a Russian lawmaker who had just returned from a visit to Pyongyang was quoted as saying on Friday . Donald Trump has previously said the United States would “ totally destroy ” North Korea if necessary to protect itself and its allies . The situation proved that North Korea ’ s policy of “ byungjin ” , meaning the parallel development of nuclear weapons and the economy was “ absolutely right ” , Kim Jong Un said in the speech . “ The national economy has grown on their strength this year , despite the escalating sanctions , ” said Kim , referring to U.N. Security Council resolutions put in place to curb Pyongyang ’ s nuclear and missile program . The meeting also handled some personnel changes inside North Korea ’ s secretive and opaque ruling center of power , state media said . Kim Jong Un ’ s sister , Kim Yo Jong , was made an alternate member of the politburo - the top decision-making body over which Kim Jong Un presides . Alongside Kim Jong Un himself , the promotion makes Kim Yo Jong the only other millennial member of the influential body . Her new position indicates the 28-year-old has become a replacement for Kim Jong Un ’ s aunt , Kim Kyong Hui , who had been a key decision maker when former leader Kim Jong Il was alive . “ It shows that her portfolio and writ is far more substantive than previously believed and it is a further consolidation of the Kim family ’ s power , ” said Michael Madden , a North Korea expert at Johns Hopkins University ’ s 38 North website . In January , the U.S. Treasury blacklisted Kim Yo Jong along with other North Korean officials over “ severe human rights abuses ” . Kim Jong Sik and Ri Pyong Chol , two of the three men behind Kim ’ s banned rocket program , were also promoted . State media announced that several other high ranking cadres were promoted to the Central Committee in what the South Korean unification ministry said could be an attempt by North Korea to navigate a way through its increasing isolation . “ The large-scale personnel reshuffle reflects that Kim Jong Un is taking the current situation seriously , and that he ’ s looking for a breakthrough by promoting a new generation of politicians , ” the ministry said in a statement . North Korea ’ s foreign minister Ri Yong Ho , who named Donald Trump “ President Evil ” in a bombastic speech to the U.N. General Assembly last month , was promoted to full vote-carrying member of the politburo . “ Ri can now be safely identified as one of North Korea ’ s top policy makers , ” said Madden . “ Even if he has informal or off the record meetings , Ri ’ s interlocutors can be assured that whatever proposals they proffer will be taken directly to the top , ” he said .

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un said his nuclear weapons were a “powerful deterrent” that guaranteed its sovereignty, state media reported on Sunday, hours after U.S. President Donald Trump said “only one thing will work” in dealing with the isolated country. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un speaks during the Second Plenum of the 7th Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang October 8, 2017. KCNA/via REUTERS. Trump did not make clear to what he was referring, but his comments seemed to be a further suggestion that military action was on his mind. In a speech to a meeting of the powerful Central Committee of the ruling Workers’ Party on Saturday, a day before Trump’s most recent comments, state media said Kim had addressed the “complicated international situation”. North Korea’s nuclear weapons are a “powerful deterrent firmly safeguarding the peace and security in the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia,” Kim said, referring to the “protracted nuclear threats of the U.S. imperialists.” In recent weeks, North Korea has launched two missiles over Japan and conducted its sixth nuclear test, and may be fast advancing toward its goal of developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. North Korea is preparing to test-launch such a missile, a Russian lawmaker who had just returned from a visit to Pyongyang was quoted as saying on Friday. Donald Trump has previously said the United States would “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary to protect itself and its allies. The situation proved that North Korea’s policy of “byungjin”, meaning the parallel development of nuclear weapons and the economy was “absolutely right”, Kim Jong Un said in the speech. “The national economy has grown on their strength this year, despite the escalating sanctions,” said Kim, referring to U.N. Security Council resolutions put in place to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile program. SISTER PROMOTION The meeting also handled some personnel changes inside North Korea’s secretive and opaque ruling center of power, state media said. Kim Jong Un’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, was made an alternate member of the politburo - the top decision-making body over which Kim Jong Un presides. Alongside Kim Jong Un himself, the promotion makes Kim Yo Jong the only other millennial member of the influential body. Her new position indicates the 28-year-old has become a replacement for Kim Jong Un’s aunt, Kim Kyong Hui, who had been a key decision maker when former leader Kim Jong Il was alive. “It shows that her portfolio and writ is far more substantive than previously believed and it is a further consolidation of the Kim family’s power,” said Michael Madden, a North Korea expert at Johns Hopkins University’s 38 North website. In January, the U.S. Treasury blacklisted Kim Yo Jong along with other North Korean officials over “severe human rights abuses”. Kim Jong Sik and Ri Pyong Chol, two of the three men behind Kim’s banned rocket program, were also promoted. State media announced that several other high ranking cadres were promoted to the Central Committee in what the South Korean unification ministry said could be an attempt by North Korea to navigate a way through its increasing isolation. “The large-scale personnel reshuffle reflects that Kim Jong Un is taking the current situation seriously, and that he’s looking for a breakthrough by promoting a new generation of politicians,” the ministry said in a statement. Slideshow (4 Images) North Korea’s foreign minister Ri Yong Ho, who named Donald Trump “President Evil” in a bombastic speech to the U.N. General Assembly last month, was promoted to full vote-carrying member of the politburo. “Ri can now be safely identified as one of North Korea’s top policy makers,” said Madden. “Even if he has informal or off the record meetings, Ri’s interlocutors can be assured that whatever proposals they proffer will be taken directly to the top,” he said.

www.reuters.com

center

oxA8bbycaecnmlgl

test

ZN4sI4xwmXEcN0xw

gun_control_and_gun_rights

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ahead-remarks-trump-proposes-gun-background-checks-tied/story?id=64778938&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed

Ahead of remarks, Trump proposes gun background checks perhaps tied to immigration reform

Making his first formal remarks after the weekend mass shootings , President Donald Trump said Monday the U.S. was `` overcome with shock , horror and sorrow '' and that the nation must condemn `` racism and white supremacy . '' Interested in Donald Trump ? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Trump said a `` wicked man '' went to a Walmart store in El Paso , Texas , in that mass shooting and said a `` twisted monster '' carried out the shooting in Dayton , Ohio , just hours later . “ These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities , an attack upon our nation and a crime against all of humanity , '' Trump said . “ The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate , '' the president said . `` In one voice , our nation must condemn racism , bigotry and white supremacy . '' President Trump : `` In one voice , our nation must condemn racism , bigotry and white supremacy . These sinister ideologies must be defeated . Hate has no place in America '' https : //t.co/yYzXIN5Uub pic.twitter.com/SSQEF1B0En — ███ Politics ( @ ABCPolitics ) August 5 , 2019 While not proposing any major gun control legislation , he said the nation needs to strengthen mental health laws . `` Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger , not the gun , '' he said . `` Today I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly , decisively ... '' the president added . Trump said the country needs to put partisanship aside , saying it is `` not up to mentally ill monsters , it is up to us . '' `` The perils of internet and social media can not be ignored and will not be ignored , '' the president said , blaming `` gruesome and grizzly video games '' for the `` glorification of violence in our society . '' President Trump calls for `` cultural change '' following mass shootings : `` We must stop the glorification of violence in our society . This includes the gruesome and grizzly video games that are now commonplace '' https : //t.co/yYzXIN5Uub pic.twitter.com/C7u2qImL4j — ███ Politics ( @ ABCPolitics ) August 5 , 2019 Television networks carried the president 's remarks live but it was not a formal speech to the nation . Trump spoke before pool reporters and cameras from the Diplomatic Room of the White House , not the Oval Office . Vice President Mike Pence stood at his side . The president did not repeat his suggestion about gun background checks that he tweeted about earlier Monday . In those tweets , Trump proposed `` strong background checks , '' perhaps , he said , tied to immigration reform . In tweets earlier Monday morning , the president said , `` We can not let those killed in El Paso , Texas , and Dayton , Ohio , die in vain . '' .... this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform . We must have something good , if not GREAT , come out of these two tragic events ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 5 , 2019 At the same time , Trump also blamed the news media for `` the anger and rage that has built up over many years . '' The Media has a big responsibility to life and safety in our Country . Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years . News coverage has got to start being fair , balanced and unbiased , or these terrible problems will only get worse ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 5 , 2019 Former President Barack Obama weighed in with a rare tweet that , while not mentioning Trump by name , reflected scathing criticism of his divisive rhetoric . “ We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments ; leaders who demonize those who don ’ t look like us or suggest that other people , including immigrants , threaten our way of life , or refer to other people as subhuman , or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people , ” an excerpt from the lengthy tweet said . Trump has threatened to veto two background check bills passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to consider them . Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has demanded that McConnell call the Senate back from its August recess . He fired off a tweet of his own Monday morning responding to Trump . Instead of flailing around blaming everything under the sun , if the president is serious about “ strong background checks ” there ’ s one thing he can do : Demand Sen. McConnell put the bipartisan , House-passed universal background checks bill up for a vote.https : //t.co/owM8PlkEyX — Chuck Schumer ( @ SenSchumer ) August 5 , 2019 It was unclear how either of the shootings were related to immigration reform , as Trump suggested . Trump 's acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , speaking on ABC 's `` This Week '' on Sunday , rejected claims from Democratic candidates and others that the president 's harsh rhetoric on immigration played any role in the shootings . The National Rifle Association applauded Trump 's call Monday `` to address the root causes of violence . '' `` The National Rifle Association welcomes the President ’ s call to address the root causes of the horrific acts of violence that have occurred in our country . It has been the NRA ’ s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment , '' the group said in a statement

Making his first formal remarks after the weekend mass shootings, President Donald Trump said Monday the U.S. was "overcome with shock, horror and sorrow" and that the nation must condemn "racism and white supremacy." Interested in Donald Trump? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Trump said a "wicked man" went to a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, in that mass shooting and said a "twisted monster" carried out the shooting in Dayton, Ohio, just hours later. “These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities, an attack upon our nation and a crime against all of humanity," Trump said. “The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate," the president said. "In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy." Alex Wong/Getty Images President Trump: "In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America" https://t.co/yYzXIN5Uub pic.twitter.com/SSQEF1B0En — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) August 5, 2019 While not proposing any major gun control legislation, he said the nation needs to strengthen mental health laws. "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun," he said. "Today I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively..." the president added. Trump said the country needs to put partisanship aside, saying it is "not up to mentally ill monsters, it is up to us." "The perils of internet and social media cannot be ignored and will not be ignored," the president said, blaming "gruesome and grizzly video games" for the "glorification of violence in our society." President Trump calls for "cultural change" following mass shootings: "We must stop the glorification of violence in our society. This includes the gruesome and grizzly video games that are now commonplace" https://t.co/yYzXIN5Uub pic.twitter.com/C7u2qImL4j — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) August 5, 2019 Television networks carried the president's remarks live but it was not a formal speech to the nation. Trump spoke before pool reporters and cameras from the Diplomatic Room of the White House, not the Oval Office. Vice President Mike Pence stood at his side. The president did not repeat his suggestion about gun background checks that he tweeted about earlier Monday. In those tweets, Trump proposed "strong background checks," perhaps, he said, tied to immigration reform. In tweets earlier Monday morning, the president said, "We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain." ....this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2019 At the same time, Trump also blamed the news media for "the anger and rage that has built up over many years." The Media has a big responsibility to life and safety in our Country. Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years. News coverage has got to start being fair, balanced and unbiased, or these terrible problems will only get worse! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2019 Former President Barack Obama weighed in with a rare tweet that, while not mentioning Trump by name, reflected scathing criticism of his divisive rhetoric. “We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don’t look like us or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as subhuman, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people,” an excerpt from the lengthy tweet said. Trump has threatened to veto two background check bills passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to consider them. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has demanded that McConnell call the Senate back from its August recess. He fired off a tweet of his own Monday morning responding to Trump. Instead of flailing around blaming everything under the sun, if the president is serious about “strong background checks” there’s one thing he can do: Demand Sen. McConnell put the bipartisan, House-passed universal background checks bill up for a vote.https://t.co/owM8PlkEyX — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 5, 2019 It was unclear how either of the shootings were related to immigration reform, as Trump suggested. Trump's acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, rejected claims from Democratic candidates and others that the president's harsh rhetoric on immigration played any role in the shootings. The National Rifle Association applauded Trump's call Monday "to address the root causes of violence." "The National Rifle Association welcomes the President’s call to address the root causes of the horrific acts of violence that have occurred in our country. It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment," the group said in a statement

www.abcnews.go.com

left

ZN4sI4xwmXEcN0xw

test

k3H67NNhHuuohGPg

cybersecurity

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/internet-hack-cyberattack-server/2016/10/22/id/754809/

Experts: 'Internet of Things' May Have Led to Massive Server Attacks

2016-10-22

Sandy Fitzgerald

The nation 's growing attachment to an `` Internet of Things '' likely helped hackers launch a massive distributed denial-of-service attack that led to problems on numerous major websites on Friday , Dyn , the company that manages much of the Internet 's infrastructure , said Friday . `` This was not your everyday DDoS attack , '' Dyn chief strategist Kyle York told The New York Times . `` The nature and source of the attack is under investigation . '' Friday 's attack , which caused issues for users on Twitter , Netflix , Spotify , Airbnb , The New York TImes , Reddit , Etsy , SoundCloud and more , seems to have used the hundreds of thousands of Internet-connected devices to spread . Such devices , like baby monitors , home routers , cameras , and more appear to have been infected with software that allows hackers to take down servers by flooding them with too much traffic . Dyn 's servers monitor internet traffic and reroute it , and reported the attack just after 7 a.m. Friday . At first , the attacks made sites inaccessible on the East Coast , but in three waves , the attack spread nationwide . The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security are investigating the attack to determine its roots , including the possibility that a nation-state attack could be to blame . However , security experts have been warning for years that the ever-widening number of devices being connected online could lead to breaches and online attacks . Dyn , which is based in Manchester , New Hampshire , said that by 9:30 a.m. , the first assault was stopped , but at 11:52 a.m. , its servers were again attacked , and then under a traffic deluge again at 5 p.m . By going after Dyn , the attackers were able to hit multiple websites . Dyn hosts the Domain Name System , or DNS , which translates web addresses into numerical code that allows computers to communicate . Without the DNS servers operated by internet service providers , the internet could not operate . Friday 's attacks did n't go after the websites themselves , but still blocked the sites or slowed down access to them . Dave Allen , general counsel for Dyn , said tens of millions of internet addresses were used to flood the company 's servers , and most came from connected devices infected with Mirai , a form of malware . Last week , it was determined that 493,000 devices has been infected with the malware , or double the amount infected last month . Meanwhile , elections officials are concerned that a similar attack could keep citizens from voting online . In 31 states , along with the District of Columbia , people overseas , including in the military and civilians , can vote online . `` A DDoS attack could certainly impact these votes and make a big difference in swing states , '' Dr. Barbara Simons , a member of the board of advisers to the federal Election Assistance Commission , told The TImes . `` This is a strong argument for why we should not allow voters to send their voted ballots over the internet . ''

The nation's growing attachment to an "Internet of Things" likely helped hackers launch a massive distributed denial-of-service attack that led to problems on numerous major websites on Friday, Dyn, the company that manages much of the Internet's infrastructure, said Friday. "This was not your everyday DDoS attack," Dyn chief strategist Kyle York told The New York Times. "The nature and source of the attack is under investigation." Friday's attack, which caused issues for users on Twitter, Netflix, Spotify, Airbnb, The New York TImes, Reddit, Etsy, SoundCloud and more, seems to have used the hundreds of thousands of Internet-connected devices to spread. Such devices, like baby monitors, home routers, cameras, and more appear to have been infected with software that allows hackers to take down servers by flooding them with too much traffic. Dyn's servers monitor internet traffic and reroute it, and reported the attack just after 7 a.m. Friday. At first, the attacks made sites inaccessible on the East Coast, but in three waves, the attack spread nationwide. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security are investigating the attack to determine its roots, including the possibility that a nation-state attack could be to blame. However, security experts have been warning for years that the ever-widening number of devices being connected online could lead to breaches and online attacks. Dyn, which is based in Manchester, New Hampshire, said that by 9:30 a.m., the first assault was stopped, but at 11:52 a.m., its servers were again attacked, and then under a traffic deluge again at 5 p.m. By going after Dyn, the attackers were able to hit multiple websites. Dyn hosts the Domain Name System, or DNS, which translates web addresses into numerical code that allows computers to communicate. Without the DNS servers operated by internet service providers, the internet could not operate. Friday's attacks didn't go after the websites themselves, but still blocked the sites or slowed down access to them. Dave Allen, general counsel for Dyn, said tens of millions of internet addresses were used to flood the company's servers, and most came from connected devices infected with Mirai, a form of malware. Last week, it was determined that 493,000 devices has been infected with the malware, or double the amount infected last month. Meanwhile, elections officials are concerned that a similar attack could keep citizens from voting online. In 31 states, along with the District of Columbia, people overseas, including in the military and civilians, can vote online. "A DDoS attack could certainly impact these votes and make a big difference in swing states," Dr. Barbara Simons, a member of the board of advisers to the federal Election Assistance Commission, told The TImes. "This is a strong argument for why we should not allow voters to send their voted ballots over the internet."

www.newsmax.com

right

k3H67NNhHuuohGPg

test

PaK7TeG9EAuCFPbq

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/august/trump-and-the-age-of-the-correspundit

Trump and the Age of the Correspundit

2018-08-06

In Christianity , we know God to be the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit . It 's a three-for-one package deal ... and it 's the best one you 'll ever find . In journalism , there 's a different kind of Trinity : the correspondent , the pundit , and the activism spirit . The combination has now led us into the age of the `` correspundit . '' How did we get here ? We 've heard for a long time how the mainstream media is both overtly and covertly liberal , plus it 's increasingly clear Americans do n't trust them . Then , President Trump comes along , exposes them like never before and throws down the gauntlet . The press is angry . They feel like the victim . They feel beat up daily . The result ? Many are finally revealing their true colors . They 're fighting back against an unconventional president who is the first one to truly give them a punch in the face…and they do n't like it . It 's led to an intense battle resulting in the birth of the `` correspundit . '' So what we have is two inherent dangers : The first is the President calling the media the `` enemy of the people . '' America 's founding fathers believed so much in the freedom of the press that they made it part of the First Amendment to the Constitution . It 's a key element of what sets the United States apart from many other countries . We must also recognize the danger of the media 's embrace of these `` correspundits . '' It creates confusion and leaves Americans wondering what is fact and what is spin . That should give all of us pause – including journalists . We 've seen this play out continually at the White House . You want examples ? So-called `` Reporters '' and `` Correspondents '' such as CNN 's Jim Acosta and CNN Contributor Brian Karem have turned the Briefing Room into their own soapbox . Acosta rose to a new level last week when he offered this advice to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders saying , `` I think it would be a good thing if you were to say right here ... that the press are not the enemy of the American people . '' Afterwards , when he did n't get his way , he went on CNN ( from the White House Briefing Room no less ) complaining that he was , `` tired '' of all this . Then he morphed into activist-mode by proclaiming , `` Maybe we should make some bumper stickers , make some buttons , you know , maybe we should go out on Pennsylvania Avenue like those folks who chant 'CNN sucks ' and 'fake news , ' maybe we should go out — all journalists , should go out on Pennsylvania Avenue and chant , 'We 're not the enemy of the people ... '' In Acosta 's attempt to fight for the sacred and vital First Amendment principle , his overt activism undermined his credibility and hurt the very press freedom principle for which he was fighting . As for Karem , his diatribe against Sanders came as the issue of separating families at the border erupted . He exclaimed , `` Come on Sarah , you 're a parent . Do n't you have any empathy for what these people are going through ? '' Moreover , Karem 's Twitter feed is a regular Trump bash-a-thon . While Karem and Acosta have been the two most glaring examples , there are countless other correspondents that get on Twitter and provide jabs , barbs or just downright snarky comments against Trump and this White House . Basically , many cover their beat by day and then show up at night in prime-time as critical Trump pundits . The bottom line is this – what we 've seen transpire during the Trump presidency is how probing , relentless questioning has turned into slanted , opinion journalism . Are n't White House Correspondents supposed to be covering the facts of the story rather than providing their opinion ? As a result , the lines have been blurred in today 's media landscape . If you 're a beat reporter then stick to reporting and leave the analysis to the analysts . You ca n't be both . When correspondents turn into `` correspundits , '' their actions just confirm the media bias that they insist they do n't have .

COMMENTARY In Christianity, we know God to be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's a three-for-one package deal...and it's the best one you'll ever find. In journalism, there's a different kind of Trinity: the correspondent, the pundit, and the activism spirit. The combination has now led us into the age of the "correspundit." How did we get here? We've heard for a long time how the mainstream media is both overtly and covertly liberal, plus it's increasingly clear Americans don't trust them. Then, President Trump comes along, exposes them like never before and throws down the gauntlet. The press is angry. They feel like the victim. They feel beat up daily. The result? Many are finally revealing their true colors. They're fighting back against an unconventional president who is the first one to truly give them a punch in the face…and they don't like it. It's led to an intense battle resulting in the birth of the "correspundit." So what we have is two inherent dangers: The first is the President calling the media the "enemy of the people." America's founding fathers believed so much in the freedom of the press that they made it part of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It's a key element of what sets the United States apart from many other countries. We must also recognize the danger of the media's embrace of these "correspundits." It creates confusion and leaves Americans wondering what is fact and what is spin. That should give all of us pause – including journalists. We've seen this play out continually at the White House. You want examples? So-called "Reporters" and "Correspondents" such as CNN's Jim Acosta and CNN Contributor Brian Karem have turned the Briefing Room into their own soapbox. Acosta rose to a new level last week when he offered this advice to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders saying, "I think it would be a good thing if you were to say right here...that the press are not the enemy of the American people." Afterwards, when he didn't get his way, he went on CNN (from the White House Briefing Room no less) complaining that he was, "tired" of all this. Then he morphed into activist-mode by proclaiming, "Maybe we should make some bumper stickers, make some buttons, you know, maybe we should go out on Pennsylvania Avenue like those folks who chant 'CNN sucks' and 'fake news,' maybe we should go out — all journalists, should go out on Pennsylvania Avenue and chant, 'We're not the enemy of the people..." In Acosta's attempt to fight for the sacred and vital First Amendment principle, his overt activism undermined his credibility and hurt the very press freedom principle for which he was fighting. As for Karem, his diatribe against Sanders came as the issue of separating families at the border erupted. He exclaimed, "Come on Sarah, you're a parent. Don't you have any empathy for what these people are going through?" Moreover, Karem's Twitter feed is a regular Trump bash-a-thon. While Karem and Acosta have been the two most glaring examples, there are countless other correspondents that get on Twitter and provide jabs, barbs or just downright snarky comments against Trump and this White House. Basically, many cover their beat by day and then show up at night in prime-time as critical Trump pundits. The bottom line is this – what we've seen transpire during the Trump presidency is how probing, relentless questioning has turned into slanted, opinion journalism. Aren't White House Correspondents supposed to be covering the facts of the story rather than providing their opinion? As a result, the lines have been blurred in today's media landscape. If you're a beat reporter then stick to reporting and leave the analysis to the analysts. You can't be both. When correspondents turn into "correspundits," their actions just confirm the media bias that they insist they don't have.

www1.cbn.com

right

PaK7TeG9EAuCFPbq

test

kHBEhGAfSWxalibS

fbi

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/20/devin-nunes-cia-steele-fbi/

Nunes Says Investigators Are ‘Laser-Focused’ On Information The CIA Gave FBI For Russia Probe

2020-04-20

Rep. Devin Nunes , the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , disclosed two areas of interest Sunday for congressional investigators looking into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe . Investigators are “ laser focused ” on information that the CIA gave the FBI in 2016 , Nunes said on “ Fox and Friends. ” He is personally interested in three Russian-Americans somehow linked to the FBI ’ s Crossfire Hurricane investigation , he added . Nunes did not elaborate on the specifics of what he is interested in exploring , but he referred in his interview to new revelations about the Steele dossier , which the FBI used to secure federal authority to wiretap former Trump campaign aide Carter Page . He also cited an intelligence community assessment produced in the waning days of the Obama administration , which asserted that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump . ( RELATED : FBI Official Withheld Information About Christopher Steele Because Of Agreement With The Brits ) U.S. Attorney John Durham , who is investigating FBI and CIA activities in 2016 and 2017 , is reportedly investigating the CIA ’ s role in crafting the intelligence community assessment . Durham has sought records for former CIA Director John Brennan , The New York Times reported . “ The CIA gave information over to the FBI in 2016 . We now are laser focused on that . We need to know exactly what did the CIA give to the FBI in 2016 , ” Nunes said Sunday . “ I ’ m also interested in three Russians — actually Russian-Americans — that we ’ re looking into , ” he added . Nunes will be limited in his ability to conduct the investigation given that Republicans no longer control the House . But several Senate Republicans have ramped up their investigations in recent weeks of the Steele dossier and Crossfire Hurricane probe . Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released newly declassified transcripts of FBI informants ’ conversations in 2016 with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos on Thursday . Graham also released new versions of the FBI ’ s applications for wiretap warrants against Carter Page . Sens . Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released newly declassified footnotes from the Justice Department inspector general ’ s report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation . The FBI received evidence in 2017 that Russian operatives might have fed disinformation to Steele , the footnotes said . The footnotes also said that the U.S. intelligence community gave the FBI a report in June 2017 that two Russian intelligence operatives knew as of July 2016 that Steele was investigating Trump .

Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, disclosed two areas of interest Sunday for congressional investigators looking into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Investigators are “laser focused” on information that the CIA gave the FBI in 2016, Nunes said on “Fox and Friends.” He is personally interested in three Russian-Americans somehow linked to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, he added. Nunes did not elaborate on the specifics of what he is interested in exploring, but he referred in his interview to new revelations about the Steele dossier, which the FBI used to secure federal authority to wiretap former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. He also cited an intelligence community assessment produced in the waning days of the Obama administration, which asserted that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump. (RELATED: FBI Official Withheld Information About Christopher Steele Because Of Agreement With The Brits) U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating FBI and CIA activities in 2016 and 2017, is reportedly investigating the CIA’s role in crafting the intelligence community assessment. Durham has sought records for former CIA Director John Brennan, The New York Times reported. “The CIA gave information over to the FBI in 2016. We now are laser focused on that. We need to know exactly what did the CIA give to the FBI in 2016,” Nunes said Sunday. “I’m also interested in three Russians — actually Russian-Americans — that we’re looking into,” he added. Nunes will be limited in his ability to conduct the investigation given that Republicans no longer control the House. But several Senate Republicans have ramped up their investigations in recent weeks of the Steele dossier and Crossfire Hurricane probe. WATCH: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released newly declassified transcripts of FBI informants’ conversations in 2016 with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos on Thursday. Graham also released new versions of the FBI’s applications for wiretap warrants against Carter Page. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released newly declassified footnotes from the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The FBI received evidence in 2017 that Russian operatives might have fed disinformation to Steele, the footnotes said. The footnotes also said that the U.S. intelligence community gave the FBI a report in June 2017 that two Russian intelligence operatives knew as of July 2016 that Steele was investigating Trump. 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

kHBEhGAfSWxalibS

test

DEFBh5IdQmgBLNfv

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/december/communications-breakdown-between-trump-democrats-as-shutdown-enters-a-second-week

Communications Breakdown Between Trump, Democrats as Shutdown Enters a Second Week

2018-12-31

WASHINGTON – Negotiations between President Donald Trump and Democrats are at a standstill as the government shutdown drags into its 10th day . The president and Democratic leaders traded punches via Twitter , but that 's about as far as the communications have gone . `` We 've heard nothing . A negotiation by definition has to include both sides , '' White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told CNN 's `` State of the Union . '' Meanwhile , US Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) is facing scrutiny after a second Guatemalan child , 8-year-old Felipe Gomez Alonzo , died while in US custody . The CBP calls the death `` devastating '' and says it 's making changes to prevent future tragedies . `` Secretary ( Kirstjen ) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process , '' CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan told ABC News . `` In Felipe 's case , it was actually a Border Patrol agent who noticed his symptoms and made the decision to take him and his father to the emergency room , where he had the treatment of doctors in Alma Gorda , New Mexico , '' said McAleenan . Meanwhile , the president lays the blame for the shutdown at the feet of Democrats . But at least one Senate Republican says it 's time to move past the blame game . `` Nobody wins in a shutdown . We all lose and we kind of look silly , '' said Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-AL ) . `` If we blame each other , this could last a long , long time , '' said Shelby . It is n't the longest shutdown in history , but it does affect the income of several hundred thousand federal employees . Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) met with the president Sunday to pitch a solution he says will appeal to both parties . `` I know there 's some Democrats out there who would be willing to provide money for wall/border security if we could deal with a DACA ( Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ) population , '' said Graham . His plan would give $ 5 billion for the border wall in exchange for renewable work permits for Dreamers . Meanwhile , then there are discrepancies over that word 'wall . ' The president recently tweeted a picture of steel slats . In an interview with LA Times , outgoing Chief of Staff John Kelly suggested the administration had moved away from the idea of a `` concrete '' wall early on . `` The president still says 'wall ' — oftentimes frankly he 'll say 'barrier ' or 'fencing ' ; now he 's tended toward steel slats , '' Kelly told the Times . `` But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it . '' Democrats are reminding the president he campaigned on a wall – one that Mexico would pay for . `` He 's trying to extract $ 5 billion from the American taxpayer to pay for something that clearly would be ineffective . We 'll look at whatever agreements he ultimately presents , but that is not a credible proposed solution , '' said Congressman Hakeem Jeffries ( D-NY ) . Meanwhile , McAleenan suggests a solution comes from a multi-faceted approach , including humanitarian efforts in Central America , technology and a barrier wall .

WASHINGTON – Negotiations between President Donald Trump and Democrats are at a standstill as the government shutdown drags into its 10th day. The president and Democratic leaders traded punches via Twitter, but that's about as far as the communications have gone. "We've heard nothing. A negotiation by definition has to include both sides," White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told CNN's "State of the Union." Meanwhile, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is facing scrutiny after a second Guatemalan child, 8-year-old Felipe Gomez Alonzo, died while in US custody. The CBP calls the death "devastating" and says it's making changes to prevent future tragedies. "Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process," CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan told ABC News. He also defended the actions of border agents. "In Felipe's case, it was actually a Border Patrol agent who noticed his symptoms and made the decision to take him and his father to the emergency room, where he had the treatment of doctors in Alma Gorda, New Mexico," said McAleenan. Meanwhile, the president lays the blame for the shutdown at the feet of Democrats. But at least one Senate Republican says it's time to move past the blame game. "Nobody wins in a shutdown. We all lose and we kind of look silly," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). "If we blame each other, this could last a long, long time," said Shelby. It isn't the longest shutdown in history, but it does affect the income of several hundred thousand federal employees. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) met with the president Sunday to pitch a solution he says will appeal to both parties. "I know there's some Democrats out there who would be willing to provide money for wall/border security if we could deal with a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) population," said Graham. His plan would give $5 billion for the border wall in exchange for renewable work permits for Dreamers. Meanwhile, then there are discrepancies over that word 'wall.' The president recently tweeted a picture of steel slats. In an interview with LA Times, outgoing Chief of Staff John Kelly suggested the administration had moved away from the idea of a "concrete" wall early on. "The president still says 'wall' — oftentimes frankly he'll say 'barrier' or 'fencing'; now he's tended toward steel slats," Kelly told the Times. "But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it." Democrats are reminding the president he campaigned on a wall – one that Mexico would pay for. "He's trying to extract $5 billion from the American taxpayer to pay for something that clearly would be ineffective. We'll look at whatever agreements he ultimately presents, but that is not a credible proposed solution," said Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Meanwhile, McAleenan suggests a solution comes from a multi-faceted approach, including humanitarian efforts in Central America, technology and a barrier wall.

www1.cbn.com

right

DEFBh5IdQmgBLNfv

test

EgF2EsDr6tw0P3N0

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-considered-suicide-and-4-other-revelations/

Monica Lewinsky Considered Suicide and 4 Other Revelations

Erin Dooley

After 10 years of silence - a decade of dodging questions about the infamous stain on her blue dress and the jokes about the president 's cigar - Bill Clinton 's mistress , Monica Lewinsky , spoke out in Vanity Fair . Lewinsky says she `` remained virtually reclusive '' during Hillary Clinton 's 2008 campaign despite repeated interview requests . Now that Hillary is reportedly mulling a 2016 bid , Lewinsky finds herself `` gun-shy yet again , fearful of 'becoming an issue ' should she decide to ramp up her campaign . '' But she 's not sure she 'll stay quiet this time . The 40-year-old , who says she 's still recognized everywhere she goes , has had enough of `` tiptoeing around my past - and other people 's futures . '' So though she acknowledges speaking out may have severe ramifications , `` I 've decided , finally , to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past … It 's time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress . '' Lewinsky seems to resent Hillary Clinton 's reaction - and rejects the then-first lady 's characterization of her as a `` narcissistic loony toon . '' `` Mrs. Clinton , I read , had supposedly confided to [ Diane ] Blair that , in part , she blamed herself for her husband 's affair ( by being emotionally neglectful ) and seemed to forgive him … I find her impulse to blame the Woman - not only me , but herself - troubling , '' Lewinsky argues . Her refusal to cooperate with interrogators may have been `` courageous or foolish , '' she admits . `` But narcissistic and loony ? '' No way . `` Sure , my boss took advantage of me , but I will always remain firm on this point : it was a consensual relationship , '' Lewinsky writes . `` Any 'abuse ' came in the aftermath , when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position . '' Nevertheless , she says , she `` regrets '' the relationship . `` Let me say it again : I . Myself . Deeply . Regret . What . Happened. , '' she writes . The Clintons did n't bribe her to stay quiet , Lewinsky insists . `` Nothing could be further from the truth , '' she writes . She turned down $ 10 million-plus `` offers '' ( presumably interview requests ) `` because they did n't feel like the right thing to do . '' However , money has been an issue since the incident . Lewinsky pursued a career in marketing , but `` because of what potential employers so tactfully referred to as my 'history , I was never 'quite right ' for the position . '' She has `` managed to get by ( barely , at times ) with my own projects… or loans from friends , '' she says . Though she never actually attempted suicide , Lewinsky says she was tempted end her own life as `` the shame , the scorn , and the fear '' washed over her . She says the tragic suicide of 18-year-old Tyler Clementi , the gay Rutgers student who was filmed kissing another man , brought back those terrible memories and inspired her to come forward . `` Perhaps by sharing my story … I might be able to help others in their darkest moments of humiliation , '' Lewinksi says .

After 10 years of silence - a decade of dodging questions about the infamous stain on her blue dress and the jokes about the president's cigar - Bill Clinton's mistress, Monica Lewinsky, spoke out in Vanity Fair. Remembering the Monica Lewinsky Scandal Here's what she had to say: 1. She May Not Stay Quiet if Hillary Runs Lewinsky says she "remained virtually reclusive" during Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign despite repeated interview requests. Now that Hillary is reportedly mulling a 2016 bid, Lewinsky finds herself "gun-shy yet again, fearful of 'becoming an issue' should she decide to ramp up her campaign." But she's not sure she'll stay quiet this time. The 40-year-old, who says she's still recognized everywhere she goes, has had enough of "tiptoeing around my past - and other people's futures." So though she acknowledges speaking out may have severe ramifications, "I've decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past … It's time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress." 2. What She Finds 'Troubling' About Hillary Lewinsky seems to resent Hillary Clinton's reaction - and rejects the then-first lady's characterization of her as a " narcissistic loony toon." "Mrs. Clinton, I read, had supposedly confided to [Diane] Blair that, in part, she blamed herself for her husband's affair (by being emotionally neglectful) and seemed to forgive him … I find her impulse to blame the Woman - not only me, but herself - troubling," Lewinsky argues. Her refusal to cooperate with interrogators may have been "courageous or foolish," she admits. "But narcissistic and loony?" No way. 3. The Relationship Was Consensual Lewinsky maintains that her relationship with Clinton was voluntary. "Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship," Lewinsky writes. "Any 'abuse' came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position." Nevertheless, she says, she "regrets" the relationship. "Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.," she writes. 4. The Clintons Didn't Pay Her Off The Clintons didn't bribe her to stay quiet, Lewinsky insists. "Nothing could be further from the truth," she writes. She turned down $10 million-plus "offers" (presumably interview requests) "because they didn't feel like the right thing to do." However, money has been an issue since the incident. Lewinsky pursued a career in marketing, but "because of what potential employers so tactfully referred to as my 'history, I was never 'quite right' for the position." She has "managed to get by (barely, at times) with my own projects… or loans from friends," she says. 5. She Contemplated Suicide Though she never actually attempted suicide, Lewinsky says she was tempted end her own life as "the shame, the scorn, and the fear" washed over her. She says the tragic suicide of 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, the gay Rutgers student who was filmed kissing another man, brought back those terrible memories and inspired her to come forward. "Perhaps by sharing my story … I might be able to help others in their darkest moments of humiliation," Lewinksi says.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

EgF2EsDr6tw0P3N0

test

36ez3iU5adYSqhvF

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41341899

Special counsel Robert Mueller seeks Trump presidency records

The probe into alleged Russian meddling in the US election is reportedly seeking White House files on President Donald Trump 's time in office . Documents on Mr Trump 's sacking of the FBI director and his son 's meeting with a Russian lawyer are the target of the inquiry , report US media . They say special counsel Robert Mueller has outlined to the White House 13 areas of interest to his investigation . Mr Trump brands claims that his aides colluded with the Kremlin as fake news . According to reports in the New York Times and Washington Post on Wednesday evening , Mr Mueller is also interested in files relating to Mr Trump 's February sacking of Michael Flynn , his first national security adviser . Mr Mueller is furthermore said to be looking into the Oval Office meeting in which Mr Trump told Russian officials that firing `` nut job '' FBI chief James Comey in May had relieved `` great pressure '' on himself . The special counsel reportedly asked for documents , too , on the White House 's response to questions about Donald Trump Jr 's June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer . Mr Trump 's eldest son was led to believe the meeting would yield damaging information about his father 's Democratic presidential opponent Hillary Clinton . Ty Cobb , Mr Trump 's lawyer , told Mr Mueller 's office he would turn over several documents this week , according to the Times . `` We ca n't comment on any specific requests being made or our conversations with the special counsel , '' Mr Cobb said in a statement . Mr Mueller has also asked for any White House emails or documents relating to Paul Manafort , the former chief of the Trump campaign , reports the Washington Post . Peter Carr , a spokesman for Mr Mueller , declined a request for comment from Reuters news agency . Mr Manafort quit the campaign before the election amid questions about his work for a Ukrainian political party linked to the Russian government . Earlier this week it was reported by CNN and CBS News that Mr Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI due to concerns about his links with Moscow . FBI agents raided Mr Manafort 's suburban Washington DC home in July , with agents reportedly picking the locks as he lay in bed . Several congressional committees and the Justice Department are looking into US intelligence findings that Russian-backed hackers tried to sway last November 's election in favour of Mr Trump .

Image copyright AFP Image caption Special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly outlined to the White House 13 areas of interest to his investigation The probe into alleged Russian meddling in the US election is reportedly seeking White House files on President Donald Trump's time in office. Documents on Mr Trump's sacking of the FBI director and his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer are the target of the inquiry, report US media. They say special counsel Robert Mueller has outlined to the White House 13 areas of interest to his investigation. Mr Trump brands claims that his aides colluded with the Kremlin as fake news. Clinton puts question mark over election Russia: The 'cloud' over the White House According to reports in the New York Times and Washington Post on Wednesday evening, Mr Mueller is also interested in files relating to Mr Trump's February sacking of Michael Flynn, his first national security adviser. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption All you need to know about the Trump-Russia investigation Mr Mueller is furthermore said to be looking into the Oval Office meeting in which Mr Trump told Russian officials that firing "nut job" FBI chief James Comey in May had relieved "great pressure" on himself. The special counsel reportedly asked for documents, too, on the White House's response to questions about Donald Trump Jr's June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer. Mr Trump's eldest son was led to believe the meeting would yield damaging information about his father's Democratic presidential opponent Hillary Clinton. Ty Cobb, Mr Trump's lawyer, told Mr Mueller's office he would turn over several documents this week, according to the Times. "We can't comment on any specific requests being made or our conversations with the special counsel," Mr Cobb said in a statement. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Manafort has not commented on the reports that he was placed under FBI surveillance Mr Mueller has also asked for any White House emails or documents relating to Paul Manafort, the former chief of the Trump campaign, reports the Washington Post. Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr Mueller, declined a request for comment from Reuters news agency. Mr Manafort quit the campaign before the election amid questions about his work for a Ukrainian political party linked to the Russian government. Earlier this week it was reported by CNN and CBS News that Mr Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI due to concerns about his links with Moscow. FBI agents raided Mr Manafort's suburban Washington DC home in July, with agents reportedly picking the locks as he lay in bed. Several congressional committees and the Justice Department are looking into US intelligence findings that Russian-backed hackers tried to sway last November's election in favour of Mr Trump. The Kremlin has poured scorn on the allegations.

www.bbc.com

center

36ez3iU5adYSqhvF

test

MSTtn7OtVxj8fJP8

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/hurricane-hot-air/

Hurricane Hot Air

Daniel J. Flynn, Greg Jones, Karen Lehrman Bloch, Jed Babbin, Geoff Shepard, Scott Mckay, Mark Hyman

“ What is your death count ? ” Donald Trump asked Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Rosselló last October . “ Sixteen , certified , ” the governor answered . By December , that figure quadrupled to 64 . Last month , 64 became more than 1,400 . Earlier this month , almost a year after Maria hit , the count rose to 2,975 , according to George Washington University researchers commissioned by the governor of Puerto Rico to provide an estimate . In other words , the revised figure rose 186 times over the initial one in less than a year , with most of the deaths occurring long after the hurricane departed and dissipated . Based on this rate of increase , The ███ can exclusively report that within two years the estimates of the number of Hurricane Maria deaths in Puerto Rico will reach 103,000,000 , a figure roughly 30 times the population of the island commonwealth . Will Donald Trump still recalcitrantly stick to a death count in the double or triple digits when the number of victims exceeds the population of the Philippines ? It seems hard to believe that a tropical cyclone , initially blamed for dozens of deaths months after it hit on September 20 , 2017 , actually killed more human beings than any other hurricane that occurred in the 20th or 21st centuries . Did Hurricane Maria really kill two or three times as many people as Hurricane Katrina did ? Why do people who stick to a number appear to impugn their credibility more than those whose estimates fluctuate wildly ? And what explains the discrepancy between the modest initial figures and the massive subsequent ones ? Roberto Rivera and Wolfgang Rolke , two Puerto Rican experts on statistics , note , “ Families are eligible for U.S. federal assistance for deaths attributed to a major disaster or emergency. ” While the professors point this out to highlight the importance of getting the figure right — which they put at 822 from the moment Maria hit land until the end of October 2017 — it also shows the incentive in claiming that your mother ’ s death from diabetes really came as a result of a meteorological phenomenon . The 2,975 number conflicts not just with the figures cited by Trump . It varies from other counts cited at various points as authoritative by journalists . Academics Alexis Santos and Jeffrey Howard say the hurricane caused 1,085 deaths . Three months ago , the New Republic held that Maria “ killed at least 4,636 . ” The New Republic figure came from a Harvard University study , which relied on “ a representative stratified random sample of 3299 households , ” not on official certificates or anything else indicating cause of death . The George Washington University study , like the estimates offered by Harvard and the two Puerto Rican professors , similarly relies heavily on comparing death rates in Puerto Rico in the months that followed Maria to rates in previous years , automatically assigning death-by-hurricane status to fatalities above the historical norm for the period . Reasons may exist to adopt this model in calculating the impact of future natural disasters . But it comes at variance to the means of calibrating the human cost of past calamities . Put another way , people critical of Donald Trump ’ s response to the disaster judge his administration ’ s response by a new standard that inflates the body count beyond what the actual storm inflicted by including deaths that occurred months later for reasons tangentially , some not at all , related to Maria . While not without worth , the methods employed by Harvard , GW , and others offer no precision , come as guesswork , and include deaths that no previous counts would attribute to a natural disaster . The Harvard University study admits , “ In the United States , death certificates are the primary source of mortality statistics , and in most jurisdictions , death can be attributed to disasters only by medical examiners . Survey-based studies can therefore provide important complementary population-level metrics in the wake of natural disasters , despite inherent limitations associated with the nature of participant-reported data , recall bias , nonresponse bias , and survivor bias . ” Since this disaster occurred on U.S. soil , why discard the way officials , by law , tabulated the numbers up until this point ? The statisticians and journalists say Puerto Rican medical examiners lack proper training and cremated hundreds of people whom they improperly judged as killed by something other than the hurricane . Upon the pretext that the system heretofore used had broken in Puerto Rico , journalists , academics , and others offered a system more broken than the one it replaced . Consider , for instance , that George Washington University ’ s estimate of 2,975 varies by Harvard University ’ s estimate of 4,636 deaths by roughly the same number as the figure Trump cities vis-à-vis the GW figure now taken as the true , dispute-at-your-own risk figure . And in both studies , the researchers admit that the number run with by the press represents the midpoint of a range of possible deaths . The New York Times cited a number as high as 1,052 in December . But on Thursday it accused Donald Trump of “ falsely ” calling the 2,975 figure “ inflated. ” One way or another , the New York Times is wrong . Not only do the president ’ s critics here come as the usual suspects , but their script seems familiar . The Bush Administration ’ s response to Hurricane Katrina damaged George W. Bush ’ s presidency , at least as far as public opinion , almost as much as Iraq and the financial crisis . With another Republican in office , the New York Times and others again seek to blame the Commander in Chief for the excesses of Mother Nature — the Washington Post editorial page already put partial blame on Trump policies for Hurricane Florence — and absolve local , often corrupt , governments by blaming the president . The Old Gray Lady may rely on inconsistent numbers . But the point of emphasizing those numbers , any numbers — to damage the president — remains consistent . Given that the anniversary of Hurricane Maria takes place about a week from now and the George Washington University study came out several weeks ago , many wonder why this controversy erupted this week . With Hurricane Florence striking the Carolinas , journalists regarded it as good a time as ever to strike Donald Trump .

“What is your death count?” Donald Trump asked Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Rosselló last October. “Sixteen, certified,” the governor answered. By December, that figure quadrupled to 64. Last month, 64 became more than 1,400. Earlier this month, almost a year after Maria hit, the count rose to 2,975, according to George Washington University researchers commissioned by the governor of Puerto Rico to provide an estimate. In other words, the revised figure rose 186 times over the initial one in less than a year, with most of the deaths occurring long after the hurricane departed and dissipated. Based on this rate of increase, The American Spectator can exclusively report that within two years the estimates of the number of Hurricane Maria deaths in Puerto Rico will reach 103,000,000, a figure roughly 30 times the population of the island commonwealth. Will Donald Trump still recalcitrantly stick to a death count in the double or triple digits when the number of victims exceeds the population of the Philippines? It seems hard to believe that a tropical cyclone, initially blamed for dozens of deaths months after it hit on September 20, 2017, actually killed more human beings than any other hurricane that occurred in the 20th or 21st centuries. Did Hurricane Maria really kill two or three times as many people as Hurricane Katrina did? Why do people who stick to a number appear to impugn their credibility more than those whose estimates fluctuate wildly? And what explains the discrepancy between the modest initial figures and the massive subsequent ones? Roberto Rivera and Wolfgang Rolke, two Puerto Rican experts on statistics, note, “Families are eligible for U.S. federal assistance for deaths attributed to a major disaster or emergency.” While the professors point this out to highlight the importance of getting the figure right — which they put at 822 from the moment Maria hit land until the end of October 2017 — it also shows the incentive in claiming that your mother’s death from diabetes really came as a result of a meteorological phenomenon. The 2,975 number conflicts not just with the figures cited by Trump. It varies from other counts cited at various points as authoritative by journalists. Academics Alexis Santos and Jeffrey Howard say the hurricane caused 1,085 deaths. Three months ago, the New Republic held that Maria “killed at least 4,636.” The New Republic figure came from a Harvard University study, which relied on “a representative stratified random sample of 3299 households,” not on official certificates or anything else indicating cause of death. The George Washington University study, like the estimates offered by Harvard and the two Puerto Rican professors, similarly relies heavily on comparing death rates in Puerto Rico in the months that followed Maria to rates in previous years, automatically assigning death-by-hurricane status to fatalities above the historical norm for the period. Reasons may exist to adopt this model in calculating the impact of future natural disasters. But it comes at variance to the means of calibrating the human cost of past calamities. Put another way, people critical of Donald Trump’s response to the disaster judge his administration’s response by a new standard that inflates the body count beyond what the actual storm inflicted by including deaths that occurred months later for reasons tangentially, some not at all, related to Maria. While not without worth, the methods employed by Harvard, GW, and others offer no precision, come as guesswork, and include deaths that no previous counts would attribute to a natural disaster. The Harvard University study admits, “In the United States, death certificates are the primary source of mortality statistics, and in most jurisdictions, death can be attributed to disasters only by medical examiners. Survey-based studies can therefore provide important complementary population-level metrics in the wake of natural disasters, despite inherent limitations associated with the nature of participant-reported data, recall bias, nonresponse bias, and survivor bias.” Since this disaster occurred on U.S. soil, why discard the way officials, by law, tabulated the numbers up until this point? The statisticians and journalists say Puerto Rican medical examiners lack proper training and cremated hundreds of people whom they improperly judged as killed by something other than the hurricane. Upon the pretext that the system heretofore used had broken in Puerto Rico, journalists, academics, and others offered a system more broken than the one it replaced. Consider, for instance, that George Washington University’s estimate of 2,975 varies by Harvard University’s estimate of 4,636 deaths by roughly the same number as the figure Trump cities vis-à-vis the GW figure now taken as the true, dispute-at-your-own risk figure. And in both studies, the researchers admit that the number run with by the press represents the midpoint of a range of possible deaths. The New York Times cited a number as high as 1,052 in December. But on Thursday it accused Donald Trump of “falsely” calling the 2,975 figure “inflated.” One way or another, the New York Times is wrong. Not only do the president’s critics here come as the usual suspects, but their script seems familiar. The Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina damaged George W. Bush’s presidency, at least as far as public opinion, almost as much as Iraq and the financial crisis. With another Republican in office, the New York Times and others again seek to blame the Commander in Chief for the excesses of Mother Nature — the Washington Post editorial page already put partial blame on Trump policies for Hurricane Florence — and absolve local, often corrupt, governments by blaming the president. The Old Gray Lady may rely on inconsistent numbers. But the point of emphasizing those numbers, any numbers — to damage the president — remains consistent. Given that the anniversary of Hurricane Maria takes place about a week from now and the George Washington University study came out several weeks ago, many wonder why this controversy erupted this week. With Hurricane Florence striking the Carolinas, journalists regarded it as good a time as ever to strike Donald Trump. It always is.

www.spectator.org

right

MSTtn7OtVxj8fJP8

test

Xkpb9BjSrjVvBgDX

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46637773

Trump supporters angry at his 'retreat' on border wall

Supporters of US President Donald Trump have turned on him after he was yet again denied funding for a border wall . Late on Wednesday , the US Congress approved a spending bill to keep federal agencies open until February . The Republican president was foiled in the Senate by his own party , which refused to grant him any of the $ 5bn ( £4bn ) he wants for a US-Mexico wall . Two years on , Mr Trump has been unable to deliver on the central campaign pledge that electrified his rallies . Congress faces a Friday midnight deadline for averting a partial shutdown of the federal government . Failing to agree a longer-term spending plan , the Senate has only been able to approve a seven-week extension of funds . The House of Representatives is expected to act on the legislation later this week . President Trump told Republicans on Thursday afternoon he would not approve any deal that denies him wall funding , according to House Speaker Paul Ryan . He later described it as a `` sacred obligation '' . `` I look forward to signing a bill that fulfils our fundamental duty to the American people , '' the president said on Thursday . Mr Trump has repeatedly suggested in the past he will reject budget bills that include no money for his project , only to sign such measures once they reach his desk . But fears of a government shutdown over the wall have set markets on edge . On Thursday the Dow fell by 2 % - over 400 points - to a 14-month low , according to US media . Members of the ultra-conservative House of Representatives Freedom Caucus were up in arms over the apparent retreat . North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows , a key Trump supporter , said : `` He [ Trump ] campaigned on the wall . `` It was the centre of his campaign . The American people 's patience is running out . '' He called on the president to veto the bill and renegotiate . Ohio congressman Jim Jordan noted in exasperation that it will only get more difficult next month once Democrats take over the House . `` Let me get this straight , '' Mr Jordan tweeted . `` Our chances of getting the Wall will be better in February when Nancy Pelosi is Speaker than now when we have the majority ? Mr Trump 's champions in the media are also upset by his failure to seal the deal . Breitbart News called it a `` cave '' . The Drudge Report used the headline , `` Trump in Retreat '' . Radio host Rush Limbaugh said the president is going to `` get less than nothing '' . Right-wing columnist Ann Coulter - author of In Trump We Trust - recently predicted he will not be re-elected . `` Without a wall , he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble , '' she wrote . Fox News host Laura Ingraham also posted a critical tweet . White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said on Thursday that Mr Trump is weighing his options . `` At this moment , the president does not want to go further without border security , which includes steel slats or a wall , '' she said in a statement . Despite enjoying two years of a congressional majority , Mr Trump was always unlikely to reach the 60 votes that funding for his wall would need in the Senate , where his party only currently has 51 seats . And some Republican lawmakers have baulked at the cost of such a barrier , expressing reluctance to divert funding from other budgets , such as the military . While the wall debate continues , the Department of Homeland Security announced that migrants who illegally enter the US - including asylum seekers - will have to wait in Mexico for their cases to be heard . The Mexican government has said it will offer migrants work visas and protections while they await asylum proceedings , according to the US Department of State . The advocacy group Kids in Need of Defense called the move `` unconscionable '' , saying that many families are fleeing violence . Meanwhile , some Trump supporters have decided to take matters into their own hands , launching a $ 1bn online fundraiser for the wall . The GoFundMe has amassed more than $ 7m in three days . Brian Kolfage , the Iraq War veteran behind the campaign , said raising the money was achievable if every Trump voter pledged $ 80 . `` This wo n't be easy , but it 's our duty as citizens , '' Mr Kolfage said . `` We can help President Trump make America safe again ! ''

Image copyright AFP Supporters of US President Donald Trump have turned on him after he was yet again denied funding for a border wall. Late on Wednesday, the US Congress approved a spending bill to keep federal agencies open until February. The Republican president was foiled in the Senate by his own party, which refused to grant him any of the $5bn (£4bn) he wants for a US-Mexico wall. Two years on, Mr Trump has been unable to deliver on the central campaign pledge that electrified his rallies. Congress faces a Friday midnight deadline for averting a partial shutdown of the federal government. Failing to agree a longer-term spending plan, the Senate has only been able to approve a seven-week extension of funds. The House of Representatives is expected to act on the legislation later this week. President Trump told Republicans on Thursday afternoon he would not approve any deal that denies him wall funding, according to House Speaker Paul Ryan. He later described it as a "sacred obligation". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump: "Any measure that funds the government must include border security" "I look forward to signing a bill that fulfils our fundamental duty to the American people," the president said on Thursday. Mr Trump has repeatedly suggested in the past he will reject budget bills that include no money for his project, only to sign such measures once they reach his desk. But fears of a government shutdown over the wall have set markets on edge. On Thursday the Dow fell by 2% - over 400 points - to a 14-month low, according to US media. Members of the ultra-conservative House of Representatives Freedom Caucus were up in arms over the apparent retreat. North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows, a key Trump supporter, said: "He [Trump] campaigned on the wall. "It was the centre of his campaign. The American people's patience is running out." He called on the president to veto the bill and renegotiate. Image copyright Reuters Image caption President Trump's border wall prototypes near the US-Mexico Border in California Ohio congressman Jim Jordan noted in exasperation that it will only get more difficult next month once Democrats take over the House. "Let me get this straight," Mr Jordan tweeted. "Our chances of getting the Wall will be better in February when Nancy Pelosi is Speaker than now when we have the majority? "Give me a break." Mr Trump's champions in the media are also upset by his failure to seal the deal. Breitbart News called it a "cave". The Drudge Report used the headline, "Trump in Retreat". Radio host Rush Limbaugh said the president is going to "get less than nothing". Right-wing columnist Ann Coulter - author of In Trump We Trust - recently predicted he will not be re-elected. "Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble," she wrote. Fox News host Laura Ingraham also posted a critical tweet. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said on Thursday that Mr Trump is weighing his options. "At this moment, the president does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall," she said in a statement. Despite enjoying two years of a congressional majority, Mr Trump was always unlikely to reach the 60 votes that funding for his wall would need in the Senate, where his party only currently has 51 seats. And some Republican lawmakers have baulked at the cost of such a barrier, expressing reluctance to divert funding from other budgets, such as the military. While the wall debate continues, the Department of Homeland Security announced that migrants who illegally enter the US - including asylum seekers - will have to wait in Mexico for their cases to be heard. Image copyright Brian Kolfage / Facebook Image caption Iraq War veteran and triple amputee Brian Kolfage (pictured with his family) has launched a wall fundraiser The Mexican government has said it will offer migrants work visas and protections while they await asylum proceedings, according to the US Department of State. The advocacy group Kids in Need of Defense called the move "unconscionable", saying that many families are fleeing violence. Meanwhile, some Trump supporters have decided to take matters into their own hands, launching a $1bn online fundraiser for the wall. The GoFundMe has amassed more than $7m in three days. Brian Kolfage, the Iraq War veteran behind the campaign, said raising the money was achievable if every Trump voter pledged $80. "This won't be easy, but it's our duty as citizens," Mr Kolfage said. "We can help President Trump make America safe again!"

www.bbc.com

center

Xkpb9BjSrjVvBgDX

test

0x9YvBz7tCn63czZ

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/27/soft-core-fake-news-playboy-mag-rushes-to-cnns-defense-tn-white-house-briefing/

Soft Core Fake News: Playboy Mag Rushes to CNN’s Defense in White House Briefing

2017-06-27

Matthew Boyle

The White House correspondent for Playboy Magazine—an adult entertainment publication—sprung up during Tuesday ’ s White House briefing to airbrush the embattled CNN ’ s reputation as the very fake news scandal embroiling the network received harsh treatment from Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders . After ███ ’ s senior White House correspondent Charlie Spiering asked the White House for the president ’ s thoughts on the very fake news scandal ripping CNN apart from the inside out . Playboy Magazine sprung to CNN ’ s defense . As Sanders hammered the media for its failures in the wake of the very fake news scandal ’ s latest developments , Playboy ’ s Brian Karem jumped in from the side of the briefing room to back up CNN . Karem said : You ’ re inflaming everybody right here right now with those words . This administration has done that as well . Why in the name of heaven ? Any one of us , right , are replaceable . And any one of us , if we don ’ t get it right , the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us . You all have been elected to serve for four years at least . There ’ s no option other than that . We ’ re here to ask you questions . You ’ re here to provide the answers . And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and see once again ‘ the president is right and everybody else out here is fake media. ’ Everybody in this room is only trying to do their job . Sanders put the Playboy man right back in his place . “ I disagree completely , ” Sanders said . “ If anybody has been inflamed , it ’ s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media . And I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question . ” Sanders was originally responding to a question from Breitbart ’ s Spiering , who asked Sanders to respond to the scandal engulfing all of CNN right now . Three of CNN ’ s editorial staff have resigned , but the scandal is spreading quickly throughout the network . President , Donald Trump expressed joy earlier in the day via Twitter when he ripped CNN for all the very fake news it puts out . Sanders , in response to Spiering ’ s question , lit into the media as a disgrace to journalism whenever they print inaccurate information . Sanders said : I think it ’ s the constant barrage of fake news directed at this president , probably , that has garnered a lot of his frustration . You point to that report . There are multiple other instances where that outlet that you referenced has been repeatedly wrong , and had to point that out or be corrected . There ’ s a video circulating now — whether it ’ s accurate or not , I don ’ t know , but I would encourage everybody in this room , and frankly everybody across the country , to take a look at it . I think if it is accurate , I think it ’ s a disgrace to all of media , to all of journalism . I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can ’ t be trusted to report the news , then that ’ s a dangerous place for America . And I think if that is the place that certain outlets are going , particularly for the purpose of spiking ratings , and if that ’ s coming directly from the top , I think that ’ s even more scary , and certainly more disgraceful . And I hope that that ’ s not the direction we ’ re headed . I hope that outlets that have continued to use either unnamed sources — sometimes stories with no sources at all — we ’ ve been going on this Russia-Trump hoax for the better part of a year now , with no evidence of anything . Things like the success at the VA barely get covered . They may get covered for an hour at a time , but this story gets covered day in , day out , and I think America is frankly looking for something better . They ’ re looking for something more . And I think they deserve something better from our news media . Sanders also said she and the White House are not calling for reporters not to report on Russia ’ s efforts to interfere in the election , but simply to make an effort to get their stories right and correct before rushing anonymously-sourced often-time-inaccurate misinformation to publication .

The White House correspondent for Playboy Magazine—an adult entertainment publication—sprung up during Tuesday’s White House briefing to airbrush the embattled CNN’s reputation as the very fake news scandal embroiling the network received harsh treatment from Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. After Breitbart News’s senior White House correspondent Charlie Spiering asked the White House for the president’s thoughts on the very fake news scandal ripping CNN apart from the inside out. Playboy Magazine sprung to CNN’s defense. As Sanders hammered the media for its failures in the wake of the very fake news scandal’s latest developments, Playboy’s Brian Karem jumped in from the side of the briefing room to back up CNN. Karem said: You’re inflaming everybody right here right now with those words. This administration has done that as well. Why in the name of heaven? Any one of us, right, are replaceable. And any one of us, if we don’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You all have been elected to serve for four years at least. There’s no option other than that. We’re here to ask you questions. You’re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and see once again ‘the president is right and everybody else out here is fake media.’ Everybody in this room is only trying to do their job. MUST WATCH: White House reporter @BrianKarem pushing back against Sarah Huckabee Sanders and saying what many people have been thinking. pic.twitter.com/hW49e0tdWY — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 27, 2017 Sanders put the Playboy man right back in his place. “I disagree completely,” Sanders said. “If anybody has been inflamed, it’s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media. And I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question.” Sanders was originally responding to a question from Breitbart’s Spiering, who asked Sanders to respond to the scandal engulfing all of CNN right now. Three of CNN’s editorial staff have resigned, but the scandal is spreading quickly throughout the network. President, Donald Trump expressed joy earlier in the day via Twitter when he ripped CNN for all the very fake news it puts out. Sanders, in response to Spiering’s question, lit into the media as a disgrace to journalism whenever they print inaccurate information. Sanders said: I think it’s the constant barrage of fake news directed at this president, probably, that has garnered a lot of his frustration. You point to that report. There are multiple other instances where that outlet that you referenced has been repeatedly wrong, and had to point that out or be corrected. There’s a video circulating now — whether it’s accurate or not, I don’t know, but I would encourage everybody in this room, and frankly everybody across the country, to take a look at it. I think if it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism. I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America. And I think if that is the place that certain outlets are going, particularly for the purpose of spiking ratings, and if that’s coming directly from the top, I think that’s even more scary, and certainly more disgraceful. And I hope that that’s not the direction we’re headed. I hope that outlets that have continued to use either unnamed sources — sometimes stories with no sources at all — we’ve been going on this Russia-Trump hoax for the better part of a year now, with no evidence of anything. Things like the success at the VA barely get covered. They may get covered for an hour at a time, but this story gets covered day in, day out, and I think America is frankly looking for something better. They’re looking for something more. And I think they deserve something better from our news media. Sanders also said she and the White House are not calling for reporters not to report on Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election, but simply to make an effort to get their stories right and correct before rushing anonymously-sourced often-time-inaccurate misinformation to publication. Sanders said in response to Spiering’s follow-up question:

www.breitbart.com

right

0x9YvBz7tCn63czZ

test

B09e75Jfzx9E9JYX

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/breaking-high-court-temporarily-blocks-further-same-sex-marriages-in-utah/

High court puts same-sex marriage on hold in Utah

2014-01-06

( CNN ) - The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked same-sex marriage in Utah , an apparently unanimous order in favor of the state that sends the matter back to an appeals court for expedited consideration . The case could have sweeping national implications , depending on how the federal appeals panel rules on a challenge to the state 's same-sex marriage ban and whether the case returns to the high court . Utah asked the Supreme Court to intervene last week after 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay a lower court ruling in December striking down Utah 's voter-approved prohibition of legal wedlock for gays and lesbians . Hundreds of people sought marriage licenses following U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby 's ruling that said the restriction , approved in 2004 , conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process . Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in . The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only . Utah Gov . Gary Herbert said the Supreme Court made the `` correct '' decision to stay Shelby 's ruling . `` As I have said all along , all Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process . I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue and I will work to defend the position of the people of Utah and our State Constitution , '' he said in a statement . One question arising from the Supreme Court ruling is the status of those who received marriage licenses after Shelby 's ruling . The Utah Attorney General 's office put the figure at around 950 , but it was not clear how many people actually wed . Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes gave no indication on Monday whether the state would try to challenge the validity of those unions . `` There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation . This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the district court for a stay immediately after its decision . It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo , '' Reyes said in a statement . The appeals panel in Denver is expected to consider the case again in coming weeks more thoroughly . A ruling there could affect all states within the court 's jurisdiction : Utah , Colorado , Wyoming , New Mexico , Oklahoma , and Kansas . More recently , same-sex marriage legal battles have become prominent in states where it is prohibited . But the Utah case is a broad challenge that goes to the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the state ban and could wind up back at the Supreme Court . Same-sex couples say laws like Utah 's violate their equal protection and due process rights . `` It could be the challenge that a lot of people have been waiting for , which is does the United States Constitution guarantee a right to marriage for everyone , '' said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin . `` That 's the issue in this case and it 's now working its way through the courts . It could take quite some time . '' The Supreme Court ruled more narrowly this past summer on separate issues involving same-sex marriage . It cleared the way for those unions in California to resume and rejected parts of a federal law , concluding same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits . Most states still ban the practice , but polls show more support for it publicly . Same-sex advocates look to Shelby 's arguments to sway the appeals panel . `` Despite today 's decision , we are hopeful that the lower court 's well-reasoned decision will be upheld in the end and that courts across the country will continue to recognize that all couples should have the freedom to marry , '' Joshua Block , attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union , said in a statement . The lawsuit considered by Shelby was brought by one gay and two lesbian couples in Utah who wish to marry but have been unable to do so because of the state ban . Same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment or state law in : Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , Colorado , Florida , Georgia , Idaho , Indiana , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Michigan , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , North Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia , West Virginia , Wisconsin and Wyoming . It is legal in 17 other U.S states and the District of Columbia : California , Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , Illinois , Iowa , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Minnesota , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Rhode Island , Vermont and Washington .

6 years ago Updated 4:37 p.m. ET, 1/6/2014 (CNN) - The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked same-sex marriage in Utah, an apparently unanimous order in favor of the state that sends the matter back to an appeals court for expedited consideration. The case could have sweeping national implications, depending on how the federal appeals panel rules on a challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban and whether the case returns to the high court. Utah asked the Supreme Court to intervene last week after 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay a lower court ruling in December striking down Utah's voter-approved prohibition of legal wedlock for gays and lesbians. Hundreds of people sought marriage licenses following U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby's ruling that said the restriction, approved in 2004, conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in. The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said the Supreme Court made the "correct" decision to stay Shelby's ruling. "As I have said all along, all Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue and I will work to defend the position of the people of Utah and our State Constitution," he said in a statement. One question arising from the Supreme Court ruling is the status of those who received marriage licenses after Shelby's ruling. The Utah Attorney General's office put the figure at around 950, but it was not clear how many people actually wed. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes gave no indication on Monday whether the state would try to challenge the validity of those unions. "There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation. This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the district court for a stay immediately after its decision. It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo," Reyes said in a statement. The appeals panel in Denver is expected to consider the case again in coming weeks more thoroughly. A ruling there could affect all states within the court's jurisdiction: Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas. More recently, same-sex marriage legal battles have become prominent in states where it is prohibited. But the Utah case is a broad challenge that goes to the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the state ban and could wind up back at the Supreme Court. Same-sex couples say laws like Utah's violate their equal protection and due process rights. "It could be the challenge that a lot of people have been waiting for, which is does the United States Constitution guarantee a right to marriage for everyone," said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "That's the issue in this case and it's now working its way through the courts. It could take quite some time." The Supreme Court ruled more narrowly this past summer on separate issues involving same-sex marriage. It cleared the way for those unions in California to resume and rejected parts of a federal law, concluding same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits. Most states still ban the practice, but polls show more support for it publicly. Same-sex advocates look to Shelby's arguments to sway the appeals panel. "Despite today's decision, we are hopeful that the lower court's well-reasoned decision will be upheld in the end and that courts across the country will continue to recognize that all couples should have the freedom to marry," Joshua Block, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. The lawsuit considered by Shelby was brought by one gay and two lesbian couples in Utah who wish to marry but have been unable to do so because of the state ban. Same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment or state law in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is legal in 17 other U.S states and the District of Columbia: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The case is Herbert v. Kitchen (13A687)

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

B09e75Jfzx9E9JYX

test

rOoyk9Kfb92mnaEC

fbi

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/26/mueller-report-john-brennan-collusion

OPINION: Stop Listening to the Spymasters and Generals

2019-03-26

Christian Britschgi, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Matt Welch, Zuri Davis, Jacob Sullum

For weeks , former CIA Director John Brennan has hinted that he believed Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation would end with the indictment of President Trump or another member of the Trump family . He suggested as much during a recent appearance on MSNBC , in which host Lawrence O'Donnell desperately tried to convince his audience that Brennan knew something they did n't . Now that Attorney General William Barr has received Mueller 's report , and is not considering charges against the Trump family , Brennan is singing a different tune . `` I do n't know if I received bad information , but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was , '' he admitted on MSNBC 's `` Morning Joe '' program Monday morning . Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , who for weeks promoted the idea that Trump is an `` unwitting asset '' of Russian President Vladimir Putin , maintained that the cloud of suspicion had not been lifted—indeed , he said this even before the summary of the report had been released . `` I doubt that the Mueller report is going to explain the strange and disturbing deferential behavior of the president toward Vladimir Putin , his refusal to call out the Russians for their meddling in the election , to the extent I assert in my book , I think the Russians actually turned the election for Trump , '' Clapper told CNN . Clapper , readers may recall , once lied under oath to Congress about the National Security Agency 's warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens . The `` deep state '' theory—the idea that a shadow government of military and intelligence officials secretly runs the government , or is working to subvert Trump 's White House—currently beloved by many conservative activists is excessively conspiratorial . But it is true that many people in media , in politics , and the broader public at large are all too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to intelligence officials who got things very wrong , violated civil liberties , and misled Congress . Neither the military , nor the CIA , nor the FBI , nor any other branch of the federal government is immune to politics . Many like to pretend that Brennan is some objective , just-the-facts purveyor of raw information , but he 's just as self-interested as anyone else in politics . Blindly trusting the intelligence community has had disastrous results , and one of the few admirable things about Trump is that he 's not been afraid to disregard the opinions of those who seem to always prefer the military option over the diplomatic one . It 's long past time the rest of us did the same .

For weeks, former CIA Director John Brennan has hinted that he believed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation would end with the indictment of President Trump or another member of the Trump family. He suggested as much during a recent appearance on MSNBC, in which host Lawrence O'Donnell desperately tried to convince his audience that Brennan knew something they didn't. Now that Attorney General William Barr has received Mueller's report, and is not considering charges against the Trump family, Brennan is singing a different tune. "I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," he admitted on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program Monday morning. Former FBI Director James Comey appeared completely stumped, and tweeted a picture of himself staring at the water with the caption, "Geologic time offers useful perspective." Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who for weeks promoted the idea that Trump is an "unwitting asset" of Russian President Vladimir Putin, maintained that the cloud of suspicion had not been lifted—indeed, he said this even before the summary of the report had been released. "I doubt that the Mueller report is going to explain the strange and disturbing deferential behavior of the president toward Vladimir Putin, his refusal to call out the Russians for their meddling in the election, to the extent I assert in my book, I think the Russians actually turned the election for Trump," Clapper told CNN. Clapper, readers may recall, once lied under oath to Congress about the National Security Agency's warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens. The "deep state" theory—the idea that a shadow government of military and intelligence officials secretly runs the government, or is working to subvert Trump's White House—currently beloved by many conservative activists is excessively conspiratorial. But it is true that many people in media, in politics, and the broader public at large are all too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to intelligence officials who got things very wrong, violated civil liberties, and misled Congress. Neither the military, nor the CIA, nor the FBI, nor any other branch of the federal government is immune to politics. Many like to pretend that Brennan is some objective, just-the-facts purveyor of raw information, but he's just as self-interested as anyone else in politics. Blindly trusting the intelligence community has had disastrous results, and one of the few admirable things about Trump is that he's not been afraid to disregard the opinions of those who seem to always prefer the military option over the diplomatic one. It's long past time the rest of us did the same.

www.reason.com

right

rOoyk9Kfb92mnaEC

test

bRq4pw6saNHey6W8

justice

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-jr-denies-collusion-allegations-meeting-senate/story?id=49675285

Donald Trump Jr. denies collusion allegations during meeting with Senate investigators

Meghan Keneally

— -- During a five-hour meeting with Senate Judiciary Committee staffers today , Donald Trump Jr. denied any wrongdoing in his meeting with a Russian lawyer during his father 's presidential campaign , according to his prepared remarks , which were obtained by ███ . In his statement , Trump Jr. said he took the meeting with the lawyer , Natalia Veselnitskaya — on June 9 , 2016 , more than a month after Donald Trump Sr. became the presumptive Republican nominee — because he wanted to determine Hillary Clinton 's `` fitness '' as a candidate . He said that he was skeptical about taking the meeting and that `` as it later turned out , my skepticism was justified . '' `` Nonetheless , at the time , I thought I should listen to what Rob [ Goldstone ] and his colleagues had to say . To the extent they had information concerning the fitness , character or qualifications of a presidential candidate , I believed that I should at least hear them out , '' Trump Jr. said in his statement , which was first obtained by The New York Times . Goldstone , a music publicist Trump met through the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Russia , set up the meeting , which was held in Trump Tower in New York . The meeting quickly turned from a confusing allegation about Russian-connected individuals funding the Democratic National Committee to the Magnitsky Act , which Trump had never heard of before that day , he said . `` It was clear to me that her real purpose in asking for the meeting all along was to discuss Russian adoptions and the Magnitsky Act , '' he said of the law , which imposes sanctions on Russian government officials . `` The meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes , and Rob , Emin and I never discussed the meeting again . I do not recall ever discussing it with Jared , Paul or anyone else , '' Trump said , referring to Emin Agalarov , a Russian billionaire 's son who is a singer and an acquaintance of Goldstone 's and Trump 's ; Jared Kushner , a campaign adviser and Donald Trump Sr. 's son-in-law ; and Paul Manafort , the campaign 's chairman at the time . `` In short , I gave it no further thought , '' Trump Jr. 's written statement concludes , `` As is clear from the above , I did not collude with any foreign government and do not know of anyone who did . I am grateful for the opportunity to help resolve any lingering concerns that may exist regarding these events . I am very proud of the campaign my father ran and was honored to be a part of it . '' The president 's eldest son arrived at the Capitol sometime before 9:40 a.m. and was not pictured entering the committee room . He was still in the room answering questions from Senate staffers as of 12:30 p.m . Trump Jr. , 39 , released a statement via Twitter saying that he met with the committee for `` more than five hours . '' `` I answered every question posed by the Committee ... until both sides had exhausted their lines of questioning . I trust this interview fully satisfied their inquiry , '' Trump Jr. said in the statement . `` I very much appreciate the opportunity to assist the Committee in its efforts , '' he wrote . In an email sent to Trump Jr. to arrange the meeting , Goldstone wrote that a client of his `` offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father . '' During his prepared remarks today , Trump Jr. described his reaction to the email , saying , `` I was somewhat skeptical of his outreach , as I had only known Rob as Emin 's somewhat colorful music promoter who had worked with famous pop singers such as Michael Jackson . Since I had no additional information to validate what Rob was saying , I did not quite know what to make of his email . I had no way to gauge the reliability , credibility or accuracy of any of the things he was saying . '' Trump said in his statement that he asked Kushner and Manafort to attend the meeting . He added that he asked Goldstone to send a list of other attendees but `` he never did . As a result , I had no advance knowledge of who would attend . '' According to media reports , there were eight people at the meeting , but today Trump said , `` I only recall seven . '' The meeting was publicly disclosed in early July 2017 , and Trump released several differing statements about the meeting before releasing copies of the emails that show the scheduling of the meeting .

— -- During a five-hour meeting with Senate Judiciary Committee staffers today, Donald Trump Jr. denied any wrongdoing in his meeting with a Russian lawyer during his father's presidential campaign, according to his prepared remarks, which were obtained by ABC News. In his statement, Trump Jr. said he took the meeting with the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya — on June 9, 2016, more than a month after Donald Trump Sr. became the presumptive Republican nominee — because he wanted to determine Hillary Clinton's "fitness" as a candidate. He said that he was skeptical about taking the meeting and that "as it later turned out, my skepticism was justified." "Nonetheless, at the time, I thought I should listen to what Rob [Goldstone] and his colleagues had to say. To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out," Trump Jr. said in his statement, which was first obtained by The New York Times. Goldstone, a music publicist Trump met through the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Russia, set up the meeting, which was held in Trump Tower in New York. The meeting quickly turned from a confusing allegation about Russian-connected individuals funding the Democratic National Committee to the Magnitsky Act, which Trump had never heard of before that day, he said. "It was clear to me that her real purpose in asking for the meeting all along was to discuss Russian adoptions and the Magnitsky Act," he said of the law, which imposes sanctions on Russian government officials. "The meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes, and Rob, Emin and I never discussed the meeting again. I do not recall ever discussing it with Jared, Paul or anyone else," Trump said, referring to Emin Agalarov, a Russian billionaire's son who is a singer and an acquaintance of Goldstone's and Trump's; Jared Kushner, a campaign adviser and Donald Trump Sr.'s son-in-law; and Paul Manafort, the campaign's chairman at the time. "In short, I gave it no further thought," Trump Jr.'s written statement concludes, "As is clear from the above, I did not collude with any foreign government and do not know of anyone who did. I am grateful for the opportunity to help resolve any lingering concerns that may exist regarding these events. I am very proud of the campaign my father ran and was honored to be a part of it." The president's eldest son arrived at the Capitol sometime before 9:40 a.m. and was not pictured entering the committee room. He was still in the room answering questions from Senate staffers as of 12:30 p.m. Trump Jr., 39, released a statement via Twitter saying that he met with the committee for "more than five hours." "I answered every question posed by the Committee ... until both sides had exhausted their lines of questioning. I trust this interview fully satisfied their inquiry," Trump Jr. said in the statement. "I very much appreciate the opportunity to assist the Committee in its efforts," he wrote. In an email sent to Trump Jr. to arrange the meeting, Goldstone wrote that a client of his "offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father." During his prepared remarks today, Trump Jr. described his reaction to the email, saying, "I was somewhat skeptical of his outreach, as I had only known Rob as Emin's somewhat colorful music promoter who had worked with famous pop singers such as Michael Jackson. Since I had no additional information to validate what Rob was saying, I did not quite know what to make of his email. I had no way to gauge the reliability, credibility or accuracy of any of the things he was saying." Trump said in his statement that he asked Kushner and Manafort to attend the meeting. He added that he asked Goldstone to send a list of other attendees but "he never did. As a result, I had no advance knowledge of who would attend." According to media reports, there were eight people at the meeting, but today Trump said, "I only recall seven." The meeting was publicly disclosed in early July 2017, and Trump released several differing statements about the meeting before releasing copies of the emails that show the scheduling of the meeting. Here is the full statement:

www.abcnews.go.com

left

bRq4pw6saNHey6W8

test

XuYSQMZfrVpByN6v

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-mueller-russia-twitter/2018/08/01/id/874868/

Trump to Jeff Sessions: 'Stop This Rigged Witch Hunt Now'

2018-08-01

Mark Swanson

“ FBI Agent Peter Strzok ( on the Mueller team ) should have recused himself on day one . He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP . He needed an insurance policy . Those are illegal , improper goals , trying to influence the Election . He should never , ever been allowed to ........ — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 ..... remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated . This is a real issue . It won ’ t go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys . Mueller has an interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation. ” ALAN DERSHOWITZ .... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 .. This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now , before it continues to stain our country any further . Bob Mueller is totally conflicted , and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 Amid his attack on Mueller 's probe , Trump also questioned why investigators failed to tell him that his former campaign chairman , Paul Manafort , was under investigation . Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan , Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders . He worked for me for a very short time . Why didn ’ t government tell me that he was under investigation . These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion - a Hoax ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 Trump returned with another tweet a half hour later , labeling accusation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign `` a TOTAL HOAX . '' Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign , one of the most successful in history , is a TOTAL HOAX . The Democrats paid for the phony and discredited Dossier which was , along with Comey , McCabe , Strzok and his lover , the lovely Lisa Page , used to begin the Witch Hunt . Disgraceful ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 He returned to Twitter an hour later to add a slam against his Democrat opponent in the 2016 election , with a quote attributed to Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen referring to a `` smoking gun about a campaign getting dirt on their opponent , it was Hillary Clinton . ''

“FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day one. He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed to........ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 .....remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated. This is a real issue. It won’t go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys. Mueller has an interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation.” ALAN DERSHOWITZ.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 Amid his attack on Mueller's probe, Trump also questioned why investigators failed to tell him that his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was under investigation. Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion - a Hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 Manafort's first trial began Tuesday in Virginia. Trump returned with another tweet a half hour later, labeling accusation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign "a TOTAL HOAX." Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign, one of the most successful in history, is a TOTAL HOAX. The Democrats paid for the phony and discredited Dossier which was, along with Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, used to begin the Witch Hunt. Disgraceful! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 He returned to Twitter an hour later to add a slam against his Democrat opponent in the 2016 election, with a quote attributed to Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen referring to a "smoking gun about a campaign getting dirt on their opponent, it was Hillary Clinton."

www.newsmax.com

right

XuYSQMZfrVpByN6v

test

JNYu0C1MBwxOwB7a

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-powell-race/fed-chair-powell-says-strong-job-market-can-reduce-u-s-racial-inequality-idUSKBN23N2OO?il=0

Fed Chair Powell says strong job market can reduce U.S. racial inequality

2020-06-16

SAN FRANCISCO ( ███ ) - The best way the Federal Reserve can help reduce racial inequality is to return the U.S. labor market to its pre-coronavirus strength , U.S. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said on Tuesday , as he sidestepped questions over whether the Fed itself contributes to the problem . Anger over racism and inequality has swept the country since the police killing of George Floyd May 25 in Minneapolis , with people protesting en masse despite the ongoing threat of infection during the coronavirus pandemic . The unrest has sharpened the public focus on economic plight of black and Latino families , who on average continue to earn less , have higher unemployment , and are harder hit when economic shocks like the coronavirus hit . [ L1N2DO1NW ] In May , while white unemployment fell , black unemployment rose . The “ best single thing ” that the Fed can do to address inequality , Powell told the Senate Banking Committee , is to “ try to get the labor market back to where it was in February , ” when unemployment was 3.5 % . But when Senator Sherrod Brown asked Powell for an open-ended study of how the Fed ’ s policies contribute to systemic racism , Powell said he would get back to him after conferring with his colleagues . “ We do consider racial disparities and things like that as a routine matter in our work now , ” Powell added . On Friday the Fed 's lone black policymaker , Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic , said here institutionalized racism constrains economic growth . Powell , who had previously condemned racism in U.S. society , said he had sent Bostic an email thanking him for his comments . Brown pressed further , asking if the Fed itself is responsible for unequal outcomes . “ There ’ s no doubt more that all of us can do to address these issues , and this feels like a time when people are going to be looking for ways to do more , and we certainly are going to be doing that , ” Powell said .

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The best way the Federal Reserve can help reduce racial inequality is to return the U.S. labor market to its pre-coronavirus strength, U.S. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said on Tuesday, as he sidestepped questions over whether the Fed itself contributes to the problem. FILE PHOTO: Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell leaves after a Senate Banking Committee hearing on The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., February 12, 2020. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas Anger over racism and inequality has swept the country since the police killing of George Floyd May 25 in Minneapolis, with people protesting en masse despite the ongoing threat of infection during the coronavirus pandemic. The unrest has sharpened the public focus on economic plight of black and Latino families, who on average continue to earn less, have higher unemployment, and are harder hit when economic shocks like the coronavirus hit. [L1N2DO1NW] In May, while white unemployment fell, black unemployment rose. The “best single thing” that the Fed can do to address inequality, Powell told the Senate Banking Committee, is to “try to get the labor market back to where it was in February,” when unemployment was 3.5%. But when Senator Sherrod Brown asked Powell for an open-ended study of how the Fed’s policies contribute to systemic racism, Powell said he would get back to him after conferring with his colleagues. “We do consider racial disparities and things like that as a routine matter in our work now,” Powell added. On Friday the Fed's lone black policymaker, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic, said here institutionalized racism constrains economic growth. Powell, who had previously condemned racism in U.S. society, said he had sent Bostic an email thanking him for his comments. Brown pressed further, asking if the Fed itself is responsible for unequal outcomes. “There’s no doubt more that all of us can do to address these issues, and this feels like a time when people are going to be looking for ways to do more, and we certainly are going to be doing that,” Powell said.

www.reuters.com

center

JNYu0C1MBwxOwB7a

test

PqNeSQwpPJTslcIs

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-trumps-doesnt/story?id=56655029

Trump’s do-over doesn’t mean it’s over

Interested in The Note ? Add The Note as an interest to stay up to date on the latest The Note news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Call it a walk-back , a cleanup or a clarification . Just don ’ t call it over . President Donald Trump on Tuesday did something he rarely does in asking for a do-over of his comments about Russia meddling . But he provided far more clarity a day earlier , when he declared that “ we ’ re all to blame , ” and expressed confidence in “ both parties ” -- American intelligence agencies and the Putin government . Even his acceptance of the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia tried to meddle in the election came late and with a loud caveat : “ could be other people also . ” What the president said Tuesday will probably be enough for many of his supporters , on Capitol Hill and among friendly pundits , to declare the episode to be in the past . But what happened in Helsinki wasn ’ t about a missing contraction or an error in transcription , any more than Charlottesville was about a stray turn of phrase regarding “ both sides . ” The questions raised by Monday ’ s comments -- up to and including what Trump and Vladimir Putin actually discussed privately -- remain as relevant now as they were then . The question for Trump allies is whether they ’ re inclined to continue to ask them . After the president 's comments , it is clear every Republican candidate will be asked if he or she believes the intelligence community 's assessment that Russian agents sought to disrupt U.S. elections and whether Trump is doing enough to stop them moving forward . On the other end of the spectrum , every Democrat will likely be asked if he or she would vote to impeach the commander in chief . The Democrat running against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was asked the question again Monday and said once more that he would . Back in April , Rep. Beto O'Rourke , who has been raking in cash for his fight against Cruz , said he had seen enough to support impeachment . “ I 've seen an attempt , no matter how ham-handed , to collude with a foreign government in our national election , '' he said in an interview . This week , a number of Democrats used words like “ treacherous ” and “ treasonous ” to describe the president ’ s performance in Finland . While House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has for some time urged her colleagues not to use the “ I-word. ” Statements like these to describe the president ’ s behavior invite follow up questions about what exactly Democrats would do to respond to this White House -- if they held power . Keenly aware there was a problem after his news conference in Helsinki with Putin , Trump met with top advisers Tuesday morning to discuss what to do about it . Sources tell ███ the president himself came up with the idea of the `` would '' versus `` would not '' clarification , telling aides he had seen the clip , realized he misspoke , and wanted to make a statement . Those involved with crafting the statement were : White House adviser Steven Miller , press secretary Sarah Sanders , Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Bill Shine , Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp and National Security Adviser John Bolton . The president also discussed it with Newt Gingrich , who had called on Trump to clarify his comments in Helsinki on “ the U.S. intelligence system and Putin , ” calling the remarks “ the most serious mistake of his presidency. ” Late in the process , Vice President Mike Pence also asked to see the statement . The line `` it could have been a lot of people '' was not part of the prepared remarks . The president 's aides were also not particularly surprised the president said it . The House Transportation Subcommittee holds a hearing with officials from FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the upcoming hurricane season at 10 a.m . Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and GOP Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina hold a press conference on a resolution to `` reclaim Congress 's constitutional right to declare war '' at 11 a.m . `` Listen , I don ’ t accept the president ’ s comments today . If he wanted to make those comments , he should ’ ve had the strength to make them in front of Vladimir Putin . '' -- Sen. Mark Warner , a Virginia Democrat and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee . US Embassy in Jerusalem to cost more than $ 21 million -- nearly 100 times President Trump ’ s estimate . President Donald Trump may have written the book on deal-making , but when it comes to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem , it appears he won ’ t be getting the bargain he wanted . ( Shannon K. Crawford and Soo Rin Kim ) https : //abcn.ws/2LsODNu Trump : ' I have full faith and support ' in intelligence community 's conclusion on Russian election meddling . President Donald Trump said he `` has full faith '' in and accepts the U.S. intelligence community 's conclusion that meddling took place during the 2016 elections as he prepared to meet with members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday . ( Jordyn Phelps ) https : //abcn.ws/2uBcpkj Who is the American-born investor named in Putin ’ s 'incredible offer ' ? When Russian President Vladimir Putin called out a U.S.-born investor during Monday ’ s stunning news conference in Helsinki , Finland , Bill Browder was on vacation with his family – not watching Putin ’ s landmark summit with President Donald Trump . ( Ali Dukakis ) https : //abcn.ws/2LqCDfu Ryan , other members of Congress , weigh how to respond to Trump 's Putin remarks . While Paul Ryan struggled Tuesday to defend President Donald Trump 's performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki , Finland , without criticizing him directly , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor with a laundry list of things he says it ’ s obvious Congress should do in response to Trump 's remarks . ( Ali Rogin and Mariam Khan ) https : //abcn.ws/2zMK6Eb European press mocks Trump as 'weak , ' 'Putin 's poodle ' after summit . On Tuesday , headlines and op-eds in major papers across Europe slammed Trump 's decision to side with Putin over his own intelligence agencies on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election . ( Patrick Reevell ) https : //abcn.ws/2JvB5iD President Trump : Putin meeting 'better ' than summit with NATO allies . Amid a flood of criticism from members of both parties over his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin , President Donald Trump declined to reverse course Tuesday by instead highlighting the meeting as more productive than his gathering with NATO allies days before . ( Alexander Mallin and Katherine Faulders ) https : //abcn.ws/2No6SEx A number of new citizens are now seeking political office . According to Georgia state constitution , candidates are required to be a “ citizen of the state ” for a minimum of two years before being elected to a government position . Maria Palacios has partnered with ACLU of Georgia to sue the state ’ s secretary of state to reinstate her on the ballot . ( Karolina Rivas ) https : //abcn.ws/2zPav4r Alabama representative faces runoff , past position on Trump a key issue . In October of 2016 , less than one day after the infamous `` Access Hollywood '' tape was uncovered by the Washington Post , Alabama congresswoman Martha Roby became one of the first prominent Republicans to announce she would not vote for Donald Trump as a result . ( Adam Kelsey ) https : //abcn.ws/2NZhURU Obama : Despite 'strange and uncertain ' times , Nelson Mandela 's legacy endures . Despite the `` strange and uncertain '' times President Barack Obama says we 're living in he still believes in `` a vision of equality and justice and freedom '' he said in a speech on Tuesday to commemorate the late Nelson Mandela – Obama 's first visit to Africa since leaving office . ( Karolina Rivas ) https : //abcn.ws/2LfNkVA Maria Butina , Russian gun rights activist linked to NRA , charged as Kremlin agent . FBI counter-intelligence agents have arrested a 29-year-old Russian woman on charges she acted as a Kremlin agent while working over the past three years to build relationships in the upper ranks of the National Rifle Association . ( Matthew Mosk , Pete Madden , Mike Levine and Kaitlyn Folmer ) https : //https : //abcn.ws/2zK7cvl Baseball great Cal Ripken shares his advice with Bryce Harper : Powerhouse Politics . Ripken knows a thing or two about the All-Star Game scheduled for Tuesday night at Washington 's Nationals Park . ( Avery Miller ) https : //abcn.ws/2LrPiPx Can a pro-coal Democrat carve a path for his party in West Virginia ? The New York Times reports : https : //nyti.ms/2LuNUvy FiveThirtyEight reviews alternative ways to evaluate Judge Brett Kavanaugh 's ideology other than simply looking at his past rulings . https : //53eig.ht/2NY8u8T The Note is a daily ███ feature that highlights the key political moments of the day ahead . Please check back tomorrow for the latest .

The TAKE with Rick Klein Interested in The Note? Add The Note as an interest to stay up to date on the latest The Note news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Call it a walk-back, a cleanup or a clarification. Just don’t call it over. President Donald Trump on Tuesday did something he rarely does in asking for a do-over of his comments about Russia meddling. But he provided far more clarity a day earlier, when he declared that “we’re all to blame,” and expressed confidence in “both parties” -- American intelligence agencies and the Putin government. Even his acceptance of the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia tried to meddle in the election came late and with a loud caveat: “could be other people also.” What the president said Tuesday will probably be enough for many of his supporters, on Capitol Hill and among friendly pundits, to declare the episode to be in the past. But what happened in Helsinki wasn’t about a missing contraction or an error in transcription, any more than Charlottesville was about a stray turn of phrase regarding “both sides.” The questions raised by Monday’s comments -- up to and including what Trump and Vladimir Putin actually discussed privately --remain as relevant now as they were then. The question for Trump allies is whether they’re inclined to continue to ask them. The RUNDOWN with MaryAlice Parks After the president's comments, it is clear every Republican candidate will be asked if he or she believes the intelligence community's assessment that Russian agents sought to disrupt U.S. elections and whether Trump is doing enough to stop them moving forward. On the other end of the spectrum, every Democrat will likely be asked if he or she would vote to impeach the commander in chief. The Democrat running against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was asked the question again Monday and said once more that he would. Joel Martinez/The Monitor via AP Back in April, Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who has been raking in cash for his fight against Cruz, said he had seen enough to support impeachment. “I've seen an attempt, no matter how ham-handed, to collude with a foreign government in our national election," he said in an interview. This week, a number of Democrats used words like “treacherous” and “treasonous” to describe the president’s performance in Finland. While House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has for some time urged her colleagues not to use the “I-word.” Statements like these to describe the president’s behavior invite follow up questions about what exactly Democrats would do to respond to this White House -- if they held power. The TIP with Jonathan Karl Keenly aware there was a problem after his news conference in Helsinki with Putin, Trump met with top advisers Tuesday morning to discuss what to do about it. Leah Millis/Reuters Sources tell ABC News the president himself came up with the idea of the "would" versus "would not" clarification, telling aides he had seen the clip, realized he misspoke, and wanted to make a statement. Those involved with crafting the statement were: White House adviser Steven Miller, press secretary Sarah Sanders, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Bill Shine, Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp and National Security Adviser John Bolton. The president also discussed it with Newt Gingrich, who had called on Trump to clarify his comments in Helsinki on “the U.S. intelligence system and Putin,” calling the remarks “the most serious mistake of his presidency.” Late in the process, Vice President Mike Pence also asked to see the statement. The line "it could have been a lot of people" was not part of the prepared remarks. The president's aides were also not particularly surprised the president said it. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW President Trump holds a cabinet meeting at 11:30 a.m. The House Transportation Subcommittee holds a hearing with officials from FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the upcoming hurricane season at 10 a.m. Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and GOP Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina hold a press conference on a resolution to "reclaim Congress's constitutional right to declare war" at 11 a.m. QUOTE OF THE DAY "Listen, I don’t accept the president’s comments today. If he wanted to make those comments, he should’ve had the strength to make them in front of Vladimir Putin." -- Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. NEED TO READ US Embassy in Jerusalem to cost more than $21 million -- nearly 100 times President Trump’s estimate. President Donald Trump may have written the book on deal-making, but when it comes to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, it appears he won’t be getting the bargain he wanted. (Shannon K. Crawford and Soo Rin Kim) https://abcn.ws/2LsODNu Trump: 'I have full faith and support' in intelligence community's conclusion on Russian election meddling. President Donald Trump said he "has full faith" in and accepts the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that meddling took place during the 2016 elections as he prepared to meet with members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday. (Jordyn Phelps) https://abcn.ws/2uBcpkj Who is the American-born investor named in Putin’s 'incredible offer'? When Russian President Vladimir Putin called out a U.S.-born investor during Monday’s stunning news conference in Helsinki, Finland, Bill Browder was on vacation with his family – not watching Putin’s landmark summit with President Donald Trump. (Ali Dukakis) https://abcn.ws/2LqCDfu Ryan, other members of Congress, weigh how to respond to Trump's Putin remarks. While Paul Ryan struggled Tuesday to defend President Donald Trump's performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, without criticizing him directly, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor with a laundry list of things he says it’s obvious Congress should do in response to Trump's remarks. (Ali Rogin and Mariam Khan) https://abcn.ws/2zMK6Eb European press mocks Trump as 'weak,' 'Putin's poodle' after summit. On Tuesday, headlines and op-eds in major papers across Europe slammed Trump's decision to side with Putin over his own intelligence agencies on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (Patrick Reevell) https://abcn.ws/2JvB5iD President Trump: Putin meeting 'better' than summit with NATO allies. Amid a flood of criticism from members of both parties over his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump declined to reverse course Tuesday by instead highlighting the meeting as more productive than his gathering with NATO allies days before. (Alexander Mallin and Katherine Faulders) https://abcn.ws/2No6SEx A number of new citizens are now seeking political office. According to Georgia state constitution, candidates are required to be a “citizen of the state” for a minimum of two years before being elected to a government position. Maria Palacios has partnered with ACLU of Georgia to sue the state’s secretary of state to reinstate her on the ballot. (Karolina Rivas) https://abcn.ws/2zPav4r Alabama representative faces runoff, past position on Trump a key issue. In October of 2016, less than one day after the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape was uncovered by the Washington Post, Alabama congresswoman Martha Roby became one of the first prominent Republicans to announce she would not vote for Donald Trump as a result. (Adam Kelsey) https://abcn.ws/2NZhURU Obama: Despite 'strange and uncertain' times, Nelson Mandela's legacy endures. Despite the "strange and uncertain" times President Barack Obama says we're living in he still believes in "a vision of equality and justice and freedom" he said in a speech on Tuesday to commemorate the late Nelson Mandela – Obama's first visit to Africa since leaving office. (Karolina Rivas) https://abcn.ws/2LfNkVA Maria Butina, Russian gun rights activist linked to NRA, charged as Kremlin agent. FBI counter-intelligence agents have arrested a 29-year-old Russian woman on charges she acted as a Kremlin agent while working over the past three years to build relationships in the upper ranks of the National Rifle Association. (Matthew Mosk, Pete Madden, Mike Levine and Kaitlyn Folmer) https://https://abcn.ws/2zK7cvl Baseball great Cal Ripken shares his advice with Bryce Harper: Powerhouse Politics. Ripken knows a thing or two about the All-Star Game scheduled for Tuesday night at Washington's Nationals Park. (Avery Miller) https://abcn.ws/2LrPiPx Can a pro-coal Democrat carve a path for his party in West Virginia? The New York Times reports: https://nyti.ms/2LuNUvy FiveThirtyEight reviews alternative ways to evaluate Judge Brett Kavanaugh's ideology other than simply looking at his past rulings. https://53eig.ht/2NY8u8T The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the key political moments of the day ahead. Please check back tomorrow for the latest.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

PqNeSQwpPJTslcIs

test

HqAY1lnWIftMRKlz

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court/u-s-judge-denies-democrats-lawsuit-to-stop-border-wall-funds-idUSKCN1T5055

U.S. judge denies Democrats' lawsuit to stop border wall funds

2019-06-04

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A U.S. federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit by Democrats in the House of Representatives that sought to block President Donald Trump ’ s plan to divert funds to help build a border wall . FILE PHOTO - A child looks through the border wall during the visit of U.S. President Donald Trump to Calexico , California , as seen in Mexicali , Mexico April 5 , 2019 . ███/Carlos Jasso District Court Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled that the House lacked legal standing to sue Trump for using money to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that was appropriated by Congress for other purposes . “ While the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers , it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress ’ s legislative authority . The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House ’ s claims and will deny its motion , ” McFadden wrote . House Democrats had argued diverting the funds violated the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the U.S. Constitution . “ The court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives can not ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and can not use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it can not achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress , ” a department spokesman said in a statement . A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats were reviewing the ruling and evaluating whether to appeal . The ruling is in contrast to a decision on May 24 by U.S. Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. , who issued a preliminary injunction blocking the use of $ 1 billion in Defense Department funds out of a total of $ 6.7 billion Trump wants to divert for the border wall . Gilliam , in Oakland , California , on May 30 rejected the government ’ s efforts to start construction of the wall while it appeals to a higher court . In February , after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown , Congress approved $ 1.38 billion for construction of “ primary pedestrian fencing ” along the border in southeastern Texas , well short of Trump ’ s demands . To obtain the additional money , Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $ 601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund , $ 2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $ 3.6 billion from military construction projects .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit by Democrats in the House of Representatives that sought to block President Donald Trump’s plan to divert funds to help build a border wall. FILE PHOTO - A child looks through the border wall during the visit of U.S. President Donald Trump to Calexico, California, as seen in Mexicali, Mexico April 5, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso District Court Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled that the House lacked legal standing to sue Trump for using money to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that was appropriated by Congress for other purposes. “While the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion,” McFadden wrote. House Democrats had argued diverting the funds violated the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The Justice Department applauded the ruling. “The court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress,” a department spokesman said in a statement. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats were reviewing the ruling and evaluating whether to appeal. The ruling is in contrast to a decision on May 24 by U.S. Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., who issued a preliminary injunction blocking the use of $1 billion in Defense Department funds out of a total of $6.7 billion Trump wants to divert for the border wall. Gilliam, in Oakland, California, on May 30 rejected the government’s efforts to start construction of the wall while it appeals to a higher court. In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.38 billion for construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” along the border in southeastern Texas, well short of Trump’s demands. To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $3.6 billion from military construction projects.

www.reuters.com

center

HqAY1lnWIftMRKlz

test

bc0aXjaOkCrH9IJ3

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/the_ted_cruz_is_smart_trap_why_this_garbage_is_false_and_dangerous/

The “Ted Cruz is smart” trap: Why this garbage is false — and dangerous

2014-07-28

Nathan Robinson

But there ’ s no reason to keep this up . For one thing , it doesn ’ t seem especially true . It can ’ t really be that we think Cruz has a sophisticated mind , given that the only thoughts he produces are angry pants-on-fire platitudinous drivel . Even those who lavish praise on his oratory seem to agree that his heat-to-light ratio nears the infinite , and that “ thoughtfulness ” and Ted Cruz can not exist in the same room . His only memorable quotes appear to be cheap jokes , and the most notable speech of his entire career is not his own , but Dr. Seuss ’ . Nobody who has witnessed a few minutes of Cruz ’ s piece of senatorial performance art would have thought to label him a thinker , were it not for the preexisting consensus that he is one . Cruz likely finds all of this very pleasing indeed . In his interview with Toobin , Cruz quotes Sun Tzu , saying that “ every battle is won before it ’ s fought . It ’ s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought. ” In getting those who despise him to genuflect to his intelligence , Ted Cruz has already won one battle . Jeffrey Toobin may lace his piece with dismissive sneers , yet somehow he still contributes to the ever-growing heap of liberal respect for Cruz ’ s mental acuity . Even Ted Cruz 's critics seem to concur on one point : whatever else you might say about him , the man is very smart . Mother Jones magazine has called him the “ thinking man 's tea partier. ” Josh Marshall , in a mostly withering assessment , made the same obligatory concession to his being an “ incredibly bright guy. ” Jeffrey Toobin ’ s recent , ostensibly critical New Yorker profile of Cruz is full of quotes about his being “ the smartest guy in the room , ” his “ sophisticated ” constitutional views , and the “ extraordinary ” erudition of his senior thesis . Cruz has become notorious for using distortive , misleading rhetoric that no sober-minded individual could apply . Cruz says Obamacare ’ s “ intent is to destroy the private insurance business , ” despite the fact that the whole progressive complaint about Obamacare is that it is a massive windfall to insurers . He says a campaign finance amendment attempting to rein in spending literally “ repeals the First Amendment. ” But even more alarming are the straightforward factual errors . He has mistakenly claimed that most premiums have risen under the Affordable Care Act and that states with gun control have the highest murder rates , among other elementary blunders that earned him a rating on PolitiFact of 10 falsehoods for every one truth . One may respond that Cruz is shrewd and knows better , that these are calculated political lies by a devious plotter . But for a savant merely playing an imbecile on television , Cruz is strangely inept when it comes to policymaking . He has alienated all of his colleagues , and wants to revive the gay marriage fight at a time when it couldn ’ t be more unwise . His major act of strategic maneuvering over the government shutdown proved a colossal high-profile failure , the result of which was that as his name recognition improves , his favorability ratings actually drop . Even the Wall Street Journal has labeled him part of a “ kamikaze caucus ” that is dooming conservatives ’ prospects . If Ted Cruz ’ s misstatements are deft politicking rather than idiocy , then where , one might ask , are the successes ? Ultimately , though , the most damning evidence against Cruz 's intelligence may actually come from his law school roommate and college debating partner , David Panton . “ Ted ’ s views today politically are almost identical to when I met him , ” Panton said . “ There ’ s nothing he says today that I didn ’ t hear in college. ” That assessment , spoken about anybody , should be convincing enough evidence for shallowness of mind . Can there be such thing as a learned person who has discovered nothing new since freshman year ? In fact , the stories about Cruz 's younger days show the marks of someone profoundly insecure about his intelligence . Quizzing others as to their SAT scores , wanting to limit his law-school study group to graduates of the `` H-Y-P '' schools ( a charge Cruz has denied ) , an unrelenting and discomforting argumentative aggression : He ’ s missing only a Mensa application to complete the full package of desperate IQ-dork self-affirmations . Of course , a chorus of people from Cruz ’ s student years has vouched for his brilliance . No less a heavyweight than Alan Dershowitz has commented on Cruz 's precocity at Harvard . Now , one could somewhat unkindly argue that Dershowitz , too , has in his career relied on people ’ s confusion of credentials and bluster for depth of intellect . More to the point , though , is that the evidence put forth doesn ’ t support the claim . Nobody doubts that Cruz has the gift of gab , and can be formidable in an argument . But sophistry is not philosophy , and being the loudest , most driven , and most shameless guy in the room does not necessarily make one the brightest . Any definition of intelligence is destined to be highly contestable . Yet it is hard to imagine a plausible one that does not include large measures of critical thinking and self-scrutiny . As Bertrand Russell put it , it ’ s always a central problem that `` the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt . '' Intelligence necessitates doubt , for doubt is the origin of wisdom . One whose mind is clamped shut can not be intelligent , and yet Ted Cruz does not in his life ever seem to have taken on board a single challenge to his worldview . In fact , the consistent overgenerous assessment of Cruz ’ s brains may stem from a deeper problem with the values of the elite legal community . If Newt Gingrich is “ a stupid person ’ s idea of what a smart person looks like , ” Ted Cruz is a lawyer ’ s idea of what a smart person looks like . Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post puzzled that someone she had been assured has a “ sharp legal mind ” could be so blisteringly lacking in common sense . But success in the legal world does not depend on common sense . Ambition and confidence can more than make up for it . Law schools pose as Socratic institutions , where preconceptions are left in tatters on the lecture-room floor , but in practice they reward sparring ability far more than reflection and careful scholarliness ( the haphazard , un-peer-reviewed world of law journals can attest to the legal academy ’ s prioritization of argumentative formalism over a sober-minded quest for enlightenment ) . A person with one or two core principles , and a ruthless willingness to bend any truth that gets in the way , can do very well for himself at law school . Certainly , this requires skill . But it would be a sad day for the progress of human knowledge if we called it intelligence . Cruz 's outsize ambition means that this narrative makes a difference . So long as those who oppose him nevertheless dutifully incant praises to his intellect , Cruz has them right where he wants them . Josh Marshall summed up the opinion surrounding Cruz as “ Arrogant Asshole , Super Smart. ” But who cares about being called an “ arrogant asshole , ” so long as they admit you ’ re super smart ? Assholes finish first , don ’ t they ? That kind of consensus makes the haters seem petty and lets Cruz keep playing the scholar . The key is to admit what is obvious from a few minutes of listening to him . The man is arrogant , but he doesn ’ t actually seem very smart . If the loveliest trick of the devil is to convince you he doesn ’ t exist , the most incontestably brilliant trick of Ted Cruz is to convince you of his incontestable brilliance . There ’ s no need to keep falling for it .

But there’s no reason to keep this up. For one thing, it doesn’t seem especially true. It can’t really be that we think Cruz has a sophisticated mind, given that the only thoughts he produces are angry pants-on-fire platitudinous drivel. Even those who lavish praise on his oratory seem to agree that his heat-to-light ratio nears the infinite, and that “thoughtfulness” and Ted Cruz cannot exist in the same room. His only memorable quotes appear to be cheap jokes , and the most notable speech of his entire career is not his own, but Dr. Seuss’. Nobody who has witnessed a few minutes of Cruz’s piece of senatorial performance art would have thought to label him a thinker, were it not for the preexisting consensus that he is one. Cruz likely finds all of this very pleasing indeed. In his interview with Toobin, Cruz quotes Sun Tzu, saying that “every battle is won before it’s fought. It’s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought.” In getting those who despise him to genuflect to his intelligence, Ted Cruz has already won one battle. Jeffrey Toobin may lace his piece with dismissive sneers, yet somehow he still contributes to the ever-growing heap of liberal respect for Cruz’s mental acuity. Even Ted Cruz's critics seem to concur on one point: whatever else you might say about him, the man is very smart. Mother Jones magazine has called him the “thinking man's tea partier.” Josh Marshall, in a mostly withering assessment, made the same obligatory concession to his being an “incredibly bright guy.” Jeffrey Toobin’s recent, ostensibly critical New Yorker profile of Cruz is full of quotes about his being “the smartest guy in the room,” his “sophisticated” constitutional views, and the “extraordinary” erudition of his senior thesis. Cruz has become notorious for using distortive, misleading rhetoric that no sober-minded individual could apply. Cruz says Obamacare’s “intent is to destroy the private insurance business,” despite the fact that the whole progressive complaint about Obamacare is that it is a massive windfall to insurers. He says a campaign finance amendment attempting to rein in spending literally “repeals the First Amendment.” But even more alarming are the straightforward factual errors. He has mistakenly claimed that most premiums have risen under the Affordable Care Act and that states with gun control have the highest murder rates, among other elementary blunders that earned him a rating on PolitiFact of 10 falsehoods for every one truth. One may respond that Cruz is shrewd and knows better, that these are calculated political lies by a devious plotter. But for a savant merely playing an imbecile on television, Cruz is strangely inept when it comes to policymaking. He has alienated all of his colleagues, and wants to revive the gay marriage fight at a time when it couldn’t be more unwise. His major act of strategic maneuvering over the government shutdown proved a colossal high-profile failure, the result of which was that as his name recognition improves, his favorability ratings actually drop. Even the Wall Street Journal has labeled him part of a “kamikaze caucus” that is dooming conservatives’ prospects. If Ted Cruz’s misstatements are deft politicking rather than idiocy, then where, one might ask, are the successes? Ultimately, though, the most damning evidence against Cruz's intelligence may actually come from his law school roommate and college debating partner, David Panton. “Ted’s views today politically are almost identical to when I met him,” Panton said. “There’s nothing he says today that I didn’t hear in college.” That assessment, spoken about anybody, should be convincing enough evidence for shallowness of mind. Can there be such thing as a learned person who has discovered nothing new since freshman year? In fact, the stories about Cruz's younger days show the marks of someone profoundly insecure about his intelligence. Quizzing others as to their SAT scores, wanting to limit his law-school study group to graduates of the "H-Y-P" schools (a charge Cruz has denied), an unrelenting and discomforting argumentative aggression: He’s missing only a Mensa application to complete the full package of desperate IQ-dork self-affirmations. Of course, a chorus of people from Cruz’s student years has vouched for his brilliance. No less a heavyweight than Alan Dershowitz has commented on Cruz's precocity at Harvard. Now, one could somewhat unkindly argue that Dershowitz, too, has in his career relied on people’s confusion of credentials and bluster for depth of intellect. More to the point, though, is that the evidence put forth doesn’t support the claim. Nobody doubts that Cruz has the gift of gab, and can be formidable in an argument. But sophistry is not philosophy, and being the loudest, most driven, and most shameless guy in the room does not necessarily make one the brightest. Any definition of intelligence is destined to be highly contestable. Yet it is hard to imagine a plausible one that does not include large measures of critical thinking and self-scrutiny. As Bertrand Russell put it, it’s always a central problem that "the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Intelligence necessitates doubt, for doubt is the origin of wisdom. One whose mind is clamped shut cannot be intelligent, and yet Ted Cruz does not in his life ever seem to have taken on board a single challenge to his worldview. In fact, the consistent overgenerous assessment of Cruz’s brains may stem from a deeper problem with the values of the elite legal community. If Newt Gingrich is “a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person looks like,” Ted Cruz is a lawyer’s idea of what a smart person looks like. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post puzzled that someone she had been assured has a “sharp legal mind” could be so blisteringly lacking in common sense. But success in the legal world does not depend on common sense. Ambition and confidence can more than make up for it. Law schools pose as Socratic institutions, where preconceptions are left in tatters on the lecture-room floor, but in practice they reward sparring ability far more than reflection and careful scholarliness (the haphazard, un-peer-reviewed world of law journals can attest to the legal academy’s prioritization of argumentative formalism over a sober-minded quest for enlightenment). A person with one or two core principles, and a ruthless willingness to bend any truth that gets in the way, can do very well for himself at law school. Certainly, this requires skill. But it would be a sad day for the progress of human knowledge if we called it intelligence. Cruz's outsize ambition means that this narrative makes a difference. So long as those who oppose him nevertheless dutifully incant praises to his intellect, Cruz has them right where he wants them. Josh Marshall summed up the opinion surrounding Cruz as “Arrogant Asshole, Super Smart.” But who cares about being called an “arrogant asshole,” so long as they admit you’re super smart? Assholes finish first, don’t they? That kind of consensus makes the haters seem petty and lets Cruz keep playing the scholar. The key is to admit what is obvious from a few minutes of listening to him. The man is arrogant, but he doesn’t actually seem very smart. If the loveliest trick of the devil is to convince you he doesn’t exist, the most incontestably brilliant trick of Ted Cruz is to convince you of his incontestable brilliance. There’s no need to keep falling for it.

www.salon.com

left

bc0aXjaOkCrH9IJ3

test

VTLdy38Q4Q5JXgT2

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48863408

Census 2020: Trump persists in citizenship question row

The Trump administration will push ahead with efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census , despite announcing the plan had been dropped . President Trump sowed confusion on Wednesday and said he was `` moving forward '' with the controversial plan . This came a day after his own senior officials said the census papers would be printed without the question . It leaves the future of the census , which determines electoral districts and federal funding , in some doubt . The administration has argued that a citizenship question would bolster protections for minority voters , but opponents fear it would deter immigrant households from taking part . Democrats and civil rights groups believe the question could ultimately lead to millions of people - mostly Latinos and African Americans - not being counted . Last week , the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the citizenship question and said the government 's justification for including it seemed `` contrived '' . Then , on Tuesday , the government appeared to back down altogether when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the census questionnaires were being printed without it . But in a series of later tweets , President Trump said he would do `` whatever is necessary '' to ensure the question was included . His latest tweet blindsided senior officials who have since been working frantically to find a legal means to include the question , US media report . `` We at the Department of Justice have been instructed to examine whether there is a path forward consistent with the Supreme Court decision that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census , '' Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt told a Maryland-based federal judge on Wednesday . `` We think there may be a legally available path . We 're examining that , looking at near-term options to see whether that 's viable and possible , '' he added . Tight print deadlines and a complex legal picture mean the administration is likely to face a difficult battle . The papers will reportedly be printed without the question while officials examine their options . This question has not appeared on a US census for all Americans since 1950 , though it has been asked to some subsets of the population between 1970 and 2000 . The population count helps the government draw up districts for state and local elections , and determine how much federal funding each state receives - a matter of hundreds of billions of dollars . In a 2018 report , Census Bureau researchers found that the inclusion of a citizenship question could suppress response rates in households with immigrants and minority groups , leading to a `` lower-quality population count '' . But Mr Ross - the billionaire financier who oversees the Census Bureau - insisted that detailed citizenship data would be of `` greater importance than any adverse effect '' posed by an undercount . The White House argues that the decision to include the question was made for practical reasons . `` When you have a census and you 're not allowed to talk about whether or not somebody 's a citizen or not , that does n't sound so good to me , '' Mr Trump said to reporters last month . But critics argue it is politically motivated and it would suppress responses from immigrants and racial minorities . They believe this would benefit the Republican Party when it came to the drawing-up of districts for elections and calculating how much funding each state receives . The states with the highest immigration populations , such as California and New Mexico , would be at the greatest risk of an undercount . Many of these states tend to vote Democrat . Depressed response rates in these states would allow for electorate boundaries to be redrawn , pulling political power - and funding - away from Democratic-leaning , minority households . Last week , the Supreme Court wrote in a 5-4 ruling that the Trump administration had not provided adequate justification for the inclusion of the question . Three federal judges had earlier issued rulings to block the question , one calling it a threat `` to the very foundation '' of US democracy .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption President Trump said on Twitter that he plans to move ahead with the contentious plan The Trump administration will push ahead with efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despite announcing the plan had been dropped. President Trump sowed confusion on Wednesday and said he was "moving forward" with the controversial plan. This came a day after his own senior officials said the census papers would be printed without the question. It leaves the future of the census, which determines electoral districts and federal funding, in some doubt. The administration has argued that a citizenship question would bolster protections for minority voters, but opponents fear it would deter immigrant households from taking part. Democrats and civil rights groups believe the question could ultimately lead to millions of people - mostly Latinos and African Americans - not being counted. Last week, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the citizenship question and said the government's justification for including it seemed "contrived". Then, on Tuesday, the government appeared to back down altogether when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the census questionnaires were being printed without it. But in a series of later tweets, President Trump said he would do "whatever is necessary" to ensure the question was included. His latest tweet blindsided senior officials who have since been working frantically to find a legal means to include the question, US media report. "We at the Department of Justice have been instructed to examine whether there is a path forward consistent with the Supreme Court decision that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census," Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt told a Maryland-based federal judge on Wednesday. "We think there may be a legally available path. We're examining that, looking at near-term options to see whether that's viable and possible," he added. Tight print deadlines and a complex legal picture mean the administration is likely to face a difficult battle. The papers will reportedly be printed without the question while officials examine their options. What is the citizenship question? "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" This question has not appeared on a US census for all Americans since 1950, though it has been asked to some subsets of the population between 1970 and 2000. The population count helps the government draw up districts for state and local elections, and determine how much federal funding each state receives - a matter of hundreds of billions of dollars. Image copyright Reuters Image caption The inclusion of a question about citizenship has proved hugely controversial In a 2018 report, Census Bureau researchers found that the inclusion of a citizenship question could suppress response rates in households with immigrants and minority groups, leading to a "lower-quality population count". But Mr Ross - the billionaire financier who oversees the Census Bureau - insisted that detailed citizenship data would be of "greater importance than any adverse effect" posed by an undercount. Why is it so controversial? The White House argues that the decision to include the question was made for practical reasons. "When you have a census and you're not allowed to talk about whether or not somebody's a citizen or not, that doesn't sound so good to me," Mr Trump said to reporters last month. But critics argue it is politically motivated and it would suppress responses from immigrants and racial minorities. They believe this would benefit the Republican Party when it came to the drawing-up of districts for elections and calculating how much funding each state receives. Image copyright MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images Image caption The proposed citizenship question has provoked protests across the US The states with the highest immigration populations, such as California and New Mexico, would be at the greatest risk of an undercount. Many of these states tend to vote Democrat. Depressed response rates in these states would allow for electorate boundaries to be redrawn, pulling political power - and funding - away from Democratic-leaning, minority households. Last week, the Supreme Court wrote in a 5-4 ruling that the Trump administration had not provided adequate justification for the inclusion of the question. Three federal judges had earlier issued rulings to block the question, one calling it a threat "to the very foundation" of US democracy.

www.bbc.com

center

VTLdy38Q4Q5JXgT2

test

S1aTCh6lVN9dlfhM

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/27/sarah-palin-suing-new-york-times-for-defamation/

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

2017-06-27

Sarah Palin is suing The New York Times for defamation , according to documents filed in federal court Tuesday that were obtained by ███ . The lawsuit has to do with an editorial the NYT ran on June 14 that falsely smeared Palin as inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill man . There is no evidence to support the NYT ’ s implication that Palin played a role in inciting the Giffords shooting . ( RELATED : NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory ) “ Mrs . Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false : that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011 , ” Palin ’ s suit states . “ Specifically , on June 14 , 2017 , The Times Editorial Board , which represents the ‘ voice ’ of The Times , falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Mrs. Palin incited Jared Loughner ’ s January 8 , 2011 , shooting rampage at a political event in Tucson , Arizona , during which he shot nineteen people , severely wounding United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords , and killing six , including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl . ” The lawsuit states that the paper “ published and promoted its Editorial Board ’ s column despite knowing that the linchpin of its ‘ sickening pattern ’ of politically-incited shootings was the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited Loughner to murder six people , among them a child and federal judge , and seriously wound numerous others. ” ( RELATED : NYT Has Been Pushing Palin-Giffords Falsehood For Years ) It goes on to state : “ As the public backlash over The Times ’ malicious column mounted , it responded by making edits and ‘ corrections ’ to its fabricated story , along with half-hearted Twitter apologies–none of which sufficiently corrected the falsehoods that the paper published . In fact , none mentioned Mrs. Palin or acknowledged that Mrs. Palin did not incite a deranged man to commit murder . ” Palin claims the editorial “ exceeded the bounds of legality , decency and civility by publishing the false and defamatory column. ” She is seeking a minimum of $ 75,000 in damages . Sarah Palin sues the New York Times for defamation by Peter Hasson on Scribd In the NYT ’ s editorial , which has since been updated , the editors claimed there was a “ clear ” link to incitement between Jared Loughner ’ s attempted assassination of Giffords , and a map Palin had created that placed crosshairs over districts that Republicans needed to flip in the 2012 election . No such link exists . CNN ’ s Jake Tapper pointed out in response to the NYT editorial that “ even way back in Jan 2011 we knew that Loughlin ’ s obsession began 3 years before the Palin map. ” Tapper made that same exact point back in 2011 when he worked for ABC . After harsh criticism in the media , the NYT finally added a correction that read : “ An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords . In fact , no such link was established . ” The NYT editorial followed the attempted mass assassination of Republican lawmakers by a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter , who espoused anti-Republican rhetoric on his Facebook page and belonged to several anti-GOP groups on Facebook , including one titled , “ Terminate The Republican Party . ”

Sarah Palin is suing The New York Times for defamation, according to documents filed in federal court Tuesday that were obtained by The Daily Caller. The lawsuit has to do with an editorial the NYT ran on June 14 that falsely smeared Palin as inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill man. There is no evidence to support the NYT’s implication that Palin played a role in inciting the Giffords shooting. (RELATED: NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory) “Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,” Palin’s suit states. “Specifically, on June 14, 2017, The Times Editorial Board, which represents the ‘voice’ of The Times, falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Mrs. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, shooting rampage at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, during which he shot nineteen people, severely wounding United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.” The lawsuit states that the paper “published and promoted its Editorial Board’s column despite knowing that the linchpin of its ‘sickening pattern’ of politically-incited shootings was the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited Loughner to murder six people, among them a child and federal judge, and seriously wound numerous others.” (RELATED: NYT Has Been Pushing Palin-Giffords Falsehood For Years) It goes on to state: “As the public backlash over The Times’ malicious column mounted, it responded by making edits and ‘corrections’ to its fabricated story, along with half-hearted Twitter apologies–none of which sufficiently corrected the falsehoods that the paper published. In fact, none mentioned Mrs. Palin or acknowledged that Mrs. Palin did not incite a deranged man to commit murder.” Palin claims the editorial “exceeded the bounds of legality, decency and civility by publishing the false and defamatory column.” She is seeking a minimum of $75,000 in damages. The full lawsuit can be seen below. Sarah Palin sues the New York Times for defamation by Peter Hasson on Scribd In the NYT’s editorial, which has since been updated, the editors claimed there was a “clear” link to incitement between Jared Loughner’s attempted assassination of Giffords, and a map Palin had created that placed crosshairs over districts that Republicans needed to flip in the 2012 election. No such link exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out in response to the NYT editorial that “even way back in Jan 2011 we knew that Loughlin’s obsession began 3 years before the Palin map.” Tapper made that same exact point back in 2011 when he worked for ABC. After harsh criticism in the media, the NYT finally added a correction that read: “An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.” The NYT editorial followed the attempted mass assassination of Republican lawmakers by a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter, who espoused anti-Republican rhetoric on his Facebook page and belonged to several anti-GOP groups on Facebook, including one titled, “Terminate The Republican Party.” The Daily Caller is awaiting comment from the NYT. This article has been updated with additional information.

www.dailycaller.com

right

S1aTCh6lVN9dlfhM

test

66VX0nmYnIz4hKo2

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/24/jindal-urges-gop-to-stop-being-stupid/?hpt=po_c1

Jindal urges GOP to stop being ‘stupid’

2013-01-24

( CNN ) - “ We must stop being the stupid party. ” “ We must stop looking backward. ” “ We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters . ” Gov . Bobby Jindal held little back with his sharp words to Republicans Thursday evening , urging his own party to rethink their arguments against Democrats and appeals to voters in his remarks to party members attending the Republican National Committee ’ s Winter Meeting . “ We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping , ” he told party members . “ We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching – even conservative number crunching – is not the answer to our nation ’ s problems . ” Instead of being the “ party of austerity , ” Jindal said , Republicans must “ boldly show what the future can look like with the free-market policies that we believe in . ” “ We must compete for every single vote : the 47 percent and the 53 percent and any other combination of numbers that adds up to 100 percent , ” he said , notably invoking comments 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made at a closed door fundraiser about a bloc of voters who would not consider GOP candidates . He also spoke out against those and other “ completely unhelpful ” comments from Romney in a November interview with CNN . In that interview , he signaled one of the seven points for the Republican Party ’ s future which he laid out Thursday : “ The first step in getting the voters to like you is to demonstrate that you like them , ” he explained Thursday . Republicans “ must reject the notion that demography is destiny , the pathetic and simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behavior . We must treat all people as individuals rather than as members of special interest groups , ” he said . The Louisianan ’ s remarks further positioned himself as a forward-looking voice among the Republicans thought to have their eye on a White House bid in 2016 . RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has directed a five-member panel known as the `` Growth and Opportunity Project '' to identify winning political strategies for the future , particularly in the area of minority outreach . Jindal ’ s remarks were laced with criticism of and laugh lines at the expense of Democrats , such as “ Which of you wants to sign up to help manage the slow decline of the United States of America ? I sure don ’ t . That ’ s what we have Democrats for . ” He blasted the economic stimulus programs of President Barack Obama ’ s administration , invoking Solyndra when he said : “ You can ’ t hire enough government workers or give enough taxpayer money to your friends who own green energy companies to create prosperity . ” But he was also distinctly blunt with his appraisal of the GOP . Republicans have not only lost elections , he said , but lost issue arguments with Democrats . “ At present we have one party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can expand it , and one party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can get it under control , ” he said , referring first to Democrats and then Republicans . “ It ’ s a terrible debate , it ’ s a debate fought entirely on our opponents ’ terms . ” “ We must shift the eye line and the ambition of our conservative movement away from managing government and toward the mission of growth , ” he said . Republicans must move , he said , beyond a notion of “ if we can just put together a spreadsheet and a power point and a TV ad , all will be well . ” Jindal was elected last year to lead the Republican Governor ’ s Association . Priebus will be up for re-election as RNC chairman on Friday . “ I don ’ t think you should use that whole ORCA thing for your election tomorrow , ” Jindal joked , referring to the Romney campaign voter turnout technology which was reportedly plagued with glitches on Election Day . - CNN Political Director Mark Preston contributed to this report

7 years ago (CNN) - “We must stop being the stupid party.” “We must stop looking backward.” “We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.” Gov. Bobby Jindal held little back with his sharp words to Republicans Thursday evening, urging his own party to rethink their arguments against Democrats and appeals to voters in his remarks to party members attending the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Follow @politicalticker “We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping,” he told party members. “We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching – even conservative number crunching – is not the answer to our nation’s problems.” Instead of being the “party of austerity,” Jindal said, Republicans must “boldly show what the future can look like with the free-market policies that we believe in.” “We must compete for every single vote: the 47 percent and the 53 percent and any other combination of numbers that adds up to 100 percent,” he said, notably invoking comments 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made at a closed door fundraiser about a bloc of voters who would not consider GOP candidates. He also spoke out against those and other “completely unhelpful” comments from Romney in a November interview with CNN. In that interview, he signaled one of the seven points for the Republican Party’s future which he laid out Thursday: “The first step in getting the voters to like you is to demonstrate that you like them,” he explained Thursday. Republicans “must reject the notion that demography is destiny, the pathetic and simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behavior. We must treat all people as individuals rather than as members of special interest groups,” he said. The Louisianan’s remarks further positioned himself as a forward-looking voice among the Republicans thought to have their eye on a White House bid in 2016. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has directed a five-member panel known as the "Growth and Opportunity Project" to identify winning political strategies for the future, particularly in the area of minority outreach. Jindal’s remarks were laced with criticism of and laugh lines at the expense of Democrats, such as “Which of you wants to sign up to help manage the slow decline of the United States of America? I sure don’t. That’s what we have Democrats for.” He blasted the economic stimulus programs of President Barack Obama’s administration, invoking Solyndra when he said: “You can’t hire enough government workers or give enough taxpayer money to your friends who own green energy companies to create prosperity.” But he was also distinctly blunt with his appraisal of the GOP. Republicans have not only lost elections, he said, but lost issue arguments with Democrats. “At present we have one party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can expand it, and one party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can get it under control,” he said, referring first to Democrats and then Republicans. “It’s a terrible debate, it’s a debate fought entirely on our opponents’ terms.” Jindal allowed that his thoughts “may challenge your assumptions.” “We must shift the eye line and the ambition of our conservative movement away from managing government and toward the mission of growth,” he said. Republicans must move, he said, beyond a notion of “if we can just put together a spreadsheet and a power point and a TV ad, all will be well.” Jindal was elected last year to lead the Republican Governor’s Association. Priebus will be up for re-election as RNC chairman on Friday. “I don’t think you should use that whole ORCA thing for your election tomorrow,” Jindal joked, referring to the Romney campaign voter turnout technology which was reportedly plagued with glitches on Election Day. - CNN Political Director Mark Preston contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

66VX0nmYnIz4hKo2

test

kxyS71mLiBmMl1B2

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41724827

Myeshia Johnson: Widow of dead soldier hits out at Trump

The widow of a dead US soldier says Donald Trump could not remember her husband 's name when he phoned to offer condolences . Myeshia Johnson , widow of Sgt La David Johnson , told ABC News the president 's `` stumbling '' and tone `` made me cry '' . But President Trump said that he had used Sgt Johnson 's name `` without hesitation '' and described the conversation as `` very respectful '' . Sgt Johnson was killed in Niger by Islamist militants this month . President Trump 's call of condolence made headlines last week when Democratic congresswoman Frederica Wilson - who had heard it along with the family - accused him of insensitivity . Myeshia Johnson appeared to confirm Ms Wilson 's assertion that Mr Trump had told her her husband had known what he had signed up for when joining the military . `` The president said that he knew what he signed up for , but it hurts anyways ... It made me cry because I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said it , '' she said . `` He had my husband 's report in front of him , and that 's when he actually said La David . I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband 's name . '' `` If my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risks his life for our country , why ca n't you remember his name ? '' she added . The Donald Trump condolence-call story is a White House headache that shows no signs of abating . It started badly for the president , as he responded to a question about US military casualties in Niger by questioning how his predecessors had dealt with the families of war dead . It got worse , as the story morphed into one of an allegedly callous presidential call to Myeshia Johnson , a grieving widow of one of the US soldiers killed in Niger . Now it 's devolved into a he-said , she-said debate . Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson - who knew the slain soldier - and Ms Johnson and her family claim the president mishandled the call , while Mr Trump and Chief-of-Staff John Kelly insist everything went smoothly . Needless to say , arguing with a war widow is a no-win situation , regardless of who has facts on their side . President George W Bush notably withstood harsh criticism from some bereaved families during the Iraq War without swiping back . This president is different , which should come as a surprise to no one at this point . His choices could come at a high political price , however . President Trump defended himself on Twitter on Monday , writing : `` I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt La David Johnson , and spoke his name from beginning , without hesitation ! '' He has dismissed the account of the phone call given by Ms Wilson as `` totally fabricated '' . Speaking to reporters , he said : `` I did not say what she [ Ms Wilson ] said ... I had a very nice conversation . '' The White House said Mr Trump 's conversations with the families of dead servicemen were private . Sgt Johnson was one of four US special forces soldiers who died in an ambush in Niger . Mr Trump was criticised for not contacting the families of the dead servicemen right after they were killed , or publicly commenting on their deaths until 12 days later when asked by a reporter . He responded to this criticism by falsely claiming that his predecessor , Barack Obama , and other former US presidents had not called the relatives of dead service members . The row escalated when Mr Trump pointed out that his chief of staff , General John Kelly , after his son was killed in Afghanistan , did not receive a call from President Obama . The White House later said Mr Trump had spoken to the families of those killed in Niger but did not say when . On 4 October , it was reported that three US soldiers on a reconnaissance patrol had been killed and two others wounded in an ambush near the West African nation 's border with Mali . Two days later , the body of Sgt Johnson was found by Nigerien forces , said the US military , making him the fourth American to die in the attack . General Joseph Dunford , Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , said on Monday the Niger attackers had launched the ambush using small arms , rockets and machine guns . He said the initial investigation points to local tribal fighters associated with the so-called Islamic State being the culprits . Some reports suggest up to 50 militants may have ambushed the group . After an hour of battle , the team requested support , Gen Dunford said . It is unclear why it took them so long to call for back-up . Within another hour , French Mirage jets arrived . Later in the afternoon , French attack helicopters and a Nigerian quick reaction force turned up . There are 800 US troops in Niger , more than in any other African nation , said Gen Dunford . They are training local forces to take on Islamist militants , he added . But the level of the deployment seemed to be news to some US congressmen . At least three senators said on Monday they did not know so many American soldiers were in Niger . Republican Senator Lindsey Graham , who sits on the armed services committee , admitted he had `` little insight on why they [ the US troops ] were there and what they were doing '' .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How one phone call has sparked uproar The widow of a dead US soldier says Donald Trump could not remember her husband's name when he phoned to offer condolences. Myeshia Johnson, widow of Sgt La David Johnson, told ABC News the president's "stumbling" and tone "made me cry". But President Trump said that he had used Sgt Johnson's name "without hesitation" and described the conversation as "very respectful". Sgt Johnson was killed in Niger by Islamist militants this month. President Trump's call of condolence made headlines last week when Democratic congresswoman Frederica Wilson - who had heard it along with the family - accused him of insensitivity. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump war widow row 'lowers presidency' Myeshia Johnson appeared to confirm Ms Wilson's assertion that Mr Trump had told her her husband had known what he had signed up for when joining the military. "The president said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyways... It made me cry because I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said it," she said. "He had my husband's report in front of him, and that's when he actually said La David. I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband's name." "If my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risks his life for our country, why can't you remember his name?" she added. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Myeshia Johnson wept on her husband's coffin at his funeral in Hollywood, Florida No-win situation By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington The Donald Trump condolence-call story is a White House headache that shows no signs of abating. It started badly for the president, as he responded to a question about US military casualties in Niger by questioning how his predecessors had dealt with the families of war dead. It got worse, as the story morphed into one of an allegedly callous presidential call to Myeshia Johnson, a grieving widow of one of the US soldiers killed in Niger. Now it's devolved into a he-said, she-said debate. Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson - who knew the slain soldier - and Ms Johnson and her family claim the president mishandled the call, while Mr Trump and Chief-of-Staff John Kelly insist everything went smoothly. Needless to say, arguing with a war widow is a no-win situation, regardless of who has facts on their side. President George W Bush notably withstood harsh criticism from some bereaved families during the Iraq War without swiping back. This president is different, which should come as a surprise to no one at this point. His choices could come at a high political price, however. Read more: Five reasons Trump's widow story stings How did Trump respond? President Trump defended himself on Twitter on Monday, writing: "I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt La David Johnson, and spoke his name from beginning, without hesitation!" He has dismissed the account of the phone call given by Ms Wilson as "totally fabricated". Speaking to reporters, he said: "I did not say what she [Ms Wilson] said... I had a very nice conversation." The White House said Mr Trump's conversations with the families of dead servicemen were private. How did this row begin? Sgt Johnson was one of four US special forces soldiers who died in an ambush in Niger. Mr Trump was criticised for not contacting the families of the dead servicemen right after they were killed, or publicly commenting on their deaths until 12 days later when asked by a reporter. He responded to this criticism by falsely claiming that his predecessor, Barack Obama, and other former US presidents had not called the relatives of dead service members. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump denigrates Obama over false fallen soldier claim The row escalated when Mr Trump pointed out that his chief of staff, General John Kelly, after his son was killed in Afghanistan, did not receive a call from President Obama. The White House later said Mr Trump had spoken to the families of those killed in Niger but did not say when. What happened in Niger? On 4 October, it was reported that three US soldiers on a reconnaissance patrol had been killed and two others wounded in an ambush near the West African nation's border with Mali. Two days later, the body of Sgt Johnson was found by Nigerien forces, said the US military, making him the fourth American to die in the attack. General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Monday the Niger attackers had launched the ambush using small arms, rockets and machine guns. He said the initial investigation points to local tribal fighters associated with the so-called Islamic State being the culprits. Some reports suggest up to 50 militants may have ambushed the group. After an hour of battle, the team requested support, Gen Dunford said. It is unclear why it took them so long to call for back-up. Within another hour, French Mirage jets arrived. Later in the afternoon, French attack helicopters and a Nigerian quick reaction force turned up. What are US troops doing in Niger? There are 800 US troops in Niger, more than in any other African nation, said Gen Dunford. They are training local forces to take on Islamist militants, he added. But the level of the deployment seemed to be news to some US congressmen. At least three senators said on Monday they did not know so many American soldiers were in Niger. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the armed services committee, admitted he had "little insight on why they [the US troops] were there and what they were doing".

www.bbc.com

center

kxyS71mLiBmMl1B2

test

7hGnOvWAJ8TVGfAP

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/27/white-house-official-sues-nyt-alleges-colluded-with-schiff-to-leak-false-info-to-fuel-impeachment-probe/

White House Official Sues NYT: Alleges ‘Colluded with Schiff’ to Leak ‘False’ Info to Fuel Impeachment Probe

2019-11-27

Edwin Mora

The New York Times allegedly “ colluded , collaborated , and conspired ” with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) to leak false information from a closed-door deposition to harm President Donald Trump and advance the “ impeachment inquisition , ” according to claims contained in a defamation lawsuit filed Wednesday by a senior Trump White House official . White House official Kash Patel , who is a senior counterterrorism official on the National Security Council ( NSC ) , filed the lawsuit in a Virginia court . In it he claims Schiff leaked allegedly false information from the October 14 closed-door deposition by Dr. Fiona Hill , a former NSC official . Hill ’ s deposition was supposed to be closed to the public and even many lawmakers . Patel filed a similar lawsuit against Politico for “ working in concert ” with Schiff to leak allegedly false information from closed-door depositions . In her November 21 public testimony , Hill accused the Democrats of mischaracterizing her comments about Patel , undermining the Politico stories gleaned from leaks from Schiff , the chief impeachment inquisitor . Patel is a former staffer to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , Rep. Devin Nunes ( R-CA ) , who later moved to the White House in the NSC to advise the president on national security and intelligence matters . On Wednesday , Patel filed the defamation suit in Virginia ’ s Circuit Court of Fairfax against the Times and Adam Goldman , both identified as defendants . Patel accuses the defendants of defaming him by working with Schiff and members of his staff to disseminate a false story about him from Hill ’ s testimony . In the lawsuit , Patel , who identifies himself as Kash , alleges : Between October 14 , 2019 and November 8 , 2019 , Goldman and the Times colluded , collaborated and conspired with Schiff to defame Kash . Schiff , or members of his staff or aides acting at his direction , leaked to Goldman the closed-door testimony that Hill gave in the subfloor of the Capitol Visitor Center . The leaks occurred in real-time . Schiff leaked the testimony to Goldman because Schiff knew that it would be a violation of House Rules and Committee Rules for Schiff to publish the substance of the testimony himself . The joint collaborative purpose of the leaks was to publish Hill ’ s false and defamatory statements , including Hill ’ s egregious personal attacks on Kash , so as to further Schiff and the Times ’ interests in harming the President and advancing the impeachment inquisition . In furtherance of the conspiracy , Goldman secretly communicated with Schiff or his staff via encrypted email , including proton-mail , and/or encrypted messaging , including Signal . Based on the leaks , Goldman ’ s report for the Times alleged that Patel was misrepresenting himself to Trump as a Ukraine director during secret meetings , something by the NSC official . Similar to the case involving Politico , Patel stressed that Goldman and the Times worked “ in concert ” with Schiff and his staff to willfully defame him , noting in the lawsuit : Defendants made the false statements with actual or constructive knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false . Defendants acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth for the following reasons : a . Defendants intentionally employed a scheme or artifice to defame Kash with the intent to undermine the President ’ s confidence in Kash and to further Schiff ’ s impeachment inquisition . Defendants acted in concert with Schiff to accomplish an unlawful purpose through unlawful means , without regard for Kash ’ s rights and interests . b . Defendants knew that Kash did not engage in the unlawful and salacious behavior described in the NYT Article . Defendants relied on sources that were known to be inherently unreliable . Defendants fabricated statements . They made up statements out of whole cloth . … f. Defendants abandoned all journalistic integrity and violated their own code of ethics in order to further the conspiracy with Schiff . Defendants did not seek truth ; did not report truth ; did not minimize harm ; did not act independently ; and they most certainly were not transparent . The New York Times has “ refused to retract or clarify their false and defamatory ” reports , Patel notes . Patel is seeking the sum of $ 44,600,000 or more for the defamation he suffered and “ actual damages , including , but not limited to , insult , pain , embarrassment , humiliation , mental suffering , injury to his reputation , special damages , costs , and other out-of-pocket expenses . ” He is also seeking $ 350,000 for punitive damages . Patel is demanding trial by jury . ███ highlighted the lies about Patel disseminated in an October 23 story by the Times written by Julian Barnes , Adam Goldman , and Nicholas Fandos .

The New York Times allegedly “colluded, collaborated, and conspired” with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) to leak false information from a closed-door deposition to harm President Donald Trump and advance the “impeachment inquisition,” according to claims contained in a defamation lawsuit filed Wednesday by a senior Trump White House official. White House official Kash Patel, who is a senior counterterrorism official on the National Security Council (NSC), filed the lawsuit in a Virginia court. In it he claims Schiff leaked allegedly false information from the October 14 closed-door deposition by Dr. Fiona Hill, a former NSC official. Hill’s deposition was supposed to be closed to the public and even many lawmakers. Patel filed a similar lawsuit against Politico for “working in concert” with Schiff to leak allegedly false information from closed-door depositions. In her November 21 public testimony, Hill accused the Democrats of mischaracterizing her comments about Patel, undermining the Politico stories gleaned from leaks from Schiff, the chief impeachment inquisitor. Patel is a former staffer to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who later moved to the White House in the NSC to advise the president on national security and intelligence matters. On Wednesday, Patel filed the defamation suit in Virginia’s Circuit Court of Fairfax against the Times and Adam Goldman, both identified as defendants. Patel accuses the defendants of defaming him by working with Schiff and members of his staff to disseminate a false story about him from Hill’s testimony. In the lawsuit, Patel, who identifies himself as Kash, alleges: Between October 14, 2019 and November 8, 2019, Goldman and the Times colluded, collaborated and conspired with Schiff to defame Kash. Schiff, or members of his staff or aides acting at his direction, leaked to Goldman the closed-door testimony that Hill gave in the subfloor of the Capitol Visitor Center. The leaks occurred in real-time. Schiff leaked the testimony to Goldman because Schiff knew that it would be a violation of House Rules and Committee Rules for Schiff to publish the substance of the testimony himself. The joint collaborative purpose of the leaks was to publish Hill’s false and defamatory statements, including Hill’s egregious personal attacks on Kash, so as to further Schiff and the Times’ interests in harming the President and advancing the impeachment inquisition. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Goldman secretly communicated with Schiff or his staff via encrypted email, including proton-mail, and/or encrypted messaging, including Signal. Based on the leaks, Goldman’s report for the Times alleged that Patel was misrepresenting himself to Trump as a Ukraine director during secret meetings, something by the NSC official. Similar to the case involving Politico, Patel stressed that Goldman and the Times worked “in concert” with Schiff and his staff to willfully defame him, noting in the lawsuit: Defendants made the false statements with actual or constructive knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false. Defendants acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth for the following reasons: a. Defendants intentionally employed a scheme or artifice to defame Kash with the intent to undermine the President’s confidence in Kash and to further Schiff’s impeachment inquisition. Defendants acted in concert with Schiff to accomplish an unlawful purpose through unlawful means, without regard for Kash’s rights and interests. b. Defendants knew that Kash did not engage in the unlawful and salacious behavior described in the NYT Article. Defendants relied on sources that were known to be inherently unreliable. Defendants fabricated statements. They made up statements out of whole cloth. … f. Defendants abandoned all journalistic integrity and violated their own code of ethics in order to further the conspiracy with Schiff. Defendants did not seek truth; did not report truth; did not minimize harm; did not act independently; and they most certainly were not transparent. The New York Times has “refused to retract or clarify their false and defamatory” reports, Patel notes. Patel is seeking the sum of $44,600,000 or more for the defamation he suffered and “actual damages, including, but not limited to, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, injury to his reputation, special damages, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses.” He is also seeking $350,000 for punitive damages. Patel is demanding trial by jury. Breitbart News highlighted the lies about Patel disseminated in an October 23 story by the Times written by Julian Barnes, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos.

www.breitbart.com

right

7hGnOvWAJ8TVGfAP

test

sZVoZlugtt4IvdH6

politics

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/8a0f4a471d19476383e665fc091d2847

Hunter Biden to step down from Chinese board

2019-10-13

Steve Peoples

FILE - In this Jan. 30 , 2010 , file photo , Vice President Joe Biden , left , with his son Hunter , right , at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington . Since the early days of the United States , leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members . Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain . ( AP Photo/Nick Wass , File ) FILE - In this Jan. 30 , 2010 , file photo , Vice President Joe Biden , left , with his son Hunter , right , at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington . Since the early days of the United States , leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members . Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain . ( AP Photo/Nick Wass , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — Facing intense scrutiny from President Donald Trump and his Republican allies , Hunter Biden said Sunday he will step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity firm at the end of the month as part of a pledge not to work on behalf of any foreign-owned companies should his father win the presidency . Biden , the 49-year-old son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden , revealed his plan in an internet post written by his attorney , George Mesires , who outlined a defense of the younger Biden ’ s work in Ukraine and China , which has emerged as one of Trump ’ s chief lines of attack against Hunter ’ s father despite no proof of impropriety . “ Hunter makes the following commitment : Under a Biden Administration , Hunter will readily comply with any and all guidelines or standards a President Biden may issue to address purported conflicts of interest , or the appearance of such conflicts , including any restrictions related to overseas business interests . In any event , Hunter will agree not to serve on boards of , or work on behalf of , foreign owned companies , ” Mesires wrote . He continued : “ He will continue to keep his father personally uninvolved in his business affairs , while availing himself as necessary and appropriate to the Office of the White House Counsel to help inform his application of the Biden Administration ’ s guidelines or standards to his business decision-making . ” Joe Biden , speaking to reporters after a union forum in suburban Des Moines , Iowa , said his son did not discuss that decision with him before posting the statement . “ No one has asserted my son did a single thing wrong , ” Biden added , pounding his finger into the podium , “ except a lying president . ” And Biden promised to bar his family members from occupying any office within the White House and said they won ’ t “ sit in meetings as if they are a Cabinet member. ” That was a jab at Trump , who taps daughter Ivanka and her husband , Jared Kushner , as advisers . Biden did not say if his pledge meant that Jill Biden , his wife , would not get the office traditionally assigned to first ladies , should he win . He further vowed that no one in his family will have “ any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or foreign country . ” Hunter Biden ’ s work overseas sits at the center of the House impeachment inquiry into Trump , who has admitted to asking foreign powers to investigate Hunter Biden ’ s business dealings abroad . The White House released a rough transcript of a call in which Trump asks Ukraine ’ s new president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy , to probe Biden ’ s family and Ukraine ’ s role in the 2016 election that put Trump in office . Trump has also encouraged China to dig into Hunter Biden ’ s work in that country , asserting without evidence that earned $ 1.5 billion from a “ sweetheart ” business deal there . The president ’ s personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , is also under increasing scrutiny for his efforts to dig into Hunter Biden ’ s business background . Late last week , two businessmen involved in Giuliani ’ s efforts to investigate Hunter Biden ’ s dealings in Ukraine were charged with federal campaign finance violations . Still , Republicans reacted to news of Hunter Biden ’ s decision to step away from the Chinese-backed BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. with deep skepticism . “ I think this is just another way to save a flailing campaign that ’ s going down , ” Georgia Rep. Doug Collins , the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee , said on Fox News Channel ’ s “ Sunday Morning Futures. ” ″He knows he ’ s in trouble and this is just another way to try and detract attention On the same show , White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Hunter Biden “ should have done this quite a while ago . ” Mesires noted repeatedly that there is no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden , despite intensifying attacks from Trump before the 2020 election . “ Despite extensive scrutiny , at no time has any law enforcement agency , either domestic or foreign , alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term , ” Mesires said in his Sunday post of Biden ’ s experience in Ukraine . The attorney wrote that Hunter Biden worked as an unpaid board member for BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. “ based on his interest in seeking ways to bring Chinese capital to international markets . ” “ To date , Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR ’ s board of directors , ” Mesires said . “ He has not received any return on his investment ; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest . ” One of Biden ’ s Democratic presidential rivals praised the move , noting that Trump ’ s children are openly trading on his name in business deals around the world while Trump occupies the Oval Office . “ I think it demonstrates the difference in standards relative to the White House , ” said Pete Buttigieg , the mayor of South Bend , Indiana . “ I mean , here you have Hunter Biden stepping down from a position in order to make sure , even though there ’ s been no accusation of wrongdoing — doing something just to make sure there ’ s not even the appearance of a conflict of interests , while , in the White House , the president of the United States is a walking conflict of interest , ” he said .

FILE - In this Jan. 30, 2010, file photo, Vice President Joe Biden, left, with his son Hunter, right, at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington. Since the early days of the United States, leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members. Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain. (AP Photo/Nick Wass, File) FILE - In this Jan. 30, 2010, file photo, Vice President Joe Biden, left, with his son Hunter, right, at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington. Since the early days of the United States, leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members. Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain. (AP Photo/Nick Wass, File) NEW YORK (AP) — Facing intense scrutiny from President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, Hunter Biden said Sunday he will step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity firm at the end of the month as part of a pledge not to work on behalf of any foreign-owned companies should his father win the presidency. Biden, the 49-year-old son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, revealed his plan in an internet post written by his attorney, George Mesires, who outlined a defense of the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine and China, which has emerged as one of Trump’s chief lines of attack against Hunter’s father despite no proof of impropriety. “Hunter makes the following commitment: Under a Biden Administration, Hunter will readily comply with any and all guidelines or standards a President Biden may issue to address purported conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, including any restrictions related to overseas business interests. In any event, Hunter will agree not to serve on boards of, or work on behalf of, foreign owned companies,” Mesires wrote. He continued: “He will continue to keep his father personally uninvolved in his business affairs, while availing himself as necessary and appropriate to the Office of the White House Counsel to help inform his application of the Biden Administration’s guidelines or standards to his business decision-making.” Joe Biden, speaking to reporters after a union forum in suburban Des Moines, Iowa, said his son did not discuss that decision with him before posting the statement. “No one has asserted my son did a single thing wrong,” Biden added, pounding his finger into the podium, “except a lying president.” And Biden promised to bar his family members from occupying any office within the White House and said they won’t “sit in meetings as if they are a Cabinet member.” That was a jab at Trump, who taps daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, as advisers. Biden did not say if his pledge meant that Jill Biden, his wife, would not get the office traditionally assigned to first ladies, should he win. He further vowed that no one in his family will have “any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or foreign country.” Hunter Biden’s work overseas sits at the center of the House impeachment inquiry into Trump, who has admitted to asking foreign powers to investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings abroad. The White House released a rough transcript of a call in which Trump asks Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to probe Biden’s family and Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election that put Trump in office. Trump has also encouraged China to dig into Hunter Biden’s work in that country, asserting without evidence that earned $1.5 billion from a “sweetheart” business deal there. The president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is also under increasing scrutiny for his efforts to dig into Hunter Biden’s business background. Late last week, two businessmen involved in Giuliani’s efforts to investigate Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine were charged with federal campaign finance violations. Still, Republicans reacted to news of Hunter Biden’s decision to step away from the Chinese-backed BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. with deep skepticism. “I think this is just another way to save a flailing campaign that’s going down,” Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” ″He knows he’s in trouble and this is just another way to try and detract attention On the same show, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Hunter Biden “should have done this quite a while ago.” Mesires noted repeatedly that there is no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden, despite intensifying attacks from Trump before the 2020 election. “Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term,” Mesires said in his Sunday post of Biden’s experience in Ukraine. The attorney wrote that Hunter Biden worked as an unpaid board member for BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. “based on his interest in seeking ways to bring Chinese capital to international markets.” “To date, Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR’s board of directors,” Mesires said. “He has not received any return on his investment; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest.” One of Biden’s Democratic presidential rivals praised the move, noting that Trump’s children are openly trading on his name in business deals around the world while Trump occupies the Oval Office. “I think it demonstrates the difference in standards relative to the White House,” said Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. “I mean, here you have Hunter Biden stepping down from a position in order to make sure, even though there’s been no accusation of wrongdoing — doing something just to make sure there’s not even the appearance of a conflict of interests, while, in the White House, the president of the United States is a walking conflict of interest,” he said.

www.apnews.com

center

sZVoZlugtt4IvdH6

test

y5hgiNZ6U7DY6JTF

politics

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/143be3c52d4746af8546ca6772754407/AP:-National-Enquirer's-safe-held-damaging-Trump-stories

National Enquirer hid damaging Trump stories in a safe

2018-08-23

Jeff Horwitz

In this Jan. 31 , 2014 photo , David Pecker , Chairman and CEO of American Media , addresses those attending the Shape & Men 's Fitness Super Bowl Party in New York . The Aug. 21 , 2018 plea deal reached by Donald Trump 's former attorney Michael Cohen has laid bare a relationship between the president and Pecker , whose company publishes the National Enquirer . Besides detailing tabloid 's involvement in payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal to keep quiet about alleged affairs with Trump , court papers showed how David Pecker , a longtime friend of the president , offered to help Trump stave off negative stories during the 2016 campaign . ( Marion Curtis via AP ) In this Jan. 31 , 2014 photo , David Pecker , Chairman and CEO of American Media , addresses those attending the Shape & Men 's Fitness Super Bowl Party in New York . The Aug. 21 , 2018 plea deal reached by Donald Trump 's former attorney Michael Cohen has laid bare a relationship between the president and Pecker , whose company publishes the National Enquirer . Besides detailing tabloid 's involvement in payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal to keep quiet about alleged affairs with Trump , court papers showed how David Pecker , a longtime friend of the president , offered to help Trump stave off negative stories during the 2016 campaign . ( Marion Curtis via AP ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election , people familiar with the arrangement told The ███ . The detail came as several media outlets reported on Thursday that federal prosecutors had granted immunity to National Enquirer chief David Pecker , potentially laying bare his efforts to protect his longtime friend Trump . Trump ’ s former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty this week to campaign finance violations alleging he , Trump and the tabloid were involved in buying the silence of a porn actress and a Playboy model who alleged affairs with Trump . Five people familiar with the National Enquirer ’ s parent company , American Media Inc. , who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because they signed non-disclosure agreements , said the safe was a great source of power for Pecker , the company ’ s CEO . The Trump records were stored alongside similar documents pertaining to other celebrities ’ catch-and-kill deals , in which exclusive rights to people ’ s stories were bought with no intention of publishing to keep them out of the news . By keeping celebrities ’ embarrassing secrets , the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return . But after The Wall Street Journal initially published the first details of Playboy model Karen McDougal ’ s catch-and-kill deal shortly before the 2016 election , those assets became a liability . Fearful that the documents might be used against American Media , Pecker and the company ’ s chief content officer , Dylan Howard , removed them from the safe in the weeks before Trump ’ s inauguration , according to one person directly familiar with the events . It was unclear whether the documents were destroyed or simply were moved to a location known to fewer people . Jerry George , a longtime Enquirer reporter who left the publication in 2013 , said the practice of catch and kill took root at the Enquirer under Pecker . Though George had no personal knowledge of Trump-specific catch and kills , he said that AMI generally paid hush money only if it believed it had something to gain . “ It ’ s ‘ I did this for you , ’ now what can you do for me , ” George said . “ They always got something in return . ” Catch and kills were loathed by the National Enquirer ’ s reporters , he said , because they robbed the publication of juicy stories . American Media did not immediately respond to a request for comment . Pecker ’ s immunity deal was first reported Thursday by Vanity Fair and The Wall Street Journal , citing anonymous sources . Vanity Fair reported that Howard also was granted immunity . Court papers in the Cohen case say Pecker “ offered to help deal with negative stories about ( Trump ’ s ) relationships with women by , among other things , assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided . ” The Journal reported Pecker shared with prosecutors details about payments that Cohen says Trump directed in the weeks and months before the election to buy the silence of McDougal and another woman alleging an affair , porn star Stormy Daniels . Daniels was paid $ 130,000 , and McDougal was paid $ 150,000 . While Trump denies the affairs , his account of his knowledge of the payments has shifted . In April , Trump denied he knew anything about the Daniels payment . He told Fox News in an interview aired Thursday that he knew about payments “ later on . ” In July , Cohen released an audio tape in which he and Trump discussed plans to buy McDougal ’ s story from the Enquirer . Such a purchase was necessary , they suggested , to prevent Trump from having to permanently rely on a tight relationship with the tabloid . “ You never know where that company — you never know what he ’ s gon na be — ” Cohen says . While Pecker is cooperating with federal prosecutors now , American Media previously declined to participate in congressional inquiries . Last March , in response to a letter from a group of House Democrats about the Daniels and McDougal payments , American Media general counsel Cameron Stracher declined to provide any documents , writing that the company was “ exempt ” from U.S. campaign finance laws because it is a news publisher and it was “ confident ” it had complied with all tax laws . He also rebuffed any suggestion that America Media Inc. , or AMI , had leverage over the president because of its catch-and-kill practices . “ AMI states unequivocally that any suggestion that it would seek to ‘ extort ’ the President of the United States through the exercise of its editorial discretion is outrageous , offensive , and wholly without merit , ” Stracher wrote in a letter obtained by The ███ . Former Enquirer employees who spoke to the AP said that negative stories about Trump were dead on arrival dating back more than a decade when he starred on NBC ’ s reality show “ The Apprentice . ” In 2010 , at Cohen ’ s urging , the National Enquirer began promoting a potential Trump presidential candidacy , referring readers to a pro-Trump website Cohen helped create . With Cohen ’ s involvement , the publication began questioning President Barack Obama ’ s birthplace and American citizenship in print , an effort that Trump promoted for several years , former staffers said . The Enquirer endorsed Trump for president in 2016 , the first time it had ever officially backed a candidate . In the news pages , Trump ’ s coverage was so favorable that the New Yorker magazine said the Enquirer embraced him “ with sycophantic fervor . ” Positive headlines for Trump , a Republican , were matched by negative stories about his opponents , including Hillary Clinton , a Democrat : An Enquirer front page from 2015 said “ Hillary : 6 Months to Live ” and accompanied the headline with a picture of an unsmiling Clinton with bags under her eyes .

In this Jan. 31, 2014 photo, David Pecker, Chairman and CEO of American Media, addresses those attending the Shape & Men's Fitness Super Bowl Party in New York. The Aug. 21, 2018 plea deal reached by Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen has laid bare a relationship between the president and Pecker, whose company publishes the National Enquirer. Besides detailing tabloid's involvement in payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal to keep quiet about alleged affairs with Trump, court papers showed how David Pecker, a longtime friend of the president, offered to help Trump stave off negative stories during the 2016 campaign. (Marion Curtis via AP) In this Jan. 31, 2014 photo, David Pecker, Chairman and CEO of American Media, addresses those attending the Shape & Men's Fitness Super Bowl Party in New York. The Aug. 21, 2018 plea deal reached by Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen has laid bare a relationship between the president and Pecker, whose company publishes the National Enquirer. Besides detailing tabloid's involvement in payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal to keep quiet about alleged affairs with Trump, court papers showed how David Pecker, a longtime friend of the president, offered to help Trump stave off negative stories during the 2016 campaign. (Marion Curtis via AP) WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told The Associated Press. The detail came as several media outlets reported on Thursday that federal prosecutors had granted immunity to National Enquirer chief David Pecker, potentially laying bare his efforts to protect his longtime friend Trump. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty this week to campaign finance violations alleging he, Trump and the tabloid were involved in buying the silence of a porn actress and a Playboy model who alleged affairs with Trump. Five people familiar with the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because they signed non-disclosure agreements, said the safe was a great source of power for Pecker, the company’s CEO. The Trump records were stored alongside similar documents pertaining to other celebrities’ catch-and-kill deals, in which exclusive rights to people’s stories were bought with no intention of publishing to keep them out of the news. By keeping celebrities’ embarrassing secrets, the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return. But after The Wall Street Journal initially published the first details of Playboy model Karen McDougal’s catch-and-kill deal shortly before the 2016 election, those assets became a liability. Fearful that the documents might be used against American Media, Pecker and the company’s chief content officer, Dylan Howard, removed them from the safe in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration, according to one person directly familiar with the events. It was unclear whether the documents were destroyed or simply were moved to a location known to fewer people. Jerry George, a longtime Enquirer reporter who left the publication in 2013, said the practice of catch and kill took root at the Enquirer under Pecker. Though George had no personal knowledge of Trump-specific catch and kills, he said that AMI generally paid hush money only if it believed it had something to gain. “It’s ‘I did this for you,’ now what can you do for me,” George said. “They always got something in return.” Catch and kills were loathed by the National Enquirer’s reporters, he said, because they robbed the publication of juicy stories. American Media did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Pecker’s immunity deal was first reported Thursday by Vanity Fair and The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources. Vanity Fair reported that Howard also was granted immunity. Court papers in the Cohen case say Pecker “offered to help deal with negative stories about (Trump’s) relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.” The Journal reported Pecker shared with prosecutors details about payments that Cohen says Trump directed in the weeks and months before the election to buy the silence of McDougal and another woman alleging an affair, porn star Stormy Daniels. Daniels was paid $130,000, and McDougal was paid $150,000. While Trump denies the affairs, his account of his knowledge of the payments has shifted. In April, Trump denied he knew anything about the Daniels payment. He told Fox News in an interview aired Thursday that he knew about payments “later on.” In July, Cohen released an audio tape in which he and Trump discussed plans to buy McDougal’s story from the Enquirer. Such a purchase was necessary, they suggested, to prevent Trump from having to permanently rely on a tight relationship with the tabloid. “You never know where that company — you never know what he’s gonna be —” Cohen says. “David gets hit by a truck,” Trump says. “Correct,” Cohen replies. “So, I’m all over that.” While Pecker is cooperating with federal prosecutors now, American Media previously declined to participate in congressional inquiries. Last March, in response to a letter from a group of House Democrats about the Daniels and McDougal payments, American Media general counsel Cameron Stracher declined to provide any documents, writing that the company was “exempt” from U.S. campaign finance laws because it is a news publisher and it was “confident” it had complied with all tax laws. He also rebuffed any suggestion that America Media Inc., or AMI, had leverage over the president because of its catch-and-kill practices. “AMI states unequivocally that any suggestion that it would seek to ‘extort’ the President of the United States through the exercise of its editorial discretion is outrageous, offensive, and wholly without merit,” Stracher wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. Former Enquirer employees who spoke to the AP said that negative stories about Trump were dead on arrival dating back more than a decade when he starred on NBC’s reality show “The Apprentice.” In 2010, at Cohen’s urging, the National Enquirer began promoting a potential Trump presidential candidacy, referring readers to a pro-Trump website Cohen helped create. With Cohen’s involvement, the publication began questioning President Barack Obama’s birthplace and American citizenship in print, an effort that Trump promoted for several years, former staffers said. The Enquirer endorsed Trump for president in 2016, the first time it had ever officially backed a candidate. In the news pages, Trump’s coverage was so favorable that the New Yorker magazine said the Enquirer embraced him “with sycophantic fervor.” Positive headlines for Trump, a Republican, were matched by negative stories about his opponents, including Hillary Clinton, a Democrat: An Enquirer front page from 2015 said “Hillary: 6 Months to Live” and accompanied the headline with a picture of an unsmiling Clinton with bags under her eyes. ___ Associated Press writers Chad Day and Jake Pearson contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

y5hgiNZ6U7DY6JTF

test

y4jI6oOPwP4U2sGy

fbi

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cohen/ex-trump-lawyer-cohens-emails-were-sought-in-mid-2017-filings-idUSKCN1R01S0

Ex-Trump lawyer Cohen's emails were sought in mid-2017: filings

2019-03-19

Ginger Gibson

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK ( ███ ) - U.S. investigators sought warrants to read Michael Cohen ’ s emails in July 2017 , nine months before the FBI raided the home and office of President Donald Trump ’ s former personal lawyer , according to documents made public on Tuesday . The requests were made six months into Trump ’ s presidency . Emails were sought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s office as well as by the FBI , dating back as far as June 2015 , according to the documents . Mueller is investigating Russia ’ s role in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination with Trump campaign members . The nearly 900 pages of documents released by a federal judge in New York provide more detailed accounts of Cohen ’ s financial relationships than previously known . Cohen had been Trump ’ s personal lawyer and self-described fixer for more than a decade , but began cooperating with federal investigators soon after the April 2018 raids on his home , office and hotel room . He later pleaded guilty in separate prosecutions to lying to Congress , bank fraud and campaign finance violations . The latter included paying hush money to silence two women who said they had sexual encounters with Trump . Cohen is scheduled to begin a three-year prison term on May 6 . Trump has denied having had sexual relationships with the two women : Stormy Daniels , the porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford , and former Playboy model Karen McDougal . Much of the discussion about campaign finance issues in the released documents was redacted . They were released after U.S. District Judge William Pauley on Monday ordered prosecutors to make redacted versions public , in response to requests by news media organizations . Lanny Davis , a lawyer for Cohen , said in a statement on Monday night that the document release “ only furthers his interest in continuing to cooperate and providing information and the truth about Donald Trump and the Trump organization to law enforcement and Congress . ” Since pleading guilty , Cohen has publicly turned on Trump , telling the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on Feb. 27 that his former boss was a “ racist , ” “ con man ” and “ cheat . ” In his congressional testimony , Cohen said he was “ ashamed of my weakness and misplaced loyalty , of the things I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him . ” Cohen began working for Trump in 2007 . The Republican president in December called his former lawyer “ a rat ” and in January said Cohen was “ lying to reduce his jail time . ” Moscow has denied meddling in the 2016 election , though U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that it interfered to help Trump win . Trump has denied that his campaign colluded with Russia , and described the Mueller probe as a political witch hunt . The newly released documents showed how the FBI made extensive use of its access to Cohen ’ s Apple iCloud account , which allowed him to coordinate his work across such devices as an iPhone , iPad Mini and laptop . FBI agents said they located a hotel room in New York ’ s Loews Regency Hotel where Cohen was staying by using a device known as a Triggerfish that mimics cell phone towers to find a specific device . The bank fraud case stemmed from Cohen dealings unrelated to Trump , and suggest that his financial situation was dire . According to the documents , Cohen was in default by December 2017 on more than $ 20 million in loans backed by New York taxicab medallions he owned . The FBI believed Cohen misrepresented his finances to banks he owed money to . According to the documents , Cohen concealed fees being paid to Essential Consultants , a firm he controlled , for political consulting , including from international clients with issues pending before the Trump administration . Among the payments Cohen was believed to have received was $ 600,000 from AT & T Inc for consulting about “ political issues , including net neutrality , the merger between AT & T and Time Warner and tax reform . ” Another $ 583,333 came from an investment firm controlled by Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg , the documents showed . Republicans in Congress have criticized Cohen ’ s consulting work , arguing he should have made his contracts public through disclosures . The warrant does not appear to detail any violations to lobbying disclosure laws . Cohen also used Essential Consultants to pay hush money to Daniels .

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. investigators sought warrants to read Michael Cohen’s emails in July 2017, nine months before the FBI raided the home and office of President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, according to documents made public on Tuesday. The requests were made six months into Trump’s presidency. Emails were sought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office as well as by the FBI, dating back as far as June 2015, according to the documents. Mueller is investigating Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination with Trump campaign members. The nearly 900 pages of documents released by a federal judge in New York provide more detailed accounts of Cohen’s financial relationships than previously known. Cohen had been Trump’s personal lawyer and self-described fixer for more than a decade, but began cooperating with federal investigators soon after the April 2018 raids on his home, office and hotel room. He later pleaded guilty in separate prosecutions to lying to Congress, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. The latter included paying hush money to silence two women who said they had sexual encounters with Trump. Cohen is scheduled to begin a three-year prison term on May 6. Trump has denied having had sexual relationships with the two women: Stormy Daniels, the porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Much of the discussion about campaign finance issues in the released documents was redacted. They were released after U.S. District Judge William Pauley on Monday ordered prosecutors to make redacted versions public, in response to requests by news media organizations. Lanny Davis, a lawyer for Cohen, said in a statement on Monday night that the document release “only furthers his interest in continuing to cooperate and providing information and the truth about Donald Trump and the Trump organization to law enforcement and Congress.” Since pleading guilty, Cohen has publicly turned on Trump, telling the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on Feb. 27 that his former boss was a “racist,” “con man” and “cheat.” In his congressional testimony, Cohen said he was “ashamed of my weakness and misplaced loyalty, of the things I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him.” Cohen began working for Trump in 2007. The Republican president in December called his former lawyer “a rat” and in January said Cohen was “lying to reduce his jail time.” Moscow has denied meddling in the 2016 election, though U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that it interfered to help Trump win. Trump has denied that his campaign colluded with Russia, and described the Mueller probe as a political witch hunt. The newly released documents showed how the FBI made extensive use of its access to Cohen’s Apple iCloud account, which allowed him to coordinate his work across such devices as an iPhone, iPad Mini and laptop. FBI agents said they located a hotel room in New York’s Loews Regency Hotel where Cohen was staying by using a device known as a Triggerfish that mimics cell phone towers to find a specific device. The bank fraud case stemmed from Cohen dealings unrelated to Trump, and suggest that his financial situation was dire. According to the documents, Cohen was in default by December 2017 on more than $20 million in loans backed by New York taxicab medallions he owned. The FBI believed Cohen misrepresented his finances to banks he owed money to. According to the documents, Cohen concealed fees being paid to Essential Consultants, a firm he controlled, for political consulting, including from international clients with issues pending before the Trump administration. Among the payments Cohen was believed to have received was $600,000 from AT&T Inc for consulting about “political issues, including net neutrality, the merger between AT&T and Time Warner and tax reform.” FILE PHOTO: Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney of U.S. President Donald Trump, talks to reporters as he departs after testifying before a closed House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 6, 2019. REUTERS/Jim Young Another $583,333 came from an investment firm controlled by Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg, the documents showed. Republicans in Congress have criticized Cohen’s consulting work, arguing he should have made his contracts public through disclosures. The warrant does not appear to detail any violations to lobbying disclosure laws. Cohen also used Essential Consultants to pay hush money to Daniels.

www.reuters.com

center

y4jI6oOPwP4U2sGy

test

S7vIaf9De7WXnCPp

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/28/lawmakers-question-whether-holder-gave-false-testimony/?hpt=po_c2

Lawmakers question whether Holder gave false testimony

2013-05-28

( CNN ) - The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee is looking into whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath earlier this month when he said he was n't involved in the `` potential prosecution of the press , '' two Republican committee sources confirmed Tuesday . Though he testified in a May 15 Congressional hearing that he 's `` never heard of '' the press being potentially charged for obtaining leaked material , it has since been reported that he signed off on the Justice Department 's decision to seek a search warrant in 2010 for Fox News reporter James Rosen 's private e-mails as part of a leak probe . Holder 's testimony this month came amid criticism of the Justice Department 's investigation of Associated Press phone records as part of alleged leaks by government officials . During the hearing , Rep. Hank Johnson , D-Georgia , sought clarification from Holder , asking whether there was a law that would allow authorities to prosecute those who published leaked material . In response , Holder said `` you 've got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press '' for doing so . Johnson pointed to the Espionage Act of 1917 , saying it would authorize the prosecution of anyone who disclosed classified information . The Obama administration has used the law multiple times to target suspected leakers , but it has not used the law to prosecute journalists . `` With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – that is not something I 've ever been involved in , heard of , would think would be wise policy , '' Holder said at the hearing . `` The focus should be on those people who break their oaths and put the American people at risk , '' he added . `` Not reporters who gather this information . That should not be the focus of these investigations . '' But given his knowledge of the 2010 probe into who allegedly leaked a classified document to Rosen–a story that broke last week–his comments from the May 15 hearing are now being questioned by the House Judiciary Committee , as first reported by The Hill . An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen 's e-mails said there was probable cause the reporter had broken the law when he allegedly received a leaked classified report from a State Department contractor . The affidavit described Rosen as potentially being an `` aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator '' to the crime of disclosing government secrets , opening up criticism that the Obama administration was targeting Rosen . However , the Justice Department did not prosecute Rosen , nor did it file charges against him . While he was listed as a `` co-conspirator , '' that often times does not mean he would be considered a target . Rep. John Conyers , the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee , defended Holder against the committee 's decision to look into the attorney general 's comments . `` I believe Attorney General Holder , who answered questions posed to him for over four hours , was forthright and did not mislead the Committee , '' the Michigan Democrat said . `` Certainly , there are policy disagreements as to how the First Amendment should apply to these series of leak investigations being conducted by the Justice Department , and that is and should be an area for the Committee to consider , '' he added . `` However , there is no need to turn a policy disagreement into allegations of misconduct . '' Facing questions over the administration 's leak investigations , President Obama announced Thursday he has directed Holder to review federal guidelines for investigating leaks and reporters . That review will include assembling a panel of media representatives . A Justice Department source says Attorney General Eric Holder will begin meetings with media representatives late this week to discuss how to deal with leak cases involving reporters . The source said Holder is expected to hold separate meetings with television and newspaper executives . The meetings could begin as early as Thursday . The White House also publicly supported this month a law pushed by Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-New York , that would protect reporters under leak investigations . Holder said Tuesday he is `` not satisfied '' with some of the guidelines on how prosecutors conduct leak investigations involving reporters . `` We 're going to have a real frank , good conversation about this , '' Holder told reporters following a naturalization ceremony for new U.S. citizens . `` And I think , we 're going to make some changes because I 'm not satisfied with where we are . '' According to an article in the Daily Beast , aides to Holder said the attorney general is `` beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse '' because he signed off on the search warrant for Rosen . Fox expressed outrage that Rosen was characterized as a possible co-conspirator in the leak case against former State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim . Kim allegedly leaked to Rosen a classified intelligence report about North Korea . His case has not yet gone to trial . Court documents also indicate prosecutors sought phone records for some Fox phone lines . In the Associated Press case , the Justice Department obtained phone records for 20 phone lines as part of its investigation into a leak about a 2012 Yemen bomb plot . Holder recused himself in that investigation because investigators had interviewed him about the leak . His deputy attorney general authorized seeking the AP phone records , but there was no suggestion AP reporters broke laws . Holder and other officials have said they are looking for the leakers and not targeting reporters . `` While both of these cases were handled within the law and according to Justice Department guidelines they are reminders of the unique role the news media plays in our democratic system , and signal that both our laws and guidelines need to be updated , '' Holder told the Daily Beast in an interview . Holder said it 's an opportunity to `` consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press . ''

6 years ago Updated Wednesday 5/29 at 9:05 a.m. ET (CNN) - The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee is looking into whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath earlier this month when he said he wasn't involved in the "potential prosecution of the press," two Republican committee sources confirmed Tuesday. Though he testified in a May 15 Congressional hearing that he's "never heard of" the press being potentially charged for obtaining leaked material, it has since been reported that he signed off on the Justice Department's decision to seek a search warrant in 2010 for Fox News reporter James Rosen's private e-mails as part of a leak probe. Holder's testimony this month came amid criticism of the Justice Department's investigation of Associated Press phone records as part of alleged leaks by government officials. During the hearing, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, sought clarification from Holder, asking whether there was a law that would allow authorities to prosecute those who published leaked material. In response, Holder said "you've got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press" for doing so. Johnson pointed to the Espionage Act of 1917, saying it would authorize the prosecution of anyone who disclosed classified information. The Obama administration has used the law multiple times to target suspected leakers, but it has not used the law to prosecute journalists. "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – that is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, would think would be wise policy," Holder said at the hearing. "The focus should be on those people who break their oaths and put the American people at risk," he added. "Not reporters who gather this information. That should not be the focus of these investigations." But given his knowledge of the 2010 probe into who allegedly leaked a classified document to Rosen–a story that broke last week–his comments from the May 15 hearing are now being questioned by the House Judiciary Committee, as first reported by The Hill. An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen's e-mails said there was probable cause the reporter had broken the law when he allegedly received a leaked classified report from a State Department contractor. The affidavit described Rosen as potentially being an "aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" to the crime of disclosing government secrets, opening up criticism that the Obama administration was targeting Rosen. However, the Justice Department did not prosecute Rosen, nor did it file charges against him. While he was listed as a "co-conspirator," that often times does not mean he would be considered a target. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, defended Holder against the committee's decision to look into the attorney general's comments. "I believe Attorney General Holder, who answered questions posed to him for over four hours, was forthright and did not mislead the Committee," the Michigan Democrat said. "Certainly, there are policy disagreements as to how the First Amendment should apply to these series of leak investigations being conducted by the Justice Department, and that is and should be an area for the Committee to consider," he added. "However, there is no need to turn a policy disagreement into allegations of misconduct." Facing questions over the administration's leak investigations, President Obama announced Thursday he has directed Holder to review federal guidelines for investigating leaks and reporters. That review will include assembling a panel of media representatives. A Justice Department source says Attorney General Eric Holder will begin meetings with media representatives late this week to discuss how to deal with leak cases involving reporters. The source said Holder is expected to hold separate meetings with television and newspaper executives. The meetings could begin as early as Thursday. The White House also publicly supported this month a law pushed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, that would protect reporters under leak investigations. Holder said Tuesday he is "not satisfied" with some of the guidelines on how prosecutors conduct leak investigations involving reporters. "We're going to have a real frank, good conversation about this," Holder told reporters following a naturalization ceremony for new U.S. citizens. "And I think, we're going to make some changes because I'm not satisfied with where we are." According to an article in the Daily Beast, aides to Holder said the attorney general is "beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse" because he signed off on the search warrant for Rosen. Fox expressed outrage that Rosen was characterized as a possible co-conspirator in the leak case against former State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Kim allegedly leaked to Rosen a classified intelligence report about North Korea. His case has not yet gone to trial. Court documents also indicate prosecutors sought phone records for some Fox phone lines. In the Associated Press case, the Justice Department obtained phone records for 20 phone lines as part of its investigation into a leak about a 2012 Yemen bomb plot. Holder recused himself in that investigation because investigators had interviewed him about the leak. His deputy attorney general authorized seeking the AP phone records, but there was no suggestion AP reporters broke laws. Holder and other officials have said they are looking for the leakers and not targeting reporters. "While both of these cases were handled within the law and according to Justice Department guidelines they are reminders of the unique role the news media plays in our democratic system, and signal that both our laws and guidelines need to be updated," Holder told the Daily Beast in an interview. Holder said it's an opportunity to "consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

S7vIaf9De7WXnCPp

test

kV95HWWLvkE0U6SU

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/23/conservative-commentator-author-dinesh-dsouza-indicted/?hpt=po_c2

Conservative commentator, author Dinesh D'Souza indicted

2014-01-23

( CNN ) - Conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of making illegal contributions to a U.S. Senate campaign . D'Souza allegedly made and arranged $ 20,000 in campaign donations to an unnamed campaign in 2012 and then reimbursed those who were directed to make contributions , according to the charges handed up in New York City . Federal election law limits individual campaign contributions to a federal candidate to $ 2,500 each for a primary and general election campaign . The law also bars any person from making contributions in the name of others or reimbursing another person 's contribution . D'Souza , 52 , of San Diego , was charged with one count of making illegal campaign donations in the name of others and a second count of making false statements about those donations , authorities said . `` As we have long said , this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process . If , as alleged , the defendant directed others to make contributions to a Senate campaign and reimbursed them , that is a serious violation of federal campaign finance laws , '' Preet Bharara , the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York , said in a statement . D'Souza attorney Benjamin Brafman said in a statement the indictment does not allege a corrupt relationship between his client and the candidate . `` Simply put , there was no 'quid pro quo ' in this case , nor was there even any knowledge by the candidate that campaign finance rules may have been violated . Mr. D'Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever , '' Brafman said . `` He and the candidate have been friends since their college days , and at worst , this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza , '' he added . A noted conservative activist , D'Souza is a former policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan . He also directed a 2012 documentary , `` 2016 : Obama 's America , '' that was highly critical of President Barack Obama and based on his book `` The Roots of Obama 's Rage . '' D'Souza is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan federal court on Friday .

6 years ago (CNN) - Conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of making illegal contributions to a U.S. Senate campaign. D'Souza allegedly made and arranged $20,000 in campaign donations to an unnamed campaign in 2012 and then reimbursed those who were directed to make contributions, according to the charges handed up in New York City. Follow @politicalticker Federal election law limits individual campaign contributions to a federal candidate to $2,500 each for a primary and general election campaign. The law also bars any person from making contributions in the name of others or reimbursing another person's contribution. D'Souza, 52, of San Diego, was charged with one count of making illegal campaign donations in the name of others and a second count of making false statements about those donations, authorities said. "As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process. If, as alleged, the defendant directed others to make contributions to a Senate campaign and reimbursed them, that is a serious violation of federal campaign finance laws," Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement. D'Souza attorney Benjamin Brafman said in a statement the indictment does not allege a corrupt relationship between his client and the candidate. "Simply put, there was no 'quid pro quo' in this case, nor was there even any knowledge by the candidate that campaign finance rules may have been violated. Mr. D'Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever," Brafman said. "He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and at worst, this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza," he added. A noted conservative activist, D'Souza is a former policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He also directed a 2012 documentary, "2016: Obama's America," that was highly critical of President Barack Obama and based on his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage." D'Souza is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan federal court on Friday.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

kV95HWWLvkE0U6SU

test

yn0ZsNDxhEWjx9WT

fbi

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/12/11/ig-michael-horowitz-testimony-fbi-carter-page-media/

Inspector General Michael Horowitz's Testimony on FBI Failures Should Be a Wakeup Call for the Media and the GOP

2019-12-11

Scott Shackford, Nick Gillespie, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Peter Suderman, Shikha Dalmia

Inspector General ( IG ) Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday , making crystal clear what he wrote in his report : The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign 's possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated , but agents involved in the probe made significant and appalling mistakes . These mistakes should terrify all Americans . But more importantly , they should prompt serious reflection among surveillance state–supporting Republicans who placed implicit trust in the nation 's top law enforcement agency , as well as all those in the mainstream media who uncritically boosted the top men in that agency as # Resistance heroes . The IG 's report and testimony have exposed the FBI 's wrongful surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page , which was based on false and conflicting information that somehow made its way into a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) warrant—and was then included three subsequent times as part of the warrant 's reauthorization . FBI agents knew that the Steele dossier was unreliable and eventually learned that Steele 's sub-sources had contradicted what was in the report , but continued with the surveillance anyway . Here 's an instructive exchange between Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R–S.C . ) and Horowitz : Is it kind of off-the-charts bad ? Horowitz : It 's pretty bad . pic.twitter.com/t0U812VWjE — Lindsey Graham ( @ LindseyGrahamSC ) December 11 , 2019 The irony , of course , is that Graham has been a full-throated defender of FISA courts , domestic surveillance , and other policies that threaten civil liberties . He conceded this during his comments on Wednesday , saying `` I 'm a pretty hawkish guy , but if the court does n't take corrective action and do something about being manipulated and lied to , you will lose my support . '' The Cassandra of the hour is Sen. Mike Lee ( R–Utah ) , who has been one of the only Republicans willing to sound the alarm about the potential for the FBI to violate Americans ' rights under the current legal regime . Sen. Ben Sasse ( R–Neb . ) admitted that Lee 's skepticism of the FISA courts now seems justified . It 's a shame that it took congressional Republicans so long to realize that empowering a vast and secretive bureaucracy to spy on people could easily go disastrously wrong—and it 's telling that they have only finally conceded the point because the abuses have been directed at Trump . Moreover , despite their sudden interest in reforming FISA , `` nearly all Rs joined most Ds today to reauthorize intelligence activities without reforms to protect Americans ' rights , '' according to Rep. Justin Amash ( I–Mich. ) . I 'm glad some Republicans are apparently reconsidering their reflexive trust of the FBI , but clearly they still have a long way to go . That 's true as well for the mainstream media , which for far too long has given undeserved credit to Trump-critical law enforcement figures like former FBI Directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe . Both have been lionized on cable news and in newspapers . They were routinely labeled brave truth-tellers who took serious personal risks to call out wrongdoing within the administration . Many of their criticisms of the Trump administration may have been well-founded . But under Comey 's watch , the FBI made major errors . Comey and McCabe were directly involved in the decision to rely on the Steele dossier—a decision that the CIA had serious concerns about . Comey later misled the public about the extent of the FBI 's reliance on the dossier . Indeed , many in the mainstream media had previously claimed that the dossier was not the only basis for the FBI 's interest in Page , because they uncritically believed what the G-men were telling them . We now know that 's wrong—the Steele dossier was the FBI 's key piece of evidence . Comey is still trying to spin the IG 's report as some kind of vindication . This is delusional and embarrassing . If the media learns anything from this episode , it should be that the fact that Team Trump has ostracized an insufficiently deferential public servant is not enough of a ███ to embrace him as a hero and a savior . The IG report is a wakeup call : for Republicans who foolishly claimed the FBI 's secretive spying process was necessary and unthreatening , for anti-Trump media pundits who uncritically parroted the talking points of top officials , and for any Americans who still think it is worth trading away their liberties . If government agents were this sloppy during a politically charged investigation that they knew would put their entire apparatus under the spotlight , it 's safe to assume their normal conduct is even worse .

Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, making crystal clear what he wrote in his report: The FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia was not politically motivated, but agents involved in the probe made significant and appalling mistakes. These mistakes should terrify all Americans. But more importantly, they should prompt serious reflection among surveillance state–supporting Republicans who placed implicit trust in the nation's top law enforcement agency, as well as all those in the mainstream media who uncritically boosted the top men in that agency as #Resistance heroes. The IG's report and testimony have exposed the FBI's wrongful surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which was based on false and conflicting information that somehow made its way into a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant—and was then included three subsequent times as part of the warrant's reauthorization. FBI agents knew that the Steele dossier was unreliable and eventually learned that Steele's sub-sources had contradicted what was in the report, but continued with the surveillance anyway. Here's an instructive exchange between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Horowitz: Is it kind of off-the-charts bad? Horowitz: It's pretty bad. pic.twitter.com/t0U812VWjE — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 11, 2019 The irony, of course, is that Graham has been a full-throated defender of FISA courts, domestic surveillance, and other policies that threaten civil liberties. He conceded this during his comments on Wednesday, saying "I'm a pretty hawkish guy, but if the court doesn't take corrective action and do something about being manipulated and lied to, you will lose my support." The Cassandra of the hour is Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), who has been one of the only Republicans willing to sound the alarm about the potential for the FBI to violate Americans' rights under the current legal regime. Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) admitted that Lee's skepticism of the FISA courts now seems justified. It's a shame that it took congressional Republicans so long to realize that empowering a vast and secretive bureaucracy to spy on people could easily go disastrously wrong—and it's telling that they have only finally conceded the point because the abuses have been directed at Trump. Moreover, despite their sudden interest in reforming FISA, "nearly all Rs joined most Ds today to reauthorize intelligence activities without reforms to protect Americans' rights," according to Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.). I'm glad some Republicans are apparently reconsidering their reflexive trust of the FBI, but clearly they still have a long way to go. That's true as well for the mainstream media, which for far too long has given undeserved credit to Trump-critical law enforcement figures like former FBI Directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Both have been lionized on cable news and in newspapers. They were routinely labeled brave truth-tellers who took serious personal risks to call out wrongdoing within the administration. Many of their criticisms of the Trump administration may have been well-founded. But under Comey's watch, the FBI made major errors. Comey and McCabe were directly involved in the decision to rely on the Steele dossier—a decision that the CIA had serious concerns about. Comey later misled the public about the extent of the FBI's reliance on the dossier. Indeed, many in the mainstream media had previously claimed that the dossier was not the only basis for the FBI's interest in Page, because they uncritically believed what the G-men were telling them. We now know that's wrong—the Steele dossier was the FBI's key piece of evidence. Comey is still trying to spin the IG's report as some kind of vindication. This is delusional and embarrassing. If the media learns anything from this episode, it should be that the fact that Team Trump has ostracized an insufficiently deferential public servant is not enough of a reason to embrace him as a hero and a savior. The IG report is a wakeup call: for Republicans who foolishly claimed the FBI's secretive spying process was necessary and unthreatening, for anti-Trump media pundits who uncritically parroted the talking points of top officials, and for any Americans who still think it is worth trading away their liberties. If government agents were this sloppy during a politically charged investigation that they knew would put their entire apparatus under the spotlight, it's safe to assume their normal conduct is even worse.

www.reason.com

right

yn0ZsNDxhEWjx9WT

test

joaqyAxK78KDZ2uT

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/d2a5e80b7ba7d568e9e6a3966d6308d0

Coronavirus layoffs spark surge in state jobless claims

2020-03-18

David A. Lieb

Unionized hospitality workers wait in line in a basement garage to apply for unemployment benefits at the Hospitality Training Academy Friday , March 13 , 2020 , in Los Angeles . Fearing a widespread health crisis , Californians moved broadly Friday to get in front of the spread of the coronavirus , shuttering schools that educate hundreds of thousands of students , urging the faithful to watch religious services online and postponing or scratching just about any event that could attract a big crowd . ( AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez ) Unionized hospitality workers wait in line in a basement garage to apply for unemployment benefits at the Hospitality Training Academy Friday , March 13 , 2020 , in Los Angeles . Fearing a widespread health crisis , Californians moved broadly Friday to get in front of the spread of the coronavirus , shuttering schools that educate hundreds of thousands of students , urging the faithful to watch religious services online and postponing or scratching just about any event that could attract a big crowd . ( AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez ) JEFFERSON CITY , Mo . ( AP ) — In Ohio , more than 48,000 people applied for jobless benefits during the first two days of this week . The tally during the same period the prior week : just 1,825 . In neighboring Pennsylvania , about 70,000 people sought unemployment aid in a single day — six times the total for the entire previous week . Jobless claims are surging across the U.S. after government officials ordered millions of workers , students and shoppers to stay at home as a precaution against spreading the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease . “ We ’ ve been getting flooded with calls , ” said John Dodds , director of the nonprofit Philadelphia Unemployment Project . “ It ’ s going to be a big mess , a double mess : illness and unemployment . ” The growing number of people filing for unemployment checks raises fresh questions about whether states have stockpiled enough money since the last recession to tide over idled workers until the crisis ends . Some fear the demand for help could outpace the states ’ ability to pay claims . “ Our unemployment insurance fund is getting hit pretty hard right now , ” said Gov . Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island , where coronavirus-related jobless claims accelerated from zero to nearly 18,000 in barely one week . Raimondo , a Democrat , said the state needs to start replenishing its fund and appealed for help from the federal government . President Donald Trump ’ s administration is proposing an economic stimulus package that could approach $ 1 trillion and include sending checks to Americans within a matter of weeks to help them pay for groceries , bills , mortgages and rent . The Senate gave final approval Wednesday to a separate bill that would inject $ 1 billion into state unemployment insurance programs . The federal aid could rival or exceed that of the Great Recession in 2008 , when a financial industry crisis led to widespread layoffs . Economic analysts warn the country is likely entering — or already in — its first recession since then . Valerie Costa , a 41-year-old mother of two , quickly applied for unemployment benefits after the Rhode Island casino where she worked as a bartender and cocktail server closed because of virus precautions . For now , her husband is still working . “ We ’ re limiting our spending . But we also really don ’ t know what to expect , ” she said . “ Most of us live through our tips , and if no tips are coming in , that makes things tough . ” The last recession led to the insolvency of unemployment trust funds in 35 states that collectively racked up more than $ 40 billion of debt to keep paying unemployed workers . In many states , those debts were repaid through higher taxes on employers . To shore up their trust funds , some states also cut the amount and duration of benefits for those who became unemployed in the future . “ States aren ’ t really recession-ready , because it ’ s so hard for people to get benefits , stay in the program , and the benefits are insufficient , ” said Michele Evermore , a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project , a New York-based group that advocates for low-wage workers and the unemployed . Jobless claims and unemployment also are rising around the globe . The U.N. ’ s International Labor Organization estimates that fallout from the coronavirus outbreak could lead to nearly 25 million job losses worldwide and drain up to $ 3.4 trillion worth of income by the end of this year . In the U.S. , state unemployment trust funds generally are in better financial shape than they were before the last recession . Yet 21 states began the year with less than the amount recommended to remain solvent in an average recession , according to a U.S. Department of Labor report . At the bottom of the solvency list are many of the most populous states — California , Texas , New York , Illinois , Ohio and Massachusetts . Ohio Gov . Mike DeWine , a Republican , was among the first to shut down schools , sporting events and certain businesses because of the coronavirus . Unemployment claims have since skyrocketed . DeWine ’ s administration acknowledged that state lawmakers likely will have to intervene to shore up the state ’ s shaky unemployment trust fund . “ The workers out there should not be worried . It will be funded for their needs , ” said Ohio Lt. Gov . Jon Husted , also a Republican . Pennsylvania in January finally made the last payment on billions of dollars of bonds issued in 2012 to cover the unemployment fund debt from the last recession . But its fund remains in danger of insolvency , according to the U.S. Labor Department report . In Tennessee , new unemployment claims tripled over the past week . Michigan ’ s unemployment agency said Wednesday that it has received over five times as many unemployment applications as normal . And Minnesota said it has been getting more than 2,000 unemployment applications per hour , compared with the usual 40 or 50 . The Department of Employment and Economic Development has been taking more than 2,000 applications per hour , compared with the usual 40 or 50 , Commissioner Steve Grove said Warnings to stay away from public gathering spots also have made it more complicated to apply for benefits , with some state unemployment offices closed to the public . Instead , states have shifted more applicants from offices to websites and phone calls , but even those systems are being taxed . New Jersey Gov . Phil Murphy said the number of unemployment insurance requests was so high at the start of this week that it crashed the state labor department ’ s website . New York ’ s labor department said it ’ s experiencing “ an unprecedented increase ” in calls and online visits for unemployment benefits . During the first half of Tuesday , it had 110,000 website visits and 21,000 phone calls . That ’ s 2 1/2 times the web traffic and 10 times the phone calls of the entire previous Tuesday . At times , the surge was too much for the agency to handle . Governors and lawmakers in many states took action this week to make unemployment benefits easier and quicker to get . Some also waived rules that disregard the first week of unemployment or extended the total number of weeks people can be eligible . In North Carolina , which offers less in jobless benefits than most states , displaced workers won ’ t have to be actively looking for a new job , as is required for traditional benefits , and employers who must lay off workers won ’ t be financially responsible for the benefits their workers receive . Kansas lawmakers worked quickly Tuesday to pass legislation that eliminates a one-week wait to begin receiving benefits and expands their duration from 16 to 26 weeks . But House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Sean Tarwater , a Republican , expressed concern that the economic problems caused by the virus pandemic could deplete the state ’ s unemployment fund in less than a year , even though it ’ s ranked in the top quarter nationally . “ What we are seeing is something totally unique here , where the switch has flipped from historically low claims numbers to a dramatic escalation that ’ s going to affect multiple segments of the economy , ” said Kansas Deputy Labor Department Secretary Brett Flachsbarth .

Unionized hospitality workers wait in line in a basement garage to apply for unemployment benefits at the Hospitality Training Academy Friday, March 13, 2020, in Los Angeles. Fearing a widespread health crisis, Californians moved broadly Friday to get in front of the spread of the coronavirus, shuttering schools that educate hundreds of thousands of students, urging the faithful to watch religious services online and postponing or scratching just about any event that could attract a big crowd. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) Unionized hospitality workers wait in line in a basement garage to apply for unemployment benefits at the Hospitality Training Academy Friday, March 13, 2020, in Los Angeles. Fearing a widespread health crisis, Californians moved broadly Friday to get in front of the spread of the coronavirus, shuttering schools that educate hundreds of thousands of students, urging the faithful to watch religious services online and postponing or scratching just about any event that could attract a big crowd. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — In Ohio, more than 48,000 people applied for jobless benefits during the first two days of this week. The tally during the same period the prior week: just 1,825. In neighboring Pennsylvania, about 70,000 people sought unemployment aid in a single day — six times the total for the entire previous week. Jobless claims are surging across the U.S. after government officials ordered millions of workers, students and shoppers to stay at home as a precaution against spreading the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease. “We’ve been getting flooded with calls,” said John Dodds, director of the nonprofit Philadelphia Unemployment Project. “It’s going to be a big mess, a double mess: illness and unemployment.” The growing number of people filing for unemployment checks raises fresh questions about whether states have stockpiled enough money since the last recession to tide over idled workers until the crisis ends. Some fear the demand for help could outpace the states’ ability to pay claims. “Our unemployment insurance fund is getting hit pretty hard right now,” said Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, where coronavirus-related jobless claims accelerated from zero to nearly 18,000 in barely one week. Raimondo, a Democrat, said the state needs to start replenishing its fund and appealed for help from the federal government. President Donald Trump’s administration is proposing an economic stimulus package that could approach $1 trillion and include sending checks to Americans within a matter of weeks to help them pay for groceries, bills, mortgages and rent. The Senate gave final approval Wednesday to a separate bill that would inject $1 billion into state unemployment insurance programs. The federal aid could rival or exceed that of the Great Recession in 2008, when a financial industry crisis led to widespread layoffs. Economic analysts warn the country is likely entering — or already in — its first recession since then. Valerie Costa, a 41-year-old mother of two, quickly applied for unemployment benefits after the Rhode Island casino where she worked as a bartender and cocktail server closed because of virus precautions. For now, her husband is still working. “We’re limiting our spending. But we also really don’t know what to expect,” she said. “Most of us live through our tips, and if no tips are coming in, that makes things tough.” The last recession led to the insolvency of unemployment trust funds in 35 states that collectively racked up more than $40 billion of debt to keep paying unemployed workers. In many states, those debts were repaid through higher taxes on employers. To shore up their trust funds, some states also cut the amount and duration of benefits for those who became unemployed in the future. “States aren’t really recession-ready, because it’s so hard for people to get benefits, stay in the program, and the benefits are insufficient,” said Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, a New York-based group that advocates for low-wage workers and the unemployed. Jobless claims and unemployment also are rising around the globe. The U.N.’s International Labor Organization estimates that fallout from the coronavirus outbreak could lead to nearly 25 million job losses worldwide and drain up to $3.4 trillion worth of income by the end of this year. In the U.S., state unemployment trust funds generally are in better financial shape than they were before the last recession. Yet 21 states began the year with less than the amount recommended to remain solvent in an average recession, according to a U.S. Department of Labor report . At the bottom of the solvency list are many of the most populous states — California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio and Massachusetts. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, was among the first to shut down schools, sporting events and certain businesses because of the coronavirus. Unemployment claims have since skyrocketed. DeWine’s administration acknowledged that state lawmakers likely will have to intervene to shore up the state’s shaky unemployment trust fund. “The workers out there should not be worried. It will be funded for their needs,” said Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, also a Republican. Pennsylvania in January finally made the last payment on billions of dollars of bonds issued in 2012 to cover the unemployment fund debt from the last recession. But its fund remains in danger of insolvency, according to the U.S. Labor Department report. In Tennessee, new unemployment claims tripled over the past week. Michigan’s unemployment agency said Wednesday that it has received over five times as many unemployment applications as normal. And Minnesota said it has been getting more than 2,000 unemployment applications per hour, compared with the usual 40 or 50. The Department of Employment and Economic Development has been taking more than 2,000 applications per hour, compared with the usual 40 or 50, Commissioner Steve Grove said Warnings to stay away from public gathering spots also have made it more complicated to apply for benefits, with some state unemployment offices closed to the public. Instead, states have shifted more applicants from offices to websites and phone calls, but even those systems are being taxed. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said the number of unemployment insurance requests was so high at the start of this week that it crashed the state labor department’s website. Full Coverage: Business New York’s labor department said it’s experiencing “an unprecedented increase” in calls and online visits for unemployment benefits. During the first half of Tuesday, it had 110,000 website visits and 21,000 phone calls. That’s 2 1/2 times the web traffic and 10 times the phone calls of the entire previous Tuesday. At times, the surge was too much for the agency to handle. Governors and lawmakers in many states took action this week to make unemployment benefits easier and quicker to get. Some also waived rules that disregard the first week of unemployment or extended the total number of weeks people can be eligible. In North Carolina, which offers less in jobless benefits than most states, displaced workers won’t have to be actively looking for a new job, as is required for traditional benefits, and employers who must lay off workers won’t be financially responsible for the benefits their workers receive. Kansas lawmakers worked quickly Tuesday to pass legislation that eliminates a one-week wait to begin receiving benefits and expands their duration from 16 to 26 weeks. But House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Sean Tarwater, a Republican, expressed concern that the economic problems caused by the virus pandemic could deplete the state’s unemployment fund in less than a year, even though it’s ranked in the top quarter nationally. “What we are seeing is something totally unique here, where the switch has flipped from historically low claims numbers to a dramatic escalation that’s going to affect multiple segments of the economy,” said Kansas Deputy Labor Department Secretary Brett Flachsbarth. ___ Editor’s note: For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, like pneumonia. ___ Associated Press writers Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey; David Eggert in Lansing, Michigan; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; Meghan Hoyer in Washington, D.C.; Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minnesota; Kimberlee Kruesi in Nashville, Tennessee; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Philip Marcelo in Boston; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Andrew Welsh-Huggins in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

joaqyAxK78KDZ2uT

test

c7HlHLxifyaOoPJv

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chris-christie-clinton-speech-president/2015/06/14/id/650427/

Christie: Clinton Doesn't Know What Real Americans Need

2015-06-14

Sandy Fitzgerald

Hillary Clinton took the center stage in New York City for the first major policy speech in her 2016 campaign Saturday , but New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie says he heard someone else : Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren . `` First off , I thought that Elizabeth Warren was n't running for president , '' Christie , who is expected to mount his own presidential campaign , host George Stephanopoulos Sunday , complaining that the speech sounded like it was put together by `` liberal political consultants . `` But that issue brings up a bigger point for the former secretary of state , said Christie . `` I have done 146 town hall meetings in New Jersey . '' he said . `` Mrs. Clinton does n't hear from anybody , she does n't take questions from anybody . How would she know what real Americans are concerned about ? I do n't know . I do n't understand when she would know . `` Christie said he has not yet announced his campaign because he has a `` day job '' running a `` significant state with a lot of back and forth . `` `` I have a Democratic legislature that I have to work with and it 's not the easiest thing to do in the world , '' the Republican governor said . `` We have a budget to finish by June 30 . So , I got to keep my eye on my day job . As I said last week , this decision is now up to me . I 'll make it during the month of June . `` Two of Christie 's possible potential challengers , former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush and real estate magnate Donald Trump are expected to announce their own campaigns , and Christie said he has a great deal of respect for both of them . However , he pointed out that his experience as a governor differed significantly from that of Bush , who is set to announce on Monday .. '' I worked with a legislature of the other party and we have had some significant accomplishments and disagreements , '' said Christie , while Bush `` had a legislature of his own party . `` `` I have a great respect for Jeb , '' said Christie . `` He was a very good governor . One thing that makes me different , I think I 'm combat-ready for Washington , D.C. , and you need to be . I have done that in New Jersey . The fact is , people know I know how to bring folks together . Folks in red states they do n't have as much experience . `` Christie also said he believes Trump will mount a serious campaign , as `` he 's a serious guy . Only he can determine if he wants to push to be president . `` But still , `` you have to take him seriously if he decides to run . I like him . He 's a good friend ; we 'll see what happens . `` Christie , meanwhile , denied that the Bridge-gate scandal will cause him trouble if he decides to move on to a presidential campaign . `` There have been three independent investigations that all come to the same conclusion , I did n't have any knowledge of it , '' he said . `` At some point , the saturation coverage that the media gives it affects it . Three investigations — one by a Democratic legislature , one by the federal prosecutors . It all came to the same conclusion . `` Christie also discussed President Barack Obama 's decision to send more troops to Iraq , and the position that two of his potential GOP opponents , South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have taken , that 10,000 troops are needed on the ground . '' I do n't think they 're right at the moment , '' he said . `` I think what we need to do is we need to have our allies trusting us again in the Middle East who want to bring this fight to Isis ... we have to put together a coalition willing to fight . Get more human intelligence on the ground . Make sure we 're targeting the right thing and prepare Americans that it 's not going to be easy and it 's going to be long . ''

Hillary Clinton took the center stage in New York City for the first major policy speech in her 2016 campaign Saturday, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he heard someone else: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren."First off, I thought that Elizabeth Warren wasn't running for president," Christie, who is expected to mount his own presidential campaign,host George Stephanopoulos Sunday,complaining that the speech sounded like it was put together by "liberal political consultants."But that issue brings up a bigger point for the former secretary of state, said Christie."I have done 146 town hall meetings in New Jersey." he said. "Mrs. Clinton doesn't hear from anybody, she doesn't take questions from anybody. How would she know what real Americans are concerned about? I don't know. I don't understand when she would know."Christie said he has not yet announced his campaign because he has a "day job" running a "significant state with a lot of back and forth.""I have a Democratic legislature that I have to work with and it's not the easiest thing to do in the world," the Republican governor said. "We have a budget to finish by June 30. So, I got to keep my eye on my day job. As I said last week, this decision is now up to me. I'll make it during the month of June."Two of Christie's possible potential challengers, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and real estate magnate Donald Trump are expected to announce their own campaigns, and Christie said he has a great deal of respect for both of them. However, he pointed out that his experience as a governor differed significantly from that of Bush, who is set to announce on Monday.."I worked with a legislature of the other party and we have had some significant accomplishments and disagreements," said Christie, while Bush "had a legislature of his own party.""I have a great respect for Jeb," said Christie. "He was a very good governor. One thing that makes me different, I think I'm combat-ready for Washington, D.C., and you need to be. I have done that in New Jersey. The fact is, people know I know how to bring folks together. Folks in red states they don't have as much experience."Christie also said he believes Trump will mount a serious campaign, as "he's a serious guy. Only he can determine if he wants to push to be president."But still, "you have to take him seriously if he decides to run. I like him. He's a good friend; we'll see what happens."Christie, meanwhile, denied that the Bridge-gate scandal will cause him trouble if he decides to move on to a presidential campaign."There have been three independent investigations that all come to the same conclusion, I didn't have any knowledge of it," he said. "At some point, the saturation coverage that the media gives it affects it. Three investigations — one by a Democratic legislature, one by the federal prosecutors. It all came to the same conclusion."Christie also discussed President Barack Obama's decision to send more troops to Iraq, and the position that two of his potential GOP opponents, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have taken, that 10,000 troops are needed on the ground." I don't think they're right at the moment," he said. "I think what we need to do is we need to have our allies trusting us again in the Middle East who want to bring this fight to Isis ...we have to put together a coalition willing to fight. Get more human intelligence on the ground. Make sure we're targeting the right thing and prepare Americans that it's not going to be easy and it's going to be long."

www.newsmax.com

right

c7HlHLxifyaOoPJv

test

EynxDIoA5Sqm0YEG

fbi

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/a24e8d038c534df2b4de6dfc01e874b1

Mueller offers terse answers, uncertainty in testimony

2019-07-24

Laurie Kellman

Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington , Wednesday , July 24 , 2019 , during a hearing on his report on Russian election interference . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington , Wednesday , July 24 , 2019 , during a hearing on his report on Russian election interference . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Robert Mueller paused . He refused to speculate . He made constant references to his report — but wasn ’ t sure of a number of things in it . The former special counsel ’ s long-awaited , heavily-negotiated testimony Wednesday was just what he ’ d promised : relentlessly focused on the report he issued in April on President Donald Trump , obstruction and Russian meddling in the 2016 election . As members of the House Judiciary Committee strained to hear what he had to say , it became clear that the famously apolitical Mueller was not going to play their made-for-TV games . Yet it was hardly the commanding performance many expected from Mueller , a former FBI director with a towering reputation in Washington . On numerous occasions , he asked that questions be repeated , and at one point he seemed to reach for the word “ conspiracy ” as he sought to answer whether his team found evidence of “ collusion ” between the Trump campaign and Russia . A Democrat helpfully filled in the blank . At another time , when Democrat Steve Cohen cited the Trump quote , “ I ’ m f-cked , ” from a specific page of Mueller ’ s report and asked whether former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been the source , the former special counsel demurred . “ I ’ m not certain , ” he quietly told the panel . The caffeinated crowd in the hearing room hushed . Chairman Jerrold Nadler interjected , “ Director , please speak into the microphone . ” With another reminder and a break , Mueller later grew more resolute on other questions , at one point firmly criticizing Trump for praising WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign . But frequently during his testimony Wednesday , the former special counsel , with a pad of paper and binders in front of him and a former aide at his side , seemed to waver on details of his two-year investigation and the resulting report that launched questions about Trump ’ s fitness for office . At some points , he delivered terse , one-word answers . He repeatedly referred back to the wording in his report . And he at times appeared stilted and halting in his answers . Throughout , Mueller ’ s top aide in the investigation , Aaron Zebley , sat at the witness table just out of camera range , paying rapt attention to the questions and answers and paging through what appeared to be the Mueller report . In the hearing ’ s first hour , Nadler asked Mueller whether any senior White House officials refused a request to be interviewed by Mueller and his team . Mueller first replied , “ I don ’ t believe so , ” but then added : “ Well , let me take that back . I would have to look at it but I am not certain that that was the case . ” Mueller ’ s probe generated more than 2,000 subpoenas and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews , creating a sweeping investigative record that could trip up any witness . And lawmakers are fond of asking complex , sometimes nonsensical questions during their five minutes of questioning . Certainly , Democrats had no trouble hearing Mueller say what would become their top takeaways , including his statement early on that his report did not “ exonerate ” Trump of obstruction . All sides had reason to know generally what to expect . The committee ’ s Democrats had telegraphed that they were going to focus on five examples of Trump ’ s obstruction described in the report . And Mueller made clear that he intended to give no answers that went beyond what ’ s in the report . He also had advised Democrats beforehand that he wasn ’ t going to read from his report , according to a person involved with the negotiations who spoke about the confidential talks only on condition of anonymity . He stuck to that vow , denying Trump ’ s harshest critics footage that could advance prospects for Trump ’ s impeachment and the party ’ s bid to unseat him in 2020 . “ If it ’ s in the report , I support it , ” he repeated throughout the day . Some allies predicted that Mueller ’ s performance would be used against Democrats . “ Director Mueller ’ s stutters , stammerings , and unfamiliarity with portions of his written report will be spliced together and given the viral video treatment for partisan political advantage at the conclusion of today ’ s hearings , ” tweeted James A. Gagliano , who served under Mueller at the FBI , when the hearing had been underway for two hours . David Axelrod , who served as senior adviser to former President Barack Obama , tweeted : “ This is delicate to say , but Mueller , whom I deeply respect , has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years . And he does not appear as sharp as he was then . ” Trump , fuming , tweeted again that Mueller ’ s probe had been the “ Greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history . ” Inside the room , it was unclear how much of Mueller ’ s understated performance was purposeful . Through at least one former aide , he had telegraphed his intent to stick to the report as blandly and factually as possible . And as the day wore on , he emphatically stuck to that strategy . Mueller refused in no uncertain terms , for example , to comment on the so-called “ Steele Dossier , ” a package of research from a former British spy that documented connections between Russia and the Trump campaign . “ I am not going to answer that question , sir , ” he told Rep. Greg Steube , R-Fla . Pressed , Mueller added : “ I am not going to speak any more to it . ... I am not going to answer that . ” And when it came to Trump ’ s favorite ways to characterize Mueller ’ s investigation , the former special prosecutor was clear . For more of AP ’ s coverage of the Trump investigation : https : //apnews.com/TrumpInvestigations

Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019, during a hearing on his report on Russian election interference. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019, during a hearing on his report on Russian election interference. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Mueller paused. He refused to speculate. He made constant references to his report — but wasn’t sure of a number of things in it. The former special counsel’s long-awaited, heavily-negotiated testimony Wednesday was just what he’d promised: relentlessly focused on the report he issued in April on President Donald Trump, obstruction and Russian meddling in the 2016 election. As members of the House Judiciary Committee strained to hear what he had to say, it became clear that the famously apolitical Mueller was not going to play their made-for-TV games. Yet it was hardly the commanding performance many expected from Mueller, a former FBI director with a towering reputation in Washington. On numerous occasions, he asked that questions be repeated, and at one point he seemed to reach for the word “conspiracy” as he sought to answer whether his team found evidence of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. A Democrat helpfully filled in the blank. At another time, when Democrat Steve Cohen cited the Trump quote, “I’m f-cked,” from a specific page of Mueller’s report and asked whether former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been the source, the former special counsel demurred. “I’m not certain,” he quietly told the panel. The caffeinated crowd in the hearing room hushed. Chairman Jerrold Nadler interjected, “Director, please speak into the microphone.” With another reminder and a break, Mueller later grew more resolute on other questions, at one point firmly criticizing Trump for praising WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. But frequently during his testimony Wednesday, the former special counsel, with a pad of paper and binders in front of him and a former aide at his side, seemed to waver on details of his two-year investigation and the resulting report that launched questions about Trump’s fitness for office. At some points, he delivered terse, one-word answers. He repeatedly referred back to the wording in his report. And he at times appeared stilted and halting in his answers. Throughout, Mueller’s top aide in the investigation, Aaron Zebley, sat at the witness table just out of camera range, paying rapt attention to the questions and answers and paging through what appeared to be the Mueller report. In the hearing’s first hour, Nadler asked Mueller whether any senior White House officials refused a request to be interviewed by Mueller and his team. Mueller first replied, “I don’t believe so,” but then added: “Well, let me take that back. I would have to look at it but I am not certain that that was the case.” Mueller’s probe generated more than 2,000 subpoenas and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, creating a sweeping investigative record that could trip up any witness. And lawmakers are fond of asking complex, sometimes nonsensical questions during their five minutes of questioning. Certainly, Democrats had no trouble hearing Mueller say what would become their top takeaways, including his statement early on that his report did not “exonerate” Trump of obstruction. All sides had reason to know generally what to expect. The committee’s Democrats had telegraphed that they were going to focus on five examples of Trump’s obstruction described in the report. And Mueller made clear that he intended to give no answers that went beyond what’s in the report. He also had advised Democrats beforehand that he wasn’t going to read from his report, according to a person involved with the negotiations who spoke about the confidential talks only on condition of anonymity. He stuck to that vow, denying Trump’s harshest critics footage that could advance prospects for Trump’s impeachment and the party’s bid to unseat him in 2020. “If it’s in the report, I support it,” he repeated throughout the day. Some allies predicted that Mueller’s performance would be used against Democrats. “Director Mueller’s stutters, stammerings, and unfamiliarity with portions of his written report will be spliced together and given the viral video treatment for partisan political advantage at the conclusion of today’s hearings,” tweeted James A. Gagliano, who served under Mueller at the FBI, when the hearing had been underway for two hours. David Axelrod, who served as senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, tweeted: “This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years. And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.” Trump, fuming, tweeted again that Mueller’s probe had been the “Greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history.” Inside the room, it was unclear how much of Mueller’s understated performance was purposeful. Through at least one former aide, he had telegraphed his intent to stick to the report as blandly and factually as possible. And as the day wore on, he emphatically stuck to that strategy. Mueller refused in no uncertain terms, for example, to comment on the so-called “Steele Dossier,” a package of research from a former British spy that documented connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. “I am not going to answer that question, sir,” he told Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. Pressed, Mueller added: “I am not going to speak any more to it. ... I am not going to answer that.” And when it came to Trump’s favorite ways to characterize Mueller’s investigation, the former special prosecutor was clear. “It is not a witch hunt,” he said. ___ Associated Press Writers Eric Tucker, Mary Clare Jalonick and Matthew Daly contributed to this report. ___ Follow Kellman on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/APLaurieKellman ___ For more of AP’s coverage of the Trump investigation: https://apnews.com/TrumpInvestigations

www.apnews.com

center

EynxDIoA5Sqm0YEG

test

5r8IA19IoVcuzmAE

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/07/11/families-turn-to-homeschooling-as-the-education-establishment-fumbles-its-pandemic-response/?itm_source=parsely-api

Families Turn to Homeschooling as the Education Establishment Fumbles Its Pandemic Response

2020-07-11

J.D. Tuccille, Eugene Volokh, Irina Manta, Stewart Baker, Christian Britschgi, Peter Suderman, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Ronald Bailey, Jesse Singal

President Donald Trump got a lot of pushback for his criticism of school reopening guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) —including from the CDC itself . But even many people who share the CDC 's goal of minimizing health risks in the midst of a pandemic agree that the guidelines are n't especially practical . Keeping kids masked and separated in a learning environment intended for groups makes sense only to those who have little experience with schools—or children . That has lots of parents looking at alternatives such as homeschooling that allow them to implement their own guidelines not just for health , but for their kids ' education . `` I disagree with @ CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools . While they want them open , they are asking schools to do very impractical things . I will be meeting with them ! ! ! '' the president tweeted on July 8 . Not content to just voice his displeasure , he also threatened to cut federal funding for schools that do n't fully reopen . When Trump tweets , his critics automatically respond . California Gov . Gavin Newsom shot back that his state 's schools will make their own decisions without regard to the president 's desires . Fair enough—local decisions are usually preferable to one-size-fits-none orders from on-high . But Trump is n't alone in finding the CDC 's guidelines unwieldy . `` To prevent the spread of the coronavirus , school leaders must ensure social distancing—limiting group sizes , keeping students six feet apart , restricting non-essential visitors , and closing communal spaces . Those measures run counter to how schools usually operate , with teachers and students working together in close quarters , children socializing throughout the day , and the buildings serving as a community gathering space , '' Education Week noted in June . `` Schools are not designed for social distancing , '' Megan Tuttle , president of the National Education Association of New Hampshire , agrees . `` Classes and hallways are already overcrowded and many of our schools have inadequate HVAC systems resulting in poor air circulation . These are prime COVID-19 transmission conditions . If we 're not ready to make the investments necessary to make our buildings safe , then we 're not ready to reopen them . '' Leave it to a labor union official to turn a health crisis into an argument for a deeper dip into taxpayers ' pockets even as the economy tanks… But Tuttle is right that schools were n't designed for keeping kids isolated from one another . That has educators across the country scrambling to un-crowd classrooms so that social distance can be maintained . Remote learning via online classes , and hybrid approaches that have kids in school some days and learning remotely on others , are the go-to solutions for now . `` Through a mix of in-school and at-home learning we can make more space in every classroom and building . That means most kids coming to school 2 days a week , '' New York City 's Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on July 8 . His plan sets creaky wheels turning for the nation 's largest public school district . On its face , that hybrid plan is a reasonably innovative approach to teaching . Unfortunately , schools—particularly those run by government—are almost as incapable of successful innovation as they are at physically expanding the square footage of their classrooms and cafeterias . `` Some schools , particularly those with ample resources and some experience with remote learning , had a far easier time of it than most , '' reports the Wall Street Journal of pandemic-prompted efforts at teaching online . But for most schools , `` it was a failure '' because of inexperience with the approach , limited access to technology , and a lack of commitment on the part of participants . In addition , many families , especially those with younger children , rely on schools to mind their kids while parents are at work . If you 're going to lose the day care function of schools , and not be able to count on them to perform their core educational responsibilities , why would n't you look elsewhere ? There 's not much to lose in emulating Newsom 's revolt against orders from on-high in favor of personal decisions about education . Unsurprisingly , there 's an upswing in families planning to homeschool their kids this fall , either through their own efforts or through dedicated online classes and schools that have experience with remote learning . While it 's difficult to track numbers when it comes to homeschooling , `` several states , including Texas , Utah and Washington , have reported sharp upticks in interest , '' according to NBC News . North Carolina 's website for families announcing plans to homeschool crashed at the beginning of July `` due to an overwhelming submission of Notices of Intent . '' Parents asked about their reasons for pulling their kids from schools cite both concerns about their kids contracting COVID-19 in the classroom as well as worries that traditional school districts are n't up to the challenges of teaching through remote and hybrid models . They can either place their faith in an education establishment that has n't earned that sort of trust , or they can experiment with alternatives that have grown increasingly popular in recent years precisely because they satisfy the demand for flexible and effective learning approaches . `` It looks like the high school is only offering a remote learning options , '' a friend who has three teenage daughters and lives outside Chicago told me . `` Could you resend me that list you made of homeschooling resources ? '' A lot of homeschooling options are online , given the low cost involved in delivering complete schools , classes , lectures , and the like over the Internet . The internet can also mean easy ways to order books , tools , and materials for families who prefer hands-on learning . Splitting the difference between family-based education and institutional schooling is a growing movement of home- and community-based microschools that deliver lessons to small groups of kids . That allows parents who need to work to pool their resources while ensuring adult supervision . For a monthly fee ( or free in Arizona ) , Prenda offers its curriculum for use by both microschools and by families for their own children . All of this experimentation has the establishment worried . Harvard Law 's Elizabeth Bartholet infamously calls for `` a presumptive ban '' on homeschooling because of the supposed danger it represents to children and society . That prohibitionist impulse comes a little late . Traditional schools right now are fumbling the response to a crisis and convincing much of the public that they are dangerous to children and society . Families fleeing from those schools in search of alternatives are going to prove a tough audience for arguments that kids should be trapped in poorly managed classrooms that are n't up to the latest challenge .

President Donald Trump got a lot of pushback for his criticism of school reopening guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—including from the CDC itself. But even many people who share the CDC's goal of minimizing health risks in the midst of a pandemic agree that the guidelines aren't especially practical. Keeping kids masked and separated in a learning environment intended for groups makes sense only to those who have little experience with schools—or children. That has lots of parents looking at alternatives such as homeschooling that allow them to implement their own guidelines not just for health, but for their kids' education. "I disagree with @CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools. While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!" the president tweeted on July 8. Not content to just voice his displeasure, he also threatened to cut federal funding for schools that don't fully reopen. When Trump tweets, his critics automatically respond. California Gov. Gavin Newsom shot back that his state's schools will make their own decisions without regard to the president's desires. Fair enough—local decisions are usually preferable to one-size-fits-none orders from on-high. But Trump isn't alone in finding the CDC's guidelines unwieldy. "To prevent the spread of the coronavirus, school leaders must ensure social distancing—limiting group sizes, keeping students six feet apart, restricting non-essential visitors, and closing communal spaces. Those measures run counter to how schools usually operate, with teachers and students working together in close quarters, children socializing throughout the day, and the buildings serving as a community gathering space," Education Week noted in June. "Schools are not designed for social distancing," Megan Tuttle, president of the National Education Association of New Hampshire, agrees. "Classes and hallways are already overcrowded and many of our schools have inadequate HVAC systems resulting in poor air circulation. These are prime COVID-19 transmission conditions. If we're not ready to make the investments necessary to make our buildings safe, then we're not ready to reopen them." Leave it to a labor union official to turn a health crisis into an argument for a deeper dip into taxpayers' pockets even as the economy tanks… But Tuttle is right that schools weren't designed for keeping kids isolated from one another. That has educators across the country scrambling to un-crowd classrooms so that social distance can be maintained. Remote learning via online classes, and hybrid approaches that have kids in school some days and learning remotely on others, are the go-to solutions for now. "Through a mix of in-school and at-home learning we can make more space in every classroom and building. That means most kids coming to school 2 days a week," New York City's Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on July 8. His plan sets creaky wheels turning for the nation's largest public school district. On its face, that hybrid plan is a reasonably innovative approach to teaching. Unfortunately, schools—particularly those run by government—are almost as incapable of successful innovation as they are at physically expanding the square footage of their classrooms and cafeterias. "Some schools, particularly those with ample resources and some experience with remote learning, had a far easier time of it than most," reports the Wall Street Journal of pandemic-prompted efforts at teaching online. But for most schools, "it was a failure" because of inexperience with the approach, limited access to technology, and a lack of commitment on the part of participants. In addition, many families, especially those with younger children, rely on schools to mind their kids while parents are at work. If you're going to lose the day care function of schools, and not be able to count on them to perform their core educational responsibilities, why wouldn't you look elsewhere? There's not much to lose in emulating Newsom's revolt against orders from on-high in favor of personal decisions about education. Unsurprisingly, there's an upswing in families planning to homeschool their kids this fall, either through their own efforts or through dedicated online classes and schools that have experience with remote learning. While it's difficult to track numbers when it comes to homeschooling, "several states, including Texas, Utah and Washington, have reported sharp upticks in interest," according to NBC News. North Carolina's website for families announcing plans to homeschool crashed at the beginning of July "due to an overwhelming submission of Notices of Intent." Parents asked about their reasons for pulling their kids from schools cite both concerns about their kids contracting COVID-19 in the classroom as well as worries that traditional school districts aren't up to the challenges of teaching through remote and hybrid models. They can either place their faith in an education establishment that hasn't earned that sort of trust, or they can experiment with alternatives that have grown increasingly popular in recent years precisely because they satisfy the demand for flexible and effective learning approaches. "It looks like the high school is only offering a remote learning options," a friend who has three teenage daughters and lives outside Chicago told me. "Could you resend me that list you made of homeschooling resources?" Why, yes. Here it is! A lot of homeschooling options are online, given the low cost involved in delivering complete schools, classes, lectures, and the like over the Internet. The internet can also mean easy ways to order books, tools, and materials for families who prefer hands-on learning. Splitting the difference between family-based education and institutional schooling is a growing movement of home- and community-based microschools that deliver lessons to small groups of kids. That allows parents who need to work to pool their resources while ensuring adult supervision. For a monthly fee (or free in Arizona), Prenda offers its curriculum for use by both microschools and by families for their own children. All of this experimentation has the establishment worried. Harvard Law's Elizabeth Bartholet infamously calls for "a presumptive ban" on homeschooling because of the supposed danger it represents to children and society. That prohibitionist impulse comes a little late. Traditional schools right now are fumbling the response to a crisis and convincing much of the public that they are dangerous to children and society. Families fleeing from those schools in search of alternatives are going to prove a tough audience for arguments that kids should be trapped in poorly managed classrooms that aren't up to the latest challenge.

www.reason.com

right

5r8IA19IoVcuzmAE

test

8Q9euqCtiFiswMu5

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44911915

Trump attacks Michael Cohen over 'Playboy model payment tape'

President Donald Trump has condemned his former lawyer Michael Cohen amid US media reports that he secretly recorded Mr Trump discussing payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal . The tapes were reportedly discovered during an FBI raid on Mr Cohen 's property earlier this year in New York . Mr Trump tweeted that such a raid was `` almost unheard of '' . He added that a lawyer secretly recording a client was `` totally unheard of and perhaps illegal '' . Mr Cohen 's lawyer responded by saying that Mr Trump 's statement was `` false '' . The New York Times reports that in the recording , Mr Trump and Mr Cohen discuss paying Ms McDougal , who says she had a 10-month affair with Mr Trump in 2006 , a year after he married his current wife Melania . The tape was reportedly made two months before the November 2016 election that saw Mr Trump become president . In the lead-up to the vote , Ms McDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer magazine , which is owned by a personal friend of Mr Trump . She says a $ 150,000 ( £115,000 ) agreement gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair . But the Enquirer did not publish her story after paying for the rights . The Department of Justice is looking into alleged hush money paid to women who claim they had a relationship with Mr Trump . It is suggested that such payments , if proved , would amount to an election expense . Federal investigators have reportedly demanded the tabloid 's records on the McDougal payment . In May , President Trump admitted that he had reimbursed Mr Cohen for a payment he made to another woman to hush up her claims of an affair . Mr Trump had previously denied all knowledge of the $ 130,000 payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement . Mr Cohen , who has not been charged with any crime , is reportedly under investigation for possible bank and tax fraud , as well as potential violation of election law . He has declined to comment publicly on the tape story . But his lawyer , Lanny Davis , said in a brief statement on Friday that he was `` sensitive '' to the ongoing investigation before adding : `` Suffice it to say that when the recording is heard , it will not hurt Mr Cohen . `` Any attempt at spin can not change what is on the tape . '' On Saturday Mr Davis responded to Mr Trump 's tweet by criticising the president and his lawyer , Rudy Giuliani . Mr Cohen once famously vowed he would `` take a bullet '' for Mr Trump , but he told ABC News earlier this month that his loyalty to his family and country came before his old boss . His comments stoked speculation that he might co-operate with investigators against Mr Trump , although there has been no confirmation so far that he has done so . Mr Trump and his aides have consistently denied he had an affair with Ms McDougal , or had any knowledge of any payment to her . The New York Times reports that Mr Giuliani , Mr Trump 's personal lawyer , has confirmed that his client discussed payments to Ms McDougal with Mr Cohen as per the recording - but that ultimately no such payment was made . According to the newspaper , Mr Giuliani said the recording was less than two minutes long and that Mr Trump did not know he was being recorded . It also reports that Mr Giuliani said there was no indication on the tape that Mr Trump knew before the conversation about the payment by the National Enquirer 's parent company , American Media Inc , to Ms McDougal . `` In the big scheme of things , it 's powerful exculpatory evidence , '' the Times quotes him as saying . New York state law allows one party to a conversation to tape it without the other knowing . The New York Times reports that Mr Cohen , while working on behalf of Mr Trump , frequently taped conversations with journalists , other lawyers and business opponents of his client . It goes on to say that Mr Trump himself also has a history of recording phone calls and conversations . The ethics of whether lawyers should make such recordings , their legality notwithstanding , is an issue dividing the US legal profession .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The president has said that Mr Cohen is no longer his personal lawyer President Donald Trump has condemned his former lawyer Michael Cohen amid US media reports that he secretly recorded Mr Trump discussing payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal. The tapes were reportedly discovered during an FBI raid on Mr Cohen's property earlier this year in New York. Mr Trump tweeted that such a raid was "almost unheard of". He added that a lawyer secretly recording a client was "totally unheard of and perhaps illegal". The president also insisted he had done nothing wrong. Mr Cohen's lawyer responded by saying that Mr Trump's statement was "false". What is the tape said to reveal? The New York Times reports that in the recording, Mr Trump and Mr Cohen discuss paying Ms McDougal, who says she had a 10-month affair with Mr Trump in 2006, a year after he married his current wife Melania. The tape was reportedly made two months before the November 2016 election that saw Mr Trump become president. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Karen McDougal says she was tricked into staying silent about the alleged affair In the lead-up to the vote, Ms McDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer magazine, which is owned by a personal friend of Mr Trump. She says a $150,000 (£115,000) agreement gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair. But the Enquirer did not publish her story after paying for the rights. Why is this an issue? The Department of Justice is looking into alleged hush money paid to women who claim they had a relationship with Mr Trump. It is suggested that such payments, if proved, would amount to an election expense. Failing to declare election expenses is a crime. Federal investigators have reportedly demanded the tabloid's records on the McDougal payment. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Was Trump's Stormy Daniels payment legal? In May, President Trump admitted that he had reimbursed Mr Cohen for a payment he made to another woman to hush up her claims of an affair. Mr Trump had previously denied all knowledge of the $130,000 payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement. What does Cohen say about the tape? Mr Cohen, who has not been charged with any crime, is reportedly under investigation for possible bank and tax fraud, as well as potential violation of election law. He has declined to comment publicly on the tape story. But his lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in a brief statement on Friday that he was "sensitive" to the ongoing investigation before adding: "Suffice it to say that when the recording is heard, it will not hurt Mr Cohen. "Any attempt at spin cannot change what is on the tape." On Saturday Mr Davis responded to Mr Trump's tweet by criticising the president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Mr Cohen once famously vowed he would "take a bullet" for Mr Trump, but he told ABC News earlier this month that his loyalty to his family and country came before his old boss. His comments stoked speculation that he might co-operate with investigators against Mr Trump, although there has been no confirmation so far that he has done so. What do Trump's people say? Mr Trump and his aides have consistently denied he had an affair with Ms McDougal, or had any knowledge of any payment to her. The New York Times reports that Mr Giuliani, Mr Trump's personal lawyer, has confirmed that his client discussed payments to Ms McDougal with Mr Cohen as per the recording - but that ultimately no such payment was made. According to the newspaper, Mr Giuliani said the recording was less than two minutes long and that Mr Trump did not know he was being recorded. It also reports that Mr Giuliani said there was no indication on the tape that Mr Trump knew before the conversation about the payment by the National Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc, to Ms McDougal. "In the big scheme of things, it's powerful exculpatory evidence," the Times quotes him as saying. Is secret recording allowed? New York state law allows one party to a conversation to tape it without the other knowing. The New York Times reports that Mr Cohen, while working on behalf of Mr Trump, frequently taped conversations with journalists, other lawyers and business opponents of his client. It goes on to say that Mr Trump himself also has a history of recording phone calls and conversations. The ethics of whether lawyers should make such recordings, their legality notwithstanding, is an issue dividing the US legal profession.

www.bbc.com

center

8Q9euqCtiFiswMu5

test

mue6EHUUvWWXny5W

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2016/12/21/president-obama-on-political-correctness

President Obama on Political Correctness: ‘Don’t Go Around Just Looking for Insults’

2016-12-21

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

During a recent interview with NPR , President Obama was asked if Donald Trump was right : has political correctness gone too far ? `` This is a tricky issue , '' Obama answered . `` Because the definition of political correctness is all over the map . I suspect the president-elect 's definition would be different than mine . '' The president then offered two definitions of political correctness : the first is simply having good manners . It 's wrong to shout racial epithets at people , or to verbally harass them . Objecting to abusive treatment is n't an example of political-correctness-run-amok—or if it is , then political correctness is a good thing . Most people probably want to live in a country where people are encouraged not to scream obscenities at each other . The second definition of political correctness , according to Obama , is `` hypersensitivity that ends up resulting in people not being able to express their opinions at all without someone suggesting they 're a victim . '' My advice to progressives like myself , and advice I give my daughters who are about to head off to college is do n't go around just looking for insults . You 're tough . If someone says something you do n't agree with , engage them on their ideas , but you do n't have to feel that somehow because you 're a black woman , you 're being assaulted . But speak up for yourself . The president went on to point out that when it comes to political correctness , conservatives are hypocrites . They routinely get themselves worked up , and cite offense , over silly slights , as the Cato Institute 's Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in a recent op-ed for The Washington Post : But conservatives have their own , nationalist version of PC , their own set of rules regulating speech , behavior and acceptable opinions . I call it `` patriotic correctness . '' It 's a full-throated , un-nuanced , uncompromising defense of American nationalism , history and cherry-picked ideals . Central to its thesis is the belief that nothing in America ca n't be fixed by more patriotism enforced by public shaming , boycotts and policies to cut out foreign and non-American influences . Insufficient displays of patriotism among the patriotically correct can result in exclusion from public life and ruined careers . It also restricts honest criticism of failed public policies , diverting blame for things like the war in Iraq to those Americans who did n't support the war effort enough . It 's important to point out double standards . Nowrasteh and Obama are right : conservatives play the victim card , too . That 's one big ███ that I doubt Trump will follow through on his campaign promise to destroy political correctness . His supporters are just as PC about the kinds of symbolic gestures that matter to them . And while it 's been largely true in the Age of Obama that liberals were the ones pushing political correctness and viciously silencing their opponents on college campuses , PC is not a left vs. right issue . It 's about free speech and tolerance vs. identity collectivism and censorship . And there are plenty of right-leaning forces that want to silence their enemies—even with respect to college campuses . Just yesterday , it was reported that a Republican legislator wants to punish the University of Wisconsin for allowing a liberal professor to teach a class on `` The Problem of Whiteness . '' Meanwhile , Turning Points USA has compiled a watchlist of liberal professors saying things that violate patriotic correctness . `` It cuts both way , '' said Obama . `` My advice to young people and to all of us as citizens is to be able to distinguish between being courteous and being thoughtful… versus having legitimate political debates and disagreements . '' The president , to his credit , has consistently denounced the excesses of self-victimization on college campuses . Obama 's Education Department , however , was a big part of the problem—and one he stubbornly failed to correct throughout his time in office .

During a recent interview with NPR, President Obama was asked if Donald Trump was right: has political correctness gone too far? "This is a tricky issue," Obama answered. "Because the definition of political correctness is all over the map. I suspect the president-elect's definition would be different than mine." The president then offered two definitions of political correctness: the first is simply having good manners. It's wrong to shout racial epithets at people, or to verbally harass them. Objecting to abusive treatment isn't an example of political-correctness-run-amok—or if it is, then political correctness is a good thing. Most people probably want to live in a country where people are encouraged not to scream obscenities at each other. The second definition of political correctness, according to Obama, is "hypersensitivity that ends up resulting in people not being able to express their opinions at all without someone suggesting they're a victim." He continued: My advice to progressives like myself, and advice I give my daughters who are about to head off to college is don't go around just looking for insults. You're tough. If someone says something you don't agree with, engage them on their ideas, but you don't have to feel that somehow because you're a black woman, you're being assaulted. But speak up for yourself. The president went on to point out that when it comes to political correctness, conservatives are hypocrites. They routinely get themselves worked up, and cite offense, over silly slights, as the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in a recent op-ed for The Washington Post: But conservatives have their own, nationalist version of PC, their own set of rules regulating speech, behavior and acceptable opinions. I call it "patriotic correctness." It's a full-throated, un-nuanced, uncompromising defense of American nationalism, history and cherry-picked ideals. Central to its thesis is the belief that nothing in America can't be fixed by more patriotism enforced by public shaming, boycotts and policies to cut out foreign and non-American influences. Insufficient displays of patriotism among the patriotically correct can result in exclusion from public life and ruined careers. It also restricts honest criticism of failed public policies, diverting blame for things like the war in Iraq to those Americans who didn't support the war effort enough. It's important to point out double standards. Nowrasteh and Obama are right: conservatives play the victim card, too. That's one big reason that I doubt Trump will follow through on his campaign promise to destroy political correctness. His supporters are just as PC about the kinds of symbolic gestures that matter to them. And while it's been largely true in the Age of Obama that liberals were the ones pushing political correctness and viciously silencing their opponents on college campuses, PC is not a left vs. right issue. It's about free speech and tolerance vs. identity collectivism and censorship. And there are plenty of right-leaning forces that want to silence their enemies—even with respect to college campuses. Just yesterday, it was reported that a Republican legislator wants to punish the University of Wisconsin for allowing a liberal professor to teach a class on "The Problem of Whiteness." Meanwhile, Turning Points USA has compiled a watchlist of liberal professors saying things that violate patriotic correctness. "It cuts both way," said Obama. "My advice to young people and to all of us as citizens is to be able to distinguish between being courteous and being thoughtful… versus having legitimate political debates and disagreements." The president, to his credit, has consistently denounced the excesses of self-victimization on college campuses. Obama's Education Department, however, was a big part of the problem—and one he stubbornly failed to correct throughout his time in office.

www.reason.com

right

mue6EHUUvWWXny5W

test

UKvWzFjsNgyooWVI

race_and_racism

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/july/not-a-photo-op-inner-city-pastors-meet-for-2-hours-with-trump-say-he-can-do-more-on-racism

Not a Photo-Op: Inner-City Pastors Meet for 2 Hours with Trump, Say 'He Can Do More' on Racism

2019-07-30

As the president 's Twitter feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings ( D-MD ) widens , a group of African-American pastors has stepped into the fray . Twenty or so pastors met with the president at the White House Monday afternoon to discuss issues in the African-American community . Afterward , Rev . Bill Owens , president of the Coalition of African American Pastors , told media that the event was not a photo-op but a substantive , two-hour meeting in which the president did a lot of listening . While the White House may have used the meeting to shield the president from criticism that he 's a racist , the pastors did not sugar-coat the country 's problem . `` This country needs healing . There is so much division along racial lines -- it 's worse than it was years ago , '' Owens told reporters . When asked if the president is doing enough to `` tamp down the flames of racism '' , Owens noted that the president has addressed prison reform and other issues of importance but added that there 's always more to be done . `` I do n't think you can do enough , '' he said . `` I think he can do more . '' The president 's critics say he 's making the problem worse . They point to his tweets two weeks ago targeting four progressive Democratic women of color known as `` the Squad '' and this week 's tweets attacking Cummings for neglecting his home district in Baltimore . That came after Cummings attacked the president for conditions on the border . The president 's tweet calling Cummings ' district a `` disgusting , rat and rodent-infested mess '' drew condemnation from Maryland 's Republican governor Monday . `` The comments are just outrageous and inappropriate , '' he said . But Alveda King , the niece of Martin Luther King , chastised Sharpton and fellow civil rights leader Jesse Jackson , noting their long-time history with the president . `` These are his brothers , '' she said . `` At one time in their lives , they highly regarded the president . '' The president 's chief of staff says Trump has been reacting in frustration to the Democratic drumbeat of investigation and impeachment talk . But political analysts note that he 's once again dominating the news cycle and that may be just what he wants right now . CBS political director Caitlin Conant said on Faith Nation Monday that she thinks the president is strategically pursuing the conflict . `` It 's clearly a fight he wants to have and I think we 'll see this bleed into the debate in Detroit this week , '' she said . Democratic presidential candidates on the debate stage tonight and tomorrow night will have to decide how much time they want to spend going after the president and how much time they want to spend making the case for themselves and their policies .

As the president's Twitter feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) widens, a group of African-American pastors has stepped into the fray. Twenty or so pastors met with the president at the White House Monday afternoon to discuss issues in the African-American community. Afterward, Rev. Bill Owens, president of the Coalition of African American Pastors, told media that the event was not a photo-op but a substantive, two-hour meeting in which the president did a lot of listening. While the White House may have used the meeting to shield the president from criticism that he's a racist, the pastors did not sugar-coat the country's problem. "This country needs healing. There is so much division along racial lines--it's worse than it was years ago," Owens told reporters. When asked if the president is doing enough to "tamp down the flames of racism", Owens noted that the president has addressed prison reform and other issues of importance but added that there's always more to be done. "I don't think you can do enough," he said. "I think he can do more." The president's critics say he's making the problem worse. They point to his tweets two weeks ago targeting four progressive Democratic women of color known as "the Squad" and this week's tweets attacking Cummings for neglecting his home district in Baltimore. That came after Cummings attacked the president for conditions on the border. The president's tweet calling Cummings' district a "disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess" drew condemnation from Maryland's Republican governor Monday. "The comments are just outrageous and inappropriate," he said. The Rev. Al Sharpton also condemned the president's comments. But Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, chastised Sharpton and fellow civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, noting their long-time history with the president. "These are his brothers," she said. "At one time in their lives, they highly regarded the president." The president's chief of staff says Trump has been reacting in frustration to the Democratic drumbeat of investigation and impeachment talk. But political analysts note that he's once again dominating the news cycle and that may be just what he wants right now. CBS political director Caitlin Conant said on Faith Nation Monday that she thinks the president is strategically pursuing the conflict. "It's clearly a fight he wants to have and I think we'll see this bleed into the debate in Detroit this week," she said. Democratic presidential candidates on the debate stage tonight and tomorrow night will have to decide how much time they want to spend going after the president and how much time they want to spend making the case for themselves and their policies.

www1.cbn.com

right

UKvWzFjsNgyooWVI

test

vuRsPPMRibA8tpJR

justice_department

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/republicans-decry-obamas-decision-to-try-al-qaeda-suspects-in-civilian-court/

Republicans Decry Obama’s Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspect in Civilian Court

John Parkinson

The Obama administration 's decision to try Osama bin Laden 's son-in-law in federal court in New York City instead of a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay has reignited a debate over how to deal with suspected terrorists . It also recalls one of the largest failures of President Obama 's presidency : His unfulfilled promise as a candidate in 2008 to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay . As Osama bin Laden 's son-in-law , Sulaiman Abu Ghaith , pleaded not guilty to conspiring to kill Americans in New York Federal Court today , Republicans in Congress were criticizing the Obama administration for prosecuting a suspected al Qaeda terrorist in a civilian court just about a mile from the 9/11 memorial built over Ground Zero . `` Abu Ghaith has sworn to kill Americans and he likely possesses information that could prevent harm to America and its allies , '' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , wrote in a statement . `` He is an enemy combatant and should be held in military custody . '' The White House claimed there was a `` broad consensus '' across the federal government , from the Department of Defense , the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security , to prosecute OBL 's son-in-law in civilian court . `` The intelligence community agrees that the best way to protect our national security interests is to prosecute Abu Ghaith in an Article III court , '' Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today . `` We 're able to question him as a part of the regular process in detaining individuals like this , but we 're also able to put him through Article III courts to ensure that he 's held accountable for his crimes , '' Earnest added . `` This is somebody who 's going to be held accountable for his crimes and … that will be done in accordance with the laws and values of this country , and it will be done so in a pretty efficient way . '' Still , McConnell said that the administration 's justification `` makes little sense '' and the intelligence community `` deserve [ s ] the same access to intelligence and methods of defeating the enemy available to the team that found Bin Laden . '' `` At Guantanamo , [ Abu Ghaith ] could be held as a detainee and fulsomely and continuously interrogated without having to overcome the objections of his civilian lawyers , '' McConnell said . Rep. Mike Rogers , R-Mich. , the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence , said civilian court `` is not the appropriate venue '' and the administration `` should treat enemy combatants like the enemy . '' `` Al Qaeda leaders captured on the battlefield should not be brought to the United States to stand trial , '' Rogers said . `` The president needs to send any captured al Qaeda members to Guantanamo . '' A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner , who opposes closing Guantanamo and previously fought against efforts by the Obama administration to prosecute 9/11 suspects in New York City , said the speaker `` agrees '' with Rogers . New York Republican Rep. Pete King , R-N.Y. , said he preferred that Abu Ghaith face trial in a military tribunal rather than civilian court , and he questioned what type of standard today 's hearing could set . `` While a federal court trial of Abu Ghaith in lower Manhattan would not present the same security issues as a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , I strongly believe as a matter of policy that military tribunals are the proper venue for enemy combatants , '' said King , a member of the House committees on Intelligence and Homeland Security . `` If the Abu Ghaith trial does go forward in federal court , it must not be used as a precedent for future enemy combatants who should be tried at Guantanamo . '' But not all members of Congress oppose the administration 's actions . New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler , who represents the congressional district where Ground Zero is located in lower Manhattan , said he is `` pleased Sulaiman Abu Ghaith will have to face justice in New York . '' `` I have long urged that we try terrorists in our civilian courts under the laws of the United States . We have done so successfully in the past , and we must continue to do so , '' Nadler , D-N.Y. , said in a statement . `` We are a nation committed to the rule of law , and we will demonstrate our values to the world even in the face of the most despicable mass murder in our history . ''

The Obama administration's decision to try Osama bin Laden's son-in-law in federal court in New York City instead of a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay has reignited a debate over how to deal with suspected terrorists. It also recalls one of the largest failures of President Obama's presidency: His unfulfilled promise as a candidate in 2008 to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. As Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, pleaded not guilty to conspiring to kill Americans in New York Federal Court today, Republicans in Congress were criticizing the Obama administration for prosecuting a suspected al Qaeda terrorist in a civilian court just about a mile from the 9/11 memorial built over Ground Zero. "Abu Ghaith has sworn to kill Americans and he likely possesses information that could prevent harm to America and its allies," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in a statement. "He is an enemy combatant and should be held in military custody." Related: Osama Bin Laden's Son-In-Law Pleads 'Not Guilty' The White House claimed there was a "broad consensus" across the federal government, from the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, to prosecute OBL's son-in-law in civilian court. "The intelligence community agrees that the best way to protect our national security interests is to prosecute Abu Ghaith in an Article III court," Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today. "We're able to question him as a part of the regular process in detaining individuals like this, but we're also able to put him through Article III courts to ensure that he's held accountable for his crimes," Earnest added. "This is somebody who's going to be held accountable for his crimes and … that will be done in accordance with the laws and values of this country, and it will be done so in a pretty efficient way." Still, McConnell said that the administration's justification "makes little sense" and the intelligence community "deserve[s] the same access to intelligence and methods of defeating the enemy available to the team that found Bin Laden." "At Guantanamo, [Abu Ghaith] could be held as a detainee and fulsomely and continuously interrogated without having to overcome the objections of his civilian lawyers," McConnell said. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said civilian court "is not the appropriate venue" and the administration "should treat enemy combatants like the enemy." "Al Qaeda leaders captured on the battlefield should not be brought to the United States to stand trial," Rogers said. "The president needs to send any captured al Qaeda members to Guantanamo." A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, who opposes closing Guantanamo and previously fought against efforts by the Obama administration to prosecute 9/11 suspects in New York City, said the speaker "agrees" with Rogers. New York Republican Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., said he preferred that Abu Ghaith face trial in a military tribunal rather than civilian court, and he questioned what type of standard today's hearing could set. "While a federal court trial of Abu Ghaith in lower Manhattan would not present the same security issues as a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I strongly believe as a matter of policy that military tribunals are the proper venue for enemy combatants," said King, a member of the House committees on Intelligence and Homeland Security. "If the Abu Ghaith trial does go forward in federal court, it must not be used as a precedent for future enemy combatants who should be tried at Guantanamo." But not all members of Congress oppose the administration's actions. New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents the congressional district where Ground Zero is located in lower Manhattan, said he is "pleased Sulaiman Abu Ghaith will have to face justice in New York." "I have long urged that we try terrorists in our civilian courts under the laws of the United States. We have done so successfully in the past, and we must continue to do so," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "We are a nation committed to the rule of law, and we will demonstrate our values to the world even in the face of the most despicable mass murder in our history."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

vuRsPPMRibA8tpJR

test

ijb4OSOcI7weA024

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-importance-of-jared-kushner/

The Importance of Jared Kushner

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

So as America heads into the Thanksgiving holidays , the Washington and political/media Establishment still agog at the election of Donald Trump as the nation ’ s 45th president , various knickers are in knots because of news reports that the President-elect is considering making his son-in-law Jared Kushner a member of the White House staff . Aghast , there are cries of nepotism with reference to a 1967 law that was belatedly targeted at President John F. Kennedy ’ s appointment of brother Bobby as Attorney General . The legislation might be called LBJ ’ s revenge as Lyndon Johnson hated Bobby Kennedy and this was , in the way of the famously vengeful LBJ , a way of getting even with the Kennedys , although by 1967 RFK was comfortably ensconced in the U.S. Senate representing New York . But well aside from a considerable body of opinion that the 1967 law doesn ’ t apply to the White House staff , there is simple ignorance of the fact that various presidents did in fact formally rely on family members to advise them on the problems of the day . The addition of Jared Kushner to the senior White House staff would not only be important — it has lots and lots of precedence . The tradition of presidents relying on family members as presidential confidantes began with the beginning of the United States itself . Then-Vice President John Adams saw to it that President George Washington appointed Adams ’ s son , John Quincy Adams , as the American Minister to the Netherlands . John Quincy had long been a key confidante of his father , accompanying him on diplomatic missions when the senior Adams was the American envoy to France and the Netherlands . When John Adams was elected the nation ’ s second president he promptly appointed his son the U.S . Ambassador to Prussia , where he served until his father ’ s defeat by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 . President James Madison had no children of his own but , in an effort to help his troubled adopted son of wife Dolley , saw to it that John Payne Todd was appointed as a secretary to an official U.S. delegation in Europe . Andrew Jackson Donelson , the namesake nephew of President Andrew Jackson , was so well-thought of by Jackson as an advisor that Jackson appointed him as his private secretary in the White House , a post the influential Donelson held for all eight years of his presidency . Two of Martin Van Buren ’ s sons , Martin Jr. and Smith , served their father in the White House when Van Buren was elected to succeed Jackson in 1836 . Martin Jr. served as private secretary to his presidential father , while his brother Smith was a special assistant . Sarah Childress Polk , the wife of President James K. Polk , had no children . But it was she — the sitting First Lady — who helped write presidential speeches and was his confidante on policy . President Lincoln made sure to get son Robert appointed to the staff of General Ulysses Grant , a position that the younger Lincoln had at Appomattox and that propelled him on to a highly successful career of his own in both the law and politics , later serving as Secretary of War for Presidents Garfield and Arthur . Edith Bolling Galt plays a startling role in American history . The second wife of Woodrow Wilson , when her husband suffered a stroke midway through his second term it was wife Ellen — not Vice President Thomas Marshall — who made the decisions of what briefings the bedridden president would and would not get . In effect , she was the acting president . President Franklin Roosevelt insisted that sons Franklin Jr. and Elliot attend the famous Argentina conference — the “ Atlantic Charter ” meeting — with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August of 1941 . It was at this conference , his two sons in attendance at FDR ’ s personal insistence , that Roosevelt and Churchill and their advisers hammered out the goals and objectives of the Allies in World War II and the postwar world they would shape afterwards . One could go on here . There are also presidential aides who , while not family members were viewed as family members because of their closeness to the president . Wilson ’ s press secretary Joseph Tumulty and longtime friend Colonel Edward House played this role . As did FDR advisers Louis Howe and Harry Hopkins , both of whom lived in the White House with the President and First Lady . In the Kennedy era there was not just brother Bobby running the Justice Department , there was the so-called “ Irish mafia ” of close JFK pals all of whom had official positions in the White House . Kenneth O ’ Donnell effectively served as White House chief of staff , Lawrence O ’ Brien was the White House congressional liaison , and Dave Powers was the all-around presidential companion . And , of course , there was not only brother Bobby at the Justice Department but brother-in-law Sargent Shriver running the Peace Corps . Famously , in the Reagan era , it was Reagan ’ s close relationship with Michael Deaver almost as a son that had the Californian installed as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff in a “ troika ” that included the Washington insider James Baker as chief of staff , the conservative strategist and longtime Reaganite Ed Meese as a counselor/strategist , with Deaver having the personal relationship to both Ronald and Nancy Reagan . No accident either was it that daughter Maureen Reagan served as co-chair of the Republican National Committee during a period of her father ’ s presidency . Not too put too fine a point on it , perhaps the most influential person in the Reagan White House after the President was Nancy Reagan herself . And , of course , there was Hillary Clinton in the Bill Clinton-era running the president ’ s health care initiative . Not to mention longtime George W. Bush and Bush family friend Karl Rove in the Bush 43 era . In other words ? All this angst over the potential presence of President-elect Donald Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner in the Trump White House is so much baloney . Literally from the beginnings of the presidency one president after another has turned to a family member or sometimes multiples of family members as official or unofficial confidantes in their White House . Sometimes with portfolio , sometimes not — but always with influence and power in the White House . And on occasion they saw to it that this or that child was appointed to a favored diplomatic or military position , as both John Adams and Abraham Lincoln did with sons John Quincy and Robert — effectively launching their sons on careers of their own . If he decides to take a job on the White House staff , Jared Kushner is superbly qualified as a successful businessman ( and publisher ) all by himself in his own right . His addition to the Trump White House senior staff would be uniquely important . But as a family member who has the personal confidence of the new president Mr. Kushner would be but the latest example of a presidential family member placed in a position of power and responsibility . There is not only nothing wrong with this , much less illegal about it — but it is precisely appointments like this that make great sense for a president . They are important — and with reason . And without doubt , not only would Jared Kushner not be the first to play this role of family member as presidential adviser — as history moves on he surely won ’ t be the last .

So as America heads into the Thanksgiving holidays, the Washington and political/media Establishment still agog at the election of Donald Trump as the nation’s 45th president, various knickers are in knots because of news reports that the President-elect is considering making his son-in-law Jared Kushner a member of the White House staff. Aghast, there are cries of nepotism with reference to a 1967 law that was belatedly targeted at President John F. Kennedy’s appointment of brother Bobby as Attorney General. The legislation might be called LBJ’s revenge as Lyndon Johnson hated Bobby Kennedy and this was, in the way of the famously vengeful LBJ, a way of getting even with the Kennedys, although by 1967 RFK was comfortably ensconced in the U.S. Senate representing New York. But well aside from a considerable body of opinion that the 1967 law doesn’t apply to the White House staff, there is simple ignorance of the fact that various presidents did in fact formally rely on family members to advise them on the problems of the day. The addition of Jared Kushner to the senior White House staff would not only be important — it has lots and lots of precedence. Examples? The tradition of presidents relying on family members as presidential confidantes began with the beginning of the United States itself. Then-Vice President John Adams saw to it that President George Washington appointed Adams’s son, John Quincy Adams, as the American Minister to the Netherlands. John Quincy had long been a key confidante of his father, accompanying him on diplomatic missions when the senior Adams was the American envoy to France and the Netherlands. When John Adams was elected the nation’s second president he promptly appointed his son the U.S. Ambassador to Prussia, where he served until his father’s defeat by Thomas Jefferson in 1800. President James Madison had no children of his own but, in an effort to help his troubled adopted son of wife Dolley, saw to it that John Payne Todd was appointed as a secretary to an official U.S. delegation in Europe. Andrew Jackson Donelson, the namesake nephew of President Andrew Jackson, was so well-thought of by Jackson as an advisor that Jackson appointed him as his private secretary in the White House, a post the influential Donelson held for all eight years of his presidency. Two of Martin Van Buren’s sons, Martin Jr. and Smith, served their father in the White House when Van Buren was elected to succeed Jackson in 1836. Martin Jr. served as private secretary to his presidential father, while his brother Smith was a special assistant. Sarah Childress Polk, the wife of President James K. Polk, had no children. But it was she — the sitting First Lady — who helped write presidential speeches and was his confidante on policy. President Lincoln made sure to get son Robert appointed to the staff of General Ulysses Grant, a position that the younger Lincoln had at Appomattox and that propelled him on to a highly successful career of his own in both the law and politics, later serving as Secretary of War for Presidents Garfield and Arthur. Edith Bolling Galt plays a startling role in American history. The second wife of Woodrow Wilson, when her husband suffered a stroke midway through his second term it was wife Ellen — not Vice President Thomas Marshall — who made the decisions of what briefings the bedridden president would and would not get. In effect, she was the acting president. President Franklin Roosevelt insisted that sons Franklin Jr. and Elliot attend the famous Argentina conference — the “Atlantic Charter” meeting — with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August of 1941. It was at this conference, his two sons in attendance at FDR’s personal insistence, that Roosevelt and Churchill and their advisers hammered out the goals and objectives of the Allies in World War II and the postwar world they would shape afterwards. One could go on here. There are also presidential aides who, while not family members were viewed as family members because of their closeness to the president. Wilson’s press secretary Joseph Tumulty and longtime friend Colonel Edward House played this role. As did FDR advisers Louis Howe and Harry Hopkins, both of whom lived in the White House with the President and First Lady. In the Kennedy era there was not just brother Bobby running the Justice Department, there was the so-called “Irish mafia” of close JFK pals all of whom had official positions in the White House. Kenneth O’Donnell effectively served as White House chief of staff, Lawrence O’Brien was the White House congressional liaison, and Dave Powers was the all-around presidential companion. And, of course, there was not only brother Bobby at the Justice Department but brother-in-law Sargent Shriver running the Peace Corps. Famously, in the Reagan era, it was Reagan’s close relationship with Michael Deaver almost as a son that had the Californian installed as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff in a “troika” that included the Washington insider James Baker as chief of staff, the conservative strategist and longtime Reaganite Ed Meese as a counselor/strategist, with Deaver having the personal relationship to both Ronald and Nancy Reagan. No accident either was it that daughter Maureen Reagan served as co-chair of the Republican National Committee during a period of her father’s presidency. Not too put too fine a point on it, perhaps the most influential person in the Reagan White House after the President was Nancy Reagan herself. And, of course, there was Hillary Clinton in the Bill Clinton-era running the president’s health care initiative. Not to mention longtime George W. Bush and Bush family friend Karl Rove in the Bush 43 era. In other words? All this angst over the potential presence of President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in the Trump White House is so much baloney. Literally from the beginnings of the presidency one president after another has turned to a family member or sometimes multiples of family members as official or unofficial confidantes in their White House. Sometimes with portfolio, sometimes not — but always with influence and power in the White House. And on occasion they saw to it that this or that child was appointed to a favored diplomatic or military position, as both John Adams and Abraham Lincoln did with sons John Quincy and Robert — effectively launching their sons on careers of their own. If he decides to take a job on the White House staff, Jared Kushner is superbly qualified as a successful businessman (and publisher) all by himself in his own right. His addition to the Trump White House senior staff would be uniquely important. But as a family member who has the personal confidence of the new president Mr. Kushner would be but the latest example of a presidential family member placed in a position of power and responsibility. There is not only nothing wrong with this, much less illegal about it — but it is precisely appointments like this that make great sense for a president. They are important — and with reason. And without doubt, not only would Jared Kushner not be the first to play this role of family member as presidential adviser — as history moves on he surely won’t be the last.

www.spectator.org

right

ijb4OSOcI7weA024

test

pvNizHTMoAK3yFGb

national_defense

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40901746

Trump warns N Korea that US military is 'locked and loaded'

President Donald Trump says the US military is `` locked and loaded '' to deal with North Korea , ramping up the rhetorical brinkmanship . `` Military solutions are now fully in place , locked and loaded , should North Korea act unwisely . Hopefully Kim Jong-un will find another path ! '' he tweeted . He spoke as Pyongyang accused him of `` driving '' the Korean peninsula to the `` brink of a nuclear war '' . North Korea has announced plans to fire missiles near the US territory of Guam . The Pacific island 's homeland security agency issued a fact sheet on Friday with tips for residents to prepare for any missile threat . It states : `` Do not look at the flash or fireball - it can blind you . '' `` Lie flat on the ground and cover your head . If the explosion is some distance away , it could take 30 seconds or more for the blast wave to hit . '' Moscow said the exchange of threats between Washington and Pyongyang `` worry us very much '' . Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rated the risk of military conflict as `` very high '' as he put forward a joint Russian-Chinese plan to defuse the crisis . German Chancellor Angela Merkel said there was no military solution , and `` an escalation of the rhetoric is the wrong answer . '' But later on Friday , at his private golf club in New Jersey , Mr Trump issued further threats to Pyongyang . Asked about his `` locked and loaded '' tweet , he told reporters : `` I hope that they [ North Korea ] are going to fully understand the gravity of what I said , and what I said is what I mean… those words are very , very easy to understand . '' He added : `` If he [ Kim Jong-un ] utters one threat in the form of an overt threat - which , by the way , he has been uttering for years , and his family has been uttering for years - or if he does anything with respect to Guam or anyplace else that 's an American territory or an American ally he will truly regret it and he will regret it fast . '' Mr Trump 's latest remarks follow his threat earlier this week to rain `` fire and fury '' on Pyongyang . His latest post came hours after his Defence Secretary Jim Mattis attempted to cool tensions by emphasising a peaceful resolution to the crisis . Speaking in California late on Thursday , the Pentagon chief said it was his job to be ready for conflict . But he said the effort by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley `` has diplomatic traction , it is gaining diplomatic results '' . Mr Mattis added : `` The tragedy of war is well enough known . It does n't need another characterisation beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic . '' When asked about US military plans for a potential conflict , he said the country was ready , but he would not `` tell the enemy in advance what I 'm going to do '' . Also on Friday , North Korea 's official KCNA news agency accused Washington of a `` criminal attempt to impose nuclear disaster upon the Korean nation '' . Pyongyang 's media outlet said America was making `` desperate efforts '' to test weapons in the Korean peninsula . The US is `` the mastermind of nuclear threat , the heinous nuclear war fanatic '' , the report said . Despite the rhetoric from both sides , the Trump administration has been conducting behind-the-scenes diplomacy with North Korea for several months , the Associated Press news agency reports . Washington has been addressing the issue of Americans detained in the country and escalating tensions on the peninsula , according to AP . Joseph Yun , the US envoy for North Korea , and Pak Song-Il , a senior North Korean diplomat at the UN , are said to be leading the talks . Tensions have risen since North Korea tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July . The regime was further angered by last week 's UN decision to increase economic sanctions against it . North Korea said it was finalising a plan to fire medium-to-long-range rockets towards Guam , where US strategic bombers are based , along with more than 160,000 US citizens . There has been no indication that any actual attack on the Pacific island is imminent . On Thursday Mr Trump suggested that his own statements on North Korea had not been tough enough , warning the regime to be `` very , very nervous '' . However , he added that the US would always consider negotiations . He also chided the North 's closest ally , China , saying it could do `` a lot more '' . China 's state-run Global Times newspaper wrote that Beijing should stay neutral if North Korea launches an attack that threatens the US . But it also said that if the US and South Korea attacked North Korea to force regime change , then China must intervene to prevent it . Meanwhile , Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his nation would be prepared to join a conflict against North Korea if the US came under attack . Australia would honour its commitment under a 1951 treaty , he said , `` as America would come to our aid if we were attacked '' . Get news from the BBC in your inbox , each weekday morning

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump: North Korea will regret it fast President Donald Trump says the US military is "locked and loaded" to deal with North Korea, ramping up the rhetorical brinkmanship. "Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong-un will find another path!" he tweeted. He spoke as Pyongyang accused him of "driving" the Korean peninsula to the "brink of a nuclear war". North Korea has announced plans to fire missiles near the US territory of Guam. The Pacific island's homeland security agency issued a fact sheet on Friday with tips for residents to prepare for any missile threat. It states: "Do not look at the flash or fireball - it can blind you." "Lie flat on the ground and cover your head. If the explosion is some distance away, it could take 30 seconds or more for the blast wave to hit." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption It's not the first time North Korea has made threats against Guam Moscow said the exchange of threats between Washington and Pyongyang "worry us very much". Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rated the risk of military conflict as "very high" as he put forward a joint Russian-Chinese plan to defuse the crisis. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said there was no military solution, and "an escalation of the rhetoric is the wrong answer." But later on Friday, at his private golf club in New Jersey, Mr Trump issued further threats to Pyongyang. Asked about his "locked and loaded" tweet, he told reporters: "I hope that they [North Korea] are going to fully understand the gravity of what I said, and what I said is what I mean… those words are very, very easy to understand." He added: "If he [Kim Jong-un] utters one threat in the form of an overt threat - which, by the way, he has been uttering for years, and his family has been uttering for years - or if he does anything with respect to Guam or anyplace else that's an American territory or an American ally he will truly regret it and he will regret it fast." Mr Trump's latest remarks follow his threat earlier this week to rain "fire and fury" on Pyongyang. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Mattis: "The tragedy of war is known... it would be catastrophic" His latest post came hours after his Defence Secretary Jim Mattis attempted to cool tensions by emphasising a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Speaking in California late on Thursday, the Pentagon chief said it was his job to be ready for conflict. But he said the effort by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley "has diplomatic traction, it is gaining diplomatic results". Mr Mattis added: "The tragedy of war is well enough known. It doesn't need another characterisation beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic." When asked about US military plans for a potential conflict, he said the country was ready, but he would not "tell the enemy in advance what I'm going to do". Also on Friday, North Korea's official KCNA news agency accused Washington of a "criminal attempt to impose nuclear disaster upon the Korean nation". Pyongyang's media outlet said America was making "desperate efforts" to test weapons in the Korean peninsula. The US is "the mastermind of nuclear threat, the heinous nuclear war fanatic", the report said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Who's in Trump's good and bad books? Despite the rhetoric from both sides, the Trump administration has been conducting behind-the-scenes diplomacy with North Korea for several months, the Associated Press news agency reports. Washington has been addressing the issue of Americans detained in the country and escalating tensions on the peninsula, according to AP. Joseph Yun, the US envoy for North Korea, and Pak Song-Il, a senior North Korean diplomat at the UN, are said to be leading the talks. Tensions have risen since North Korea tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July. The regime was further angered by last week's UN decision to increase economic sanctions against it. North Korea said it was finalising a plan to fire medium-to-long-range rockets towards Guam, where US strategic bombers are based, along with more than 160,000 US citizens. There has been no indication that any actual attack on the Pacific island is imminent. On Thursday Mr Trump suggested that his own statements on North Korea had not been tough enough, warning the regime to be "very, very nervous". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Robin Brant asks those in the South Korean capital, Seoul: "Are you scared?" However, he added that the US would always consider negotiations. He also chided the North's closest ally, China, saying it could do "a lot more". China's state-run Global Times newspaper wrote that Beijing should stay neutral if North Korea launches an attack that threatens the US. But it also said that if the US and South Korea attacked North Korea to force regime change, then China must intervene to prevent it. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his nation would be prepared to join a conflict against North Korea if the US came under attack. Australia would honour its commitment under a 1951 treaty, he said, "as America would come to our aid if we were attacked". Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

www.bbc.com

center

pvNizHTMoAK3yFGb

test

6SAqw2VXOno3aToa

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/4c521336d47c25d76d18000a3ea04511

Navy vet beaten by federal agents: ‘They came out to fight’

2020-07-20

Andrew Selsky

This undated photo provided by Christopher David , shows Christopher David , a graduate of the U.S . Naval Academy and a Navy veteran . David was beaten Saturday , July 17 , 2020 , with a wooden baton and pepper-sprayed in the face by authorities during ongoing protests in Portland , Ore. ( Christopher David via AP ) This undated photo provided by Christopher David , shows Christopher David , a graduate of the U.S . Naval Academy and a Navy veteran . David was beaten Saturday , July 17 , 2020 , with a wooden baton and pepper-sprayed in the face by authorities during ongoing protests in Portland , Ore. ( Christopher David via AP ) SALEM , Ore. ( AP ) — The Navy veteran stands passively in Portland , Oregon , amid swirling tear gas . One of the militarized federal agents deployed by President Donald Trump swings a baton at him with full force . With both hands . Five times . Under the assault , 53-year-old Christopher David seems like a redwood tree — impervious to the blows . But in a video shot by a reporter , another officer — wearing green military camouflage , a helmet and gas mask — sprays David full in the face with what appears to be pepper gas . Video of the Saturday night incident has gone viral . Accounts of it have been reported by news outlets in the United States and around the world . Today , David , who suffered two broken bones in his hand , finds himself a reluctant symbol of the protests taking place in Oregon ’ s largest city and the federal response to it . Militarized officers from a handful of agencies have been using tear gas , flash-bangs , pepper spray , “ less-lethal ” impact weapons and other munitions to disperse crowds . “ It isn ’ t about me getting beat up . It ’ s about focusing back on the original intention of all of these protests , which is Black Lives Matter , ” David said in a phone interview Monday with The ███ . The U.S. Department of Homeland Security , which has deployed officers to Portland , did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident that David recounted . DHS said in a statement about Saturday night ’ s events that some of the protesters were “ violent anarchists ” who had launched objects at federal officers , including fireworks and bags of paint , and tried to barricade officers inside the federal building . Some vandalism , including graffiti , has occurred in the Portland protests , now in their 53rd day , and federal officials say they ’ ve responded to protect property and help restore order . One protester was arrested after allegedly assaulting a federal officer with a hammer . But people peacefully protesting police brutality and racism , including a county commissioner and religious clerics , have been subjected to riot-control munitions . One demonstrator was hit in the head by an impact munition , shattering bones in his face and head . Some were snatched off the streets by the federal officers and stuffed into unmarked vehicles . David , a graduate of the U.S . Naval Academy and a Navy veteran , was so disturbed by what he ’ d heard that he came to a protest site outside the federal building in downtown Portland on Saturday night . He put on a sweatshirt with “ Navy ” emblazoned across the chest and a Navy ballcap , figuring the federal officers would be , like him , a military veteran . He figured they ’ d listen as he reminded them “ that you take the oath to the Constitution ; you don ’ t take the oath to a particular person . ” “ What they were doing was unconstitutional , ” David said . ” Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution , and it ’ s just a set of words that mean nothing . They really don ’ t feel in their heart the weight of those words . ” There was no talking . The federal officers , in full tactical gear , came charging out of the federal building . “ They came out in this phalanx , running , and then they plowed into a bunch of protesters in the intersection of the street and knocked them over . They came out to fight , ” David said . One officer pointed a semi-automatic weapon at David ’ s chest , he said , and video shows another shoving him backwards as he tried to talk with the officers . “ I took a couple steps back , straightened up , and then just stood my ground right there , arms down by my side , ” David recalled . One officer began whacking at David with the baton . When he doesn ’ t fall or even flinch , another officer sprays him full in the face . David then retreats a few steps while making an obscene gesture . “ They are thugs and goons , ” David said . “ I couldn ’ t recognize anything tactically that they were attempting to do that was even remotely related to crowd control . It looked to me like a gang of guys with sticks . ” David will need reconstructive surgery with pins and plates on his ring finger that was shattered . A bone in his hand was also broken . “ My ex-wife and my daughter would kill me if I did that . They ’ re so angry at me for doing it in the first place because I got beat up , ” he said . “ I ’ m not a redwood tree . I ’ m an overweight , 53-year-old man . ”

This undated photo provided by Christopher David, shows Christopher David, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Navy veteran. David was beaten Saturday, July 17, 2020, with a wooden baton and pepper-sprayed in the face by authorities during ongoing protests in Portland, Ore. (Christopher David via AP) This undated photo provided by Christopher David, shows Christopher David, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Navy veteran. David was beaten Saturday, July 17, 2020, with a wooden baton and pepper-sprayed in the face by authorities during ongoing protests in Portland, Ore. (Christopher David via AP) SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Navy veteran stands passively in Portland, Oregon, amid swirling tear gas. One of the militarized federal agents deployed by President Donald Trump swings a baton at him with full force. With both hands. Five times. Under the assault, 53-year-old Christopher David seems like a redwood tree — impervious to the blows. But in a video shot by a reporter, another officer — wearing green military camouflage, a helmet and gas mask — sprays David full in the face with what appears to be pepper gas. Video of the Saturday night incident has gone viral. Accounts of it have been reported by news outlets in the United States and around the world. ADVERTISEMENT Today, David, who suffered two broken bones in his hand, finds himself a reluctant symbol of the protests taking place in Oregon’s largest city and the federal response to it. Militarized officers from a handful of agencies have been using tear gas, flash-bangs, pepper spray, “less-lethal” impact weapons and other munitions to disperse crowds. “It isn’t about me getting beat up. It’s about focusing back on the original intention of all of these protests, which is Black Lives Matter,” David said in a phone interview Monday with The Associated Press. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which has deployed officers to Portland, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident that David recounted. DHS said in a statement about Saturday night’s events that some of the protesters were “violent anarchists” who had launched objects at federal officers, including fireworks and bags of paint, and tried to barricade officers inside the federal building. Some vandalism, including graffiti, has occurred in the Portland protests, now in their 53rd day, and federal officials say they’ve responded to protect property and help restore order. One protester was arrested after allegedly assaulting a federal officer with a hammer. But people peacefully protesting police brutality and racism, including a county commissioner and religious clerics, have been subjected to riot-control munitions. One demonstrator was hit in the head by an impact munition, shattering bones in his face and head. Some were snatched off the streets by the federal officers and stuffed into unmarked vehicles. David, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Navy veteran, was so disturbed by what he’d heard that he came to a protest site outside the federal building in downtown Portland on Saturday night. He put on a sweatshirt with “Navy” emblazoned across the chest and a Navy ballcap, figuring the federal officers would be, like him, a military veteran. He figured they’d listen as he reminded them “that you take the oath to the Constitution; you don’t take the oath to a particular person.” ADVERTISEMENT “What they were doing was unconstitutional,” David said. ”Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing. They really don’t feel in their heart the weight of those words.” There was no talking. The federal officers, in full tactical gear, came charging out of the federal building. “They came out in this phalanx, running, and then they plowed into a bunch of protesters in the intersection of the street and knocked them over. They came out to fight,” David said. One officer pointed a semi-automatic weapon at David’s chest, he said, and video shows another shoving him backwards as he tried to talk with the officers. “I took a couple steps back, straightened up, and then just stood my ground right there, arms down by my side,” David recalled. One officer began whacking at David with the baton. When he doesn’t fall or even flinch, another officer sprays him full in the face. David then retreats a few steps while making an obscene gesture. “They are thugs and goons,” David said. “I couldn’t recognize anything tactically that they were attempting to do that was even remotely related to crowd control. It looked to me like a gang of guys with sticks.” David will need reconstructive surgery with pins and plates on his ring finger that was shattered. A bone in his hand was also broken. He’s not going back out to protest. “My ex-wife and my daughter would kill me if I did that. They’re so angry at me for doing it in the first place because I got beat up,” he said. “I’m not a redwood tree. I’m an overweight, 53-year-old man.” ___ Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky

www.apnews.com

center

6SAqw2VXOno3aToa

test

6VZhsjZIYBQJ02i3

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/

The Media’s Russia ‘Bombshells’ Look Even Worse Now That Mueller Found No Collusion

2019-03-25

Attorney General William Barr told Congress Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller did not find collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government , destroying two years of media speculation and bad reporting . The obsession to prove collusion has dampened the media ’ s journalistic abilities , leading to a seemingly endless list of corrections , retractions and apologies . In light of Mueller concluding his investigation , we ’ ve compiled a list of some of the worst media screwups in the history of Russia theories . Last December , CNN ’ s Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. to give him access to stolen documents a full 10 days before they were released to the public . Unfortunately for CNN , it turns out their sources gave them the wrong date . Don Jr. actually received an email with access to the stolen docs on Sept. 14 , 2016 , after they had already been released publicly . ABC was forced to suspend Brian Ross after he falsely reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians . The stock market dropped a few hundred points at the news — but it turned out to be fake . ABC clarified that Flynn was actually prepared to testify that Trump asked him to contact Russia while the administration was transitioning into office . Pretty standard preparation for an incoming president . CNN earns another spot on this list for their shoddy reporting about former Trump adviser Anthony , “ The Mooch , ” Scaramucci . In June 2017 , CNN relied on a single unnamed source to claim that Scaramucci was under investigation for a meeting he took with a Russian banker prior to Trump ’ s inauguration . The Mooch denied the story and CNN later gave him a much-deserved apology . Oh … and three CNN employees resigned over the botched piece . Bloomberg initially reported in December that special counsel Robert Mueller had “ zeroed in ” on Trump by subpoenaing Deutsche Bank records for the incoming president and his family . Bloomberg later admitted that Mueller was looking for records relating to “ people affiliated ” with Trump . Last May , CNN was sure that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had botched protocol when he didn ’ t list meetings he had with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms . To CNN and other establishment media outlets , this was proof that Sessions was hiding something related to Russia . A little over six months later , CNN quietly walked back the scandal , explaining the FBI sent emails informing Sessions ’ aide that he did not need to disclose the meetings on his forms because they were carried out in the course of his duties as a senator . 6 . Russians Aren ’ t Just Hacking The Election — They ’ re Hacking Our Power Grid The Washington Post claimed in January 2017 that Russians were hacking the U.S. power grid through a company in Vermont , only to change the story to say that only one laptop was infiltrated . It turns out that one laptop was never even connected to the power grid . A number of news outlets have consistently claimed that Republicans initially paid for the anti-Trump Steele dossier , failing to note that Steele wasn ’ t even contracted by Fusion GPS until after the GOP donors pulled funding . The Republican donors say they paid Fusion for standard opposition research and that they have zero connection to the dossier . The media has perpetuated this falsehood so consistently that even former FBI director James Comey was confused , repeating the lie in an interview with Fox News ’ Bret Baier . Prior to former FBI director James Comey ’ s congressional testimony last June , CNN asserted that Comey was prepared to contradict a key claim by President Trump — that Comey told him he was not under investigation . Sadly for them , Comey ’ s prepared testimony was released with the line , “ During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower … I offered that assurance [ that he was not under investigation ] . ” The media perpetuated a false claim from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for months , insisting that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election . The New York Times , for example , rated that claim as true only to later say the exact opposite . Only four intelligence agencies ultimately deemed Russia responsible for meddling because the other 13 have no business making judgments on the claim . As The NYT succinctly explained , “ The rest were doing other work . ” NBC botched its big scoop claiming that Paul Manafort ’ s notes from a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “ donations ” near a reference to the Republican National Committee . Turns out , not only did the word “ donations ” not appear in Manafort ’ s notes , but the word “ donor ” didn ’ t , either . POLITICO had to correct the NBC report , leaving the legacy network looking awfully embarrassed . NBC issued a major correction in May on a story about wiretaps and Michael Cohen . NBC initially claimed that federal investigators were listening in on Cohen ’ s phone calls , but it turns out they had what ’ s called a “ pen register warrant , ” which means they could see who Cohen spoke to on the phone but could not hear what was said . ( RELATED : MSNBC Issues HUGE Correction To Michael Cohen ‘ Wiretap ’ Story ) A McClatchy report stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that Michael Cohen visited Prague in the summer of 2016 , which seemed to corroborate the portion of the Steele dossier claiming Cohen visited Prague at that time to meet with a Kremlin official . However , no other outlets ever confirmed the report and Cohen told Congress during an open hearing in February that he has never been to Prague . ( RELATED : Here ’ s Why You Should Be Skeptical Of That Michael Cohen Prague Story ) The special counsel ’ s office disputed a 2019 report by BuzzFeed claiming that Trump directed his lawyer to lie about a potential business deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign . The BuzzFeed report was used to float impeachment proceedings and obstruction of justice charges against the president , but Mueller ’ s team disputed the core premise of the reporting . “ BuzzFeed ’ s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel ’ s Office , and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office , regarding Michael Cohen ’ s Congressional testimony are not accurate , ” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement to ███ News Foundation . CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians . But Cohen ’ s lawyer , Lanny Davis , said in August that CNN ’ s reporting got “ mixed up ” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting . Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions . CNN doubled , tripled , and quadrupled down on its reporting , despite a series of issues with the report . NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen . However , NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr. ’ s testimony they quoted was about a different project . “ Trump Jr. ’ s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov , ” ███ News Foundation ’ s Chuck Ross explained . “ Felix Sater , a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials , tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015 . ” Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks , Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov . Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting , citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo . The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins . This story was originally published in May 2018 but has been updated with additional information regarding the delivery of Mueller ’ s report to Attorney General Bill Barr .

Attorney General William Barr told Congress Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller did not find collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, destroying two years of media speculation and bad reporting. The obsession to prove collusion has dampened the media’s journalistic abilities, leading to a seemingly endless list of corrections, retractions and apologies. In light of Mueller concluding his investigation, we’ve compiled a list of some of the worst media screwups in the history of Russia theories. 1. CNN Accuses Don Jr. Of Wikileaks Collusion Last December, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. to give him access to stolen documents a full 10 days before they were released to the public. Unfortunately for CNN, it turns out their sources gave them the wrong date. Don Jr. actually received an email with access to the stolen docs on Sept. 14, 2016, after they had already been released publicly. 2. ABC Tanks Stock Market With Fake Flynn News ABC was forced to suspend Brian Ross after he falsely reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians. The stock market dropped a few hundred points at the news — but it turned out to be fake. ABC clarified that Flynn was actually prepared to testify that Trump asked him to contact Russia while the administration was transitioning into office. Pretty standard preparation for an incoming president. 3. The Mooch Is NOT Under Investigation CNN earns another spot on this list for their shoddy reporting about former Trump adviser Anthony, “The Mooch,” Scaramucci. In June 2017, CNN relied on a single unnamed source to claim that Scaramucci was under investigation for a meeting he took with a Russian banker prior to Trump’s inauguration. The Mooch denied the story and CNN later gave him a much-deserved apology. Oh … and three CNN employees resigned over the botched piece. 4. Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop Bloomberg initially reported in December that special counsel Robert Mueller had “zeroed in” on Trump by subpoenaing Deutsche Bank records for the incoming president and his family. Bloomberg later admitted that Mueller was looking for records relating to “people affiliated” with Trump. 5. Sessions Exonerated Last May, CNN was sure that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had botched protocol when he didn’t list meetings he had with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms. To CNN and other establishment media outlets, this was proof that Sessions was hiding something related to Russia. A little over six months later, CNN quietly walked back the scandal, explaining the FBI sent emails informing Sessions’ aide that he did not need to disclose the meetings on his forms because they were carried out in the course of his duties as a senator. 6. Russians Aren’t Just Hacking The Election — They’re Hacking Our Power Grid The Washington Post claimed in January 2017 that Russians were hacking the U.S. power grid through a company in Vermont, only to change the story to say that only one laptop was infiltrated. It turns out that one laptop was never even connected to the power grid. 7. Republicans Funded The Dossier! A number of news outlets have consistently claimed that Republicans initially paid for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, failing to note that Steele wasn’t even contracted by Fusion GPS until after the GOP donors pulled funding. The Republican donors say they paid Fusion for standard opposition research and that they have zero connection to the dossier. The media has perpetuated this falsehood so consistently that even former FBI director James Comey was confused, repeating the lie in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. 8. CNN Gets Comey Prediction Wildly Wrong Prior to former FBI director James Comey’s congressional testimony last June, CNN asserted that Comey was prepared to contradict a key claim by President Trump — that Comey told him he was not under investigation. Sadly for them, Comey’s prepared testimony was released with the line, “During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower … I offered that assurance [that he was not under investigation].” 9. The ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie The media perpetuated a false claim from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for months, insisting that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The New York Times, for example, rated that claim as true only to later say the exact opposite. Only four intelligence agencies ultimately deemed Russia responsible for meddling because the other 13 have no business making judgments on the claim. As The NYT succinctly explained, “The rest were doing other work.” 10. Manafort Notes Are A Nothing Burger NBC botched its big scoop claiming that Paul Manafort’s notes from a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee. Turns out, not only did the word “donations” not appear in Manafort’s notes, but the word “donor” didn’t, either. POLITICO had to correct the NBC report, leaving the legacy network looking awfully embarrassed. 11. NBC Issues Cohen Correction NBC issued a major correction in May on a story about wiretaps and Michael Cohen. NBC initially claimed that federal investigators were listening in on Cohen’s phone calls, but it turns out they had what’s called a “pen register warrant,” which means they could see who Cohen spoke to on the phone but could not hear what was said.(RELATED: MSNBC Issues HUGE Correction To Michael Cohen ‘Wiretap’ Story) 12. Did Cohen Go To Prague? A McClatchy report stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that Michael Cohen visited Prague in the summer of 2016, which seemed to corroborate the portion of the Steele dossier claiming Cohen visited Prague at that time to meet with a Kremlin official. However, no other outlets ever confirmed the report and Cohen told Congress during an open hearing in February that he has never been to Prague. (RELATED: Here’s Why You Should Be Skeptical Of That Michael Cohen Prague Story) 13. Busted BuzzFeed The special counsel’s office disputed a 2019 report by BuzzFeed claiming that Trump directed his lawyer to lie about a potential business deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. The BuzzFeed report was used to float impeachment proceedings and obstruction of justice charges against the president, but Mueller’s team disputed the core premise of the reporting. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation. 14. Lanny Davis Obliterates CNN’s Trump Tower Story CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians. But Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in August that CNN’s reporting got “mixed up” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions. CNN doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on its reporting, despite a series of issues with the report. 15. NPR Accuses Don Jr. Of Perjury NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. However, NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr.’s testimony they quoted was about a different project. “Trump Jr.’s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov,” The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross explained. “Felix Sater, a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials, tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015.” 16. Mic Claims Russian Spy Infiltrated The Oval Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks, Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov. Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting, citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo. The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins. This story was originally published in May 2018 but has been updated with additional information regarding the delivery of Mueller’s report to Attorney General Bill Barr. Follow Amber on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

6VZhsjZIYBQJ02i3

test

3c19WFYtKGtzmF61

national_defense

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/trump-and-syria-the-myth-of-betrayal/

Trump and Syria: The Myth of Betrayal

Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jeffrey Lord, Debra J. Saunders, Brian Mcnicoll, Roger Kaplan, Jared Whitley

“ Trump has betrayed the Syrian Kurds ” — so goes a popular refrain regarding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the areas of northeast Syria held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces ( SDF ) . The events that have followed — namely , a Turkish invasion of parts of SDF territory along the border and the deployment of Syrian government forces in some SDF areas — have been characterized as a strategic disaster for American interests , with some commentators even proclaiming the withdrawal as indicative of a U.S. imperial decline and U.S. disengagement from the Middle East . In fact , much of this is overblown . For one thing , the U.S. still maintains extensive troop deployments elsewhere in the Middle East , and those are not being drawn down anytime soon . Insofar as many of the pundits , analysts , and policymakers condemning Trump consider the recent developments in Syria to be a disaster , they primarily have themselves to blame , however popular bashing Trump might be . Indeed , these critics of Trump did not learn the relevant lessons from December 2018 when the president ordered preparations for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria . They should have appreciated that Trump is ultimately the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces and that he had made his own preferences on Syria clear : namely , that after the military defeat of the Islamic State , U.S. forces should leave . As the president ’ s record on issues like climate change and the Iran nuclear deal illustrates , he has generally been forthright and sincere in trying to fulfill his policy promises . When he told his advisers that he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria , he meant it . The message should have been clear : devise an orderly withdrawal plan . But that is not what happened . Instead , efforts and attention were geared towards U.S. forces remaining indefinitely in Syria . The advocates for this “ stay indefinitely ” approach argued that the deployment as it existed was supposedly an example of a successful projection of U.S. leverage and influence with a relatively small number of troops . They claimed that U.S. presence was vital for political negotiations on Syria ’ s future and important for limiting Iranian influence and blocking its “ land route ” to the Mediterranean . In reality , none of these assertions holds up but rather reflect dubious expansions of the original purpose of the U.S. mission in Syria : countering the Islamic State . At the same time , the “ stay indefinitely ” crowd tended to downplay the major problem regarding the U.S. partnership with the SDF : the issue of relations with Turkey , which considers ( with some justification ) the SDF to be an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party ( PKK ) , which has fought the Turkish state for decades . Regardless of what one thinks of Turkey ’ s approach towards the PKK , it is not a problem that can be treated as a minor irritant . Facts of geography mean that Turkey is located along the northern borders of the SDF ’ s territory . As such , Turkey could be the SDF ’ s main gateway to the outside world , rather than the small and limited capacity border crossing on the Tigris River that the SDF has maintained with the Iraqi Kurdistan region . Thus , for the interests of the SDF ’ s longterm economic prospects ( among other things ) , some kind of détente or resolution of the conflict between the PKK and Turkey would have been necessary so that the region could have much more open borders and engagement with the outside world . Unfortunately , though , policymakers and advisers did not take Turkey ’ s concerns and its threats of a military confrontation with the SDF seriously enough . Along with their desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria , many of them imagined that Turkey could somehow be appeased through half-baked measures : thus the previous attempts to deny SDF–PKK links , the failed schemes of joint U.S.–Turkish patrols in the Manbij area west of the Euphrates River , and then the joint northern border patrols and partial dismantling of SDF fortifications along the northern border with Turkey a little while before the recent Turkish incursion against the SDF . Others argue that the U.S. simply needed to be adamant in saying no to a Turkish incursion and that the small U.S. troop presence could have deterred Turkey indefinitely . This view is implausible . A small foreign troop presence can function as a deterrent to another side ’ s attack , but it is not an absolute deterrent here . To understand why , consider events that occurred earlier this year on the other side of Syria . In the northwest of Syria ( specifically the city of Idlib and its environs ) , Turkey set up multiple small military outposts in the insurgent-held areas ostensibly as part of enforcing a “ deescalation ” scheme in coordination with Russia . In practice , the goal has been to block any further Syrian government offensives on the northwest and prevent further refugee flows into Turkey . While Russia has shown some understanding of Turkey ’ s concerns in this regard , it also wishes to assist the Syrian government in restoring its control over the area and will not tolerate the indefinite presence of designated “ terrorist ” groups harassing Syrian government and Russian positions . Russia thus gave Turkey time to clear a demilitarized buffer zone of the likes of Hay ’ at Tahrir al-Sham ( a designated “ terrorist ” group ) . When that did not materialize and the insurgent harassments of Syrian government and Russian positions continued , the Syrian government and Russia launched a military campaign that retook important areas in south Idlib and north Hama . The Turkish military outposts did not do anything to stop the offensive ( indeed , they could not do so ) , and in effect the Syrian government and Russia worked around one of the outposts in north Hama . A ceasefire then followed , but it should be clear that it will not last if Turkey can not crack down on the groups that are designated as “ terrorist . ” That episode should also have been a lesson for U.S. policymakers . Turkey ’ s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan repeatedly said he would launch an incursion against the SDF to the east of the Euphrates River ( where U.S. forces in Syria have primarily been stationed ) , and in 2018 Turkey had carried through with its threats to destroy the SDF enclave in the Afrin area , where the U.S. had no presence . What would have stopped Turkey from finding ways to work around U.S. positions as part of its incursion against the SDF east of the Euphrates River and essentially forcing the small U.S. garrisons — confronted by much larger Turkish forces and their Syrian insurgent proxies — to get out of the way ? Thus , Trump ’ s indication to Erdoğan that he wished to leave Syria and would not oppose an incursion likely hastened the Turkish operations against the SDF . But it was not the decisive factor in determining whether or not those operations would have eventually occurred anyway . Had the U.S. wished to deter Turkey indefinitely , it would have had to deploy far more troops in northeast Syria . For comparison , the much more extensive Turkish military presence in the insurgent-held north Aleppo countryside between Afrin and Jarabulus functions as an effective deterrent against Russian and Syrian government military action so long as Turkey maintains that large presence . Of course , the advocates of the “ stay indefinitely ” course did not dare to confront these realities and argue for a more extensive U.S. presence , knowing that such advocacy would be politically unacceptable . They preferred to argue that the small U.S. troop presence in northeast Syria as an example of a deployment that was strategically effective and inexpensive . Ultimately , the debate about the U.S. role in Syria boils down to the question of how far the U.S. should invest troops and resources into a foreign deployment . Those who advocated an indefinite presence are delusional if they think the prior status quo was sustainable . If they had thought more carefully about the idea of making the SDF-held areas a U.S. protectorate that could function independently of the wider environment , they should have accepted that such a project would have required far more troops and money to be poured in . In any case , they should still be asked why they did not come up with an exit plan but instead thought they could defy the president ’ s wishes . They are the ones far more deserving of the accusation of betrayal for making misleading commitments , promises , and reassurances to the SDF .

“Trump has betrayed the Syrian Kurds” — so goes a popular refrain regarding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the areas of northeast Syria held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The events that have followed — namely, a Turkish invasion of parts of SDF territory along the border and the deployment of Syrian government forces in some SDF areas — have been characterized as a strategic disaster for American interests, with some commentators even proclaiming the withdrawal as indicative of a U.S. imperial decline and U.S. disengagement from the Middle East. In fact, much of this is overblown. For one thing, the U.S. still maintains extensive troop deployments elsewhere in the Middle East, and those are not being drawn down anytime soon. Insofar as many of the pundits, analysts, and policymakers condemning Trump consider the recent developments in Syria to be a disaster, they primarily have themselves to blame, however popular bashing Trump might be. Indeed, these critics of Trump did not learn the relevant lessons from December 2018 when the president ordered preparations for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. They should have appreciated that Trump is ultimately the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces and that he had made his own preferences on Syria clear: namely, that after the military defeat of the Islamic State, U.S. forces should leave. As the president’s record on issues like climate change and the Iran nuclear deal illustrates, he has generally been forthright and sincere in trying to fulfill his policy promises. When he told his advisers that he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, he meant it. The message should have been clear: devise an orderly withdrawal plan. But that is not what happened. Instead, efforts and attention were geared towards U.S. forces remaining indefinitely in Syria. The advocates for this “stay indefinitely” approach argued that the deployment as it existed was supposedly an example of a successful projection of U.S. leverage and influence with a relatively small number of troops. They claimed that U.S. presence was vital for political negotiations on Syria’s future and important for limiting Iranian influence and blocking its “land route” to the Mediterranean. In reality, none of these assertions holds up but rather reflect dubious expansions of the original purpose of the U.S. mission in Syria: countering the Islamic State. At the same time, the “stay indefinitely” crowd tended to downplay the major problem regarding the U.S. partnership with the SDF: the issue of relations with Turkey, which considers (with some justification) the SDF to be an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought the Turkish state for decades. Regardless of what one thinks of Turkey’s approach towards the PKK, it is not a problem that can be treated as a minor irritant. Facts of geography mean that Turkey is located along the northern borders of the SDF’s territory. As such, Turkey could be the SDF’s main gateway to the outside world, rather than the small and limited capacity border crossing on the Tigris River that the SDF has maintained with the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Thus, for the interests of the SDF’s longterm economic prospects (among other things), some kind of détente or resolution of the conflict between the PKK and Turkey would have been necessary so that the region could have much more open borders and engagement with the outside world. Unfortunately, though, policymakers and advisers did not take Turkey’s concerns and its threats of a military confrontation with the SDF seriously enough. Along with their desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria, many of them imagined that Turkey could somehow be appeased through half-baked measures: thus the previous attempts to deny SDF–PKK links, the failed schemes of joint U.S.–Turkish patrols in the Manbij area west of the Euphrates River, and then the joint northern border patrols and partial dismantling of SDF fortifications along the northern border with Turkey a little while before the recent Turkish incursion against the SDF. Others argue that the U.S. simply needed to be adamant in saying no to a Turkish incursion and that the small U.S. troop presence could have deterred Turkey indefinitely. This view is implausible. A small foreign troop presence can function as a deterrent to another side’s attack, but it is not an absolute deterrent here. To understand why, consider events that occurred earlier this year on the other side of Syria. In the northwest of Syria (specifically the city of Idlib and its environs), Turkey set up multiple small military outposts in the insurgent-held areas ostensibly as part of enforcing a “deescalation” scheme in coordination with Russia. In practice, the goal has been to block any further Syrian government offensives on the northwest and prevent further refugee flows into Turkey. While Russia has shown some understanding of Turkey’s concerns in this regard, it also wishes to assist the Syrian government in restoring its control over the area and will not tolerate the indefinite presence of designated “terrorist” groups harassing Syrian government and Russian positions. Russia thus gave Turkey time to clear a demilitarized buffer zone of the likes of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (a designated “terrorist” group). When that did not materialize and the insurgent harassments of Syrian government and Russian positions continued, the Syrian government and Russia launched a military campaign that retook important areas in south Idlib and north Hama. The Turkish military outposts did not do anything to stop the offensive (indeed, they could not do so), and in effect the Syrian government and Russia worked around one of the outposts in north Hama. A ceasefire then followed, but it should be clear that it will not last if Turkey cannot crack down on the groups that are designated as “terrorist.” That episode should also have been a lesson for U.S. policymakers. Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan repeatedly said he would launch an incursion against the SDF to the east of the Euphrates River (where U.S. forces in Syria have primarily been stationed), and in 2018 Turkey had carried through with its threats to destroy the SDF enclave in the Afrin area, where the U.S. had no presence. What would have stopped Turkey from finding ways to work around U.S. positions as part of its incursion against the SDF east of the Euphrates River and essentially forcing the small U.S. garrisons — confronted by much larger Turkish forces and their Syrian insurgent proxies — to get out of the way? Thus, Trump’s indication to Erdoğan that he wished to leave Syria and would not oppose an incursion likely hastened the Turkish operations against the SDF. But it was not the decisive factor in determining whether or not those operations would have eventually occurred anyway. Had the U.S. wished to deter Turkey indefinitely, it would have had to deploy far more troops in northeast Syria. For comparison, the much more extensive Turkish military presence in the insurgent-held north Aleppo countryside between Afrin and Jarabulus functions as an effective deterrent against Russian and Syrian government military action so long as Turkey maintains that large presence. Of course, the advocates of the “stay indefinitely” course did not dare to confront these realities and argue for a more extensive U.S. presence, knowing that such advocacy would be politically unacceptable. They preferred to argue that the small U.S. troop presence in northeast Syria as an example of a deployment that was strategically effective and inexpensive. Ultimately, the debate about the U.S. role in Syria boils down to the question of how far the U.S. should invest troops and resources into a foreign deployment. Those who advocated an indefinite presence are delusional if they think the prior status quo was sustainable. If they had thought more carefully about the idea of making the SDF-held areas a U.S. protectorate that could function independently of the wider environment, they should have accepted that such a project would have required far more troops and money to be poured in. In any case, they should still be asked why they did not come up with an exit plan but instead thought they could defy the president’s wishes. They are the ones far more deserving of the accusation of betrayal for making misleading commitments, promises, and reassurances to the SDF.

www.spectator.org

right

3c19WFYtKGtzmF61

test

722xyIKYQxaR102c

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/30/gop_declares_war_on_the_supreme_court_whats_really_behind_the_reactionary_plot_against_the_judiciary/

GOP declares war on the Supreme Court: What’s really behind the reactionary plot against the judiciary

2015-06-30

Jim Newell

My God , they are so mad . Is n't it great ? Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee are still talking up constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage . Bobby Jindal is suggesting ( jokingly ) ( ? ? ? ) that `` if we want to save some money , let 's just get rid of the court . '' And now Jeb Bush is in even more trouble with conservatives because his brother appointed John Roberts , who has now written a whole two ( 2 ) opinions over the course of 10 years that conservatives do n't care for . But the candidate who 's most successfully leveraged apocalyptic conservative outrage to his advantage in the hey-look-at-me competition has been our main man , Ted Cruz . Is Ted Cruz feeling a little ... left behind ? Here 's a fellow who gets the chills when the camera flash turns from him to anyone else . He declared his presidential candidacy more than three months ago , and in the meantime , a dozen other jokers bearing neither the lofty principles nor sharp , double-Ivied intellect of Ted Cruz have joined him in competition . The nerve of it all . What the hell , Mike Huckabee , Bobby Jindal , Donald Trump ? How dare you vie for the mantle of most outlandish nutso person in your own desperate , doomed-to-fail bids ? That 's Ted Cruz 's `` lane . '' Cruz 's whole thing is about serving as the principal vessel for the raging underbelly of American conservatism . He 's the one who is constantly trying to shut down the government and/or default on federal debt payments in the service of repealing some law or another that he does n't like . That 's his thing . Step off . In an effort to reclaim his status as chief reactionary , Cruz has distinguished himself as the most hyperbolic reactor to last week 's Obamacare and same-sex marriage Supreme Court decisions . Cruz , who has been conjuring the threat of `` mandatory gay marriage '' in recent months , added a new line to his repertoire following the Court 's one-two punch : that these represent `` some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation ’ s history . '' ( The quote as first reported omitted the `` some of '' part -- that Thursday morning to Friday morning represented the darkest 24 hours in history . Typical lamestream media , hearing what it wants to hear . Instead of saying that the Supreme Court 's decisions allowing low-income people to maintain health insurance and gay couples to wed were worse than Pearl Harbor , Antietam , 9/11 , the Cuban Missile Crisis , etc. , Cruz was simply saying that the decisions were on par with those other calamities . Can this be denied ? ) The decisions also gave Ted Cruz the opportunity to introduce another constitutional amendment . That the current composition of the Court would abandon its constitutional duty to do whatever Ted Cruz wants them to do ( this is the only proper originalist reading of Article III ) means there 's only one option left : voting the bums out . `` Not only are the Court ’ s opinions untethered to reason and logic , they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government , '' Cruz opines in a slightly overwrought National Review essay . `` By redefining the meaning of common words , and redesigning the most basic human institutions , this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy . '' The only remedy , to Cruz , is `` [ r ] endering the justices directly accountable to the people . '' He suggests following the lead of states that have instituted judicial retention elections . In California , the people said enough is enough in 1986 , and removed from office three activist justices who had repeatedly contorted the state constitution to effectively outlaw capital punishment , no matter how savage the crime . The people of Nebraska likewise removed a justice who had twice disfigured that state ’ s constitution to overturn the people ’ s decision to subject state legislators to term limits . And in 2010 , the voters of Iowa removed three justices who had , like the Supreme Court in Obergefell , invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage . Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America ; they will work for America . In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants , I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections . Every justice , beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment , will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years . Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court . Cruz dismisses the mechanism the Constitution currently provides against `` judicial tyranny '' -- impeachment powers -- as impractical . Yes , here is Ted Cruz , the fellow who sees every appropriations or debt ceiling bottleneck as an opportunity to eliminate the Affordable Care Act , whose answer to every bad news cycle for conservatives is a newfangled constitutional amendment that would go nowhere , citing the lack of Senate votes as the reason why a certain tactic would n't work . `` A Senate that can not muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness , '' he writes , `` can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy . '' If 67 votes can not be mustered to impeach Anthony Kennedy , then perhaps Anthony Kennedy should not be impeached . I do not understand judicial elections . Never have . It 's one of those concepts that when I hear about it I ca n't believe it actually exists in the world , so obvious is the conflict of interest it introduces for judges . The instances he lists of supposedly reasonable cases where judges have been removed strike me as further proof that judicial elections are a terrible , terrible idea . There is a case to be made that lifetime appointments are also silly . Consideration of term limits is a worthy discussion , though the details would be critical : some sort of staggered structure allotting for new appointments every so many years , so one president from one party does n't get to name a handful of justices while the next president gets to name zero . Whatever . But this is probably the best case against Supreme Court retention elections : a presidential candidate who needs attention and thus makes the tactical decision to capitalize on partisan insta-rage over a couple of unfavorable decisions to boost his own standing within a competitive field is the one proposing them . Unlike Ted Cruz , I do n't presume to know what the Founders would think about any given situation in 2015 , but this latest gambit from Cruz seems to validate their decision to keep Supreme Court justices at a safe , though not total , remove from political meddling .

My God, they are so mad. Isn't it great? Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee are still talking up constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Bobby Jindal is suggesting (jokingly) (???) that "if we want to save some money, let's just get rid of the court." And now Jeb Bush is in even more trouble with conservatives because his brother appointed John Roberts, who has now written a whole two (2) opinions over the course of 10 years that conservatives don't care for. But the candidate who's most successfully leveraged apocalyptic conservative outrage to his advantage in the hey-look-at-me competition has been our main man, Ted Cruz. Advertisement: Is Ted Cruz feeling a little ... left behind? Here's a fellow who gets the chills when the camera flash turns from him to anyone else. He declared his presidential candidacy more than three months ago, and in the meantime, a dozen other jokers bearing neither the lofty principles nor sharp, double-Ivied intellect of Ted Cruz have joined him in competition. The nerve of it all. What the hell, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump? How dare you vie for the mantle of most outlandish nutso person in your own desperate, doomed-to-fail bids? That's Ted Cruz's "lane." Cruz's whole thing is about serving as the principal vessel for the raging underbelly of American conservatism. He's the one who is constantly trying to shut down the government and/or default on federal debt payments in the service of repealing some law or another that he doesn't like. That's his thing. Step off. In an effort to reclaim his status as chief reactionary, Cruz has distinguished himself as the most hyperbolic reactor to last week's Obamacare and same-sex marriage Supreme Court decisions. Cruz, who has been conjuring the threat of "mandatory gay marriage" in recent months, added a new line to his repertoire following the Court's one-two punch: that these represent "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history." (The quote as first reported omitted the "some of" part -- that Thursday morning to Friday morning represented the darkest 24 hours in history. Typical lamestream media, hearing what it wants to hear. Instead of saying that the Supreme Court's decisions allowing low-income people to maintain health insurance and gay couples to wed were worse than Pearl Harbor, Antietam, 9/11, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., Cruz was simply saying that the decisions were on par with those other calamities. Can this be denied?) Advertisement: The decisions also gave Ted Cruz the opportunity to introduce another constitutional amendment. That the current composition of the Court would abandon its constitutional duty to do whatever Ted Cruz wants them to do (this is the only proper originalist reading of Article III) means there's only one option left: voting the bums out. "Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government," Cruz opines in a slightly overwrought National Review essay. "By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy." The only remedy, to Cruz, is "[r]endering the justices directly accountable to the people." He suggests following the lead of states that have instituted judicial retention elections. In California, the people said enough is enough in 1986, and removed from office three activist justices who had repeatedly contorted the state constitution to effectively outlaw capital punishment, no matter how savage the crime. The people of Nebraska likewise removed a justice who had twice disfigured that state’s constitution to overturn the people’s decision to subject state legislators to term limits. And in 2010, the voters of Iowa removed three justices who had, like the Supreme Court in Obergefell, invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court. Cruz dismisses the mechanism the Constitution currently provides against "judicial tyranny" -- impeachment powers -- as impractical. Yes, here is Ted Cruz, the fellow who sees every appropriations or debt ceiling bottleneck as an opportunity to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, whose answer to every bad news cycle for conservatives is a newfangled constitutional amendment that would go nowhere, citing the lack of Senate votes as the reason why a certain tactic wouldn't work. "A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness," he writes, "can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy." If 67 votes cannot be mustered to impeach Anthony Kennedy, then perhaps Anthony Kennedy should not be impeached. Advertisement: I do not understand judicial elections. Never have. It's one of those concepts that when I hear about it I can't believe it actually exists in the world, so obvious is the conflict of interest it introduces for judges. The instances he lists of supposedly reasonable cases where judges have been removed strike me as further proof that judicial elections are a terrible, terrible idea. There is a case to be made that lifetime appointments are also silly. Consideration of term limits is a worthy discussion, though the details would be critical: some sort of staggered structure allotting for new appointments every so many years, so one president from one party doesn't get to name a handful of justices while the next president gets to name zero. Whatever. But this is probably the best case against Supreme Court retention elections: a presidential candidate who needs attention and thus makes the tactical decision to capitalize on partisan insta-rage over a couple of unfavorable decisions to boost his own standing within a competitive field is the one proposing them. Unlike Ted Cruz, I don't presume to know what the Founders would think about any given situation in 2015, but this latest gambit from Cruz seems to validate their decision to keep Supreme Court justices at a safe, though not total, remove from political meddling.

www.salon.com

left

722xyIKYQxaR102c

test

1Uo06n69TggRZPQc

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/12/elizabeth_warren_goes_to_war_why_the_democratic_party_could_seriously_change_for_real_this_time/

Elizabeth Warren goes to war: Why the Democratic Party could seriously change — for real, this time

2014-12-12

Elias Isquith

A few weeks ago , once it was confirmed that she ’ d been anointed as a new member of the Senate Democrats ’ leadership team , I wrote a column urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to focus on building a power base from within the party , and to ignore those calling on her to run for president . Going off of the example set by the conservative activists who successfully transformed the GOP from a center-right party into one situated much closer to the fringe , I suggested that if Warren really saw herself as on a mission , then she should work on moving the Democratic Party ’ s policymaking infrastructure to the left — and forget about moving herself to 1600 Pennsylvania . As recent experience has shown , it doesn ’ t matter how liberal a president is if the rest of his party is still in big money ’ s pocket . When the piece first ran , it wasn ’ t really a prediction so much as a hope . I had no real insight into Warren ’ s thinking or her long-term plans . And the allure of the presidency must be overwhelming , especially when there are so many outsiders practically begging for you to run . It ’ s undoubtedly a much more romantic and exciting prospect than a decades-long struggle to move the unwieldy bureaucracy of the Democratic Party to the left . However , it may turn out that my column was rather unnecessary ; because , judging by her speech this week to a group of financial reformers , Warren doesn ’ t sound like she ’ s readying herself for a presidential campaign . No , she sounds more like she ’ s readying for an ideological war . Out of the many reports on Warren ’ s performance at the “ Managing the Economy ” conference , I thought the one ███ contributor David Dayen penned for the New Republic did the best job of situating her address within the framework of the fight that ’ s happening right now among Democrats over the party ’ s future direction . It would be impossible to categorize the groups perfectly ( that Will Rogers quote about being a member of no organized party has endured for a reason ) . But , in broad strokes , the division is between neoliberals , who want minimal regulations on Wall Street , and populists , who believe Wall Street has become a threat to the middle class . Warren is , by far , the most recognizable member of the latter group , while the neoliberals , lacking a star of their own , have had to settle for Andrew Ross Sorkin , the wunderkind Wall Street reporter who ’ s repeatedly criticized Warren in the New York Times . Recently , these two sides have been battling over whether President Obama , who is a member of the neoliberal contingent , should withdraw his nomination of Antonio Weiss to be the next undersecretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department ( which is the bureaucracy ’ s third-most-powerful slot ) . Weiss is currently an employee of the financial powerhouse Lazard , where he specializes in mergers and acquisitions , and from whom he ’ s set to receive a $ 20 million bonus if he takes the government job . Warren has argued that Weiss has no experience with the issues pertinent to the Treasury position in question , and that his selection is yet another spin of the revolving door . Being the fly in the White House ’ s ointment on this issue has predictably earned Warren some criticism from elites ; but as Dayen shows in his report , the senator seems inclined to escalate the conflict rather than back down . “ We ’ d all scratch our heads if the president nominated a theoretical physicist to be surgeon general just because she had a background in science , ” Warren said to the conference audience , responding indirectly to the barbs thrown her way by Sorkin and others . “ It ’ s no less puzzling to nominate an international mergers specialist to handle largely domestic issues at Treasury because he has a background in finance. ” More striking , however , was Warren ’ s decision to transition from defending her stance on the Weiss nomination to criticizing those who have built and maintained the revolving door — Democrats included . “ Time after time in government , ” Warren said , “ the Wall Street view prevails. ” After blaming this epistemic closure on the way Wall Street and fellow-traveling Democrats make it so Wall Street ’ s critics are “ crowded out , ” Warren then tied the dynamic to recent Dem-supported policies that , she believes , benefited the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else . This is the kind of rhetoric you hear a lot from Democrats of all kinds during campaign season ( though , of course , the blame is always laid entirely on Republicans ) . But it ’ s not the kind of rhetoric you ’ d expect to hear from a newbie senator with presidential aspirations , especially one who ’ d just been brought into the party ’ s inner circle — and especially one who ’ d already received tut-tuts from the Dems ’ formidable neoliberal wing . ( Running for president is very , very expensive . ) What it is instead , as Dayen rightly notes , is the kind of rhetoric you ’ d expect from someone whose main goal is to drive Wall Street and its defenders “ out of the temple of policymaking , ” and to give the anti-neoliberal wing within the party , which has been growing in strength since the 2008 financial collapse , a direction and a voice . And the fact that many high-profile Democratic senators — including Sen. Dick Durbin , Sen. Al Franken , Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and even Sen. Joe Manchin , the West Virginia conservative — are joining her in opposing the Weiss nomination shows that it may be working . For those hoping that Warren would respond to her ascension into the Dems ’ Senate leadership by keeping her criticisms within the family , as it were , the speech was a bad sign . But for those who want to one day see Sen. Elizabeth Warren running the party ’ s economic policy , it ’ s a very good one indeed .

A few weeks ago, once it was confirmed that she’d been anointed as a new member of the Senate Democrats’ leadership team, I wrote a column urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to focus on building a power base from within the party, and to ignore those calling on her to run for president. Going off of the example set by the conservative activists who successfully transformed the GOP from a center-right party into one situated much closer to the fringe, I suggested that if Warren really saw herself as on a mission, then she should work on moving the Democratic Party’s policymaking infrastructure to the left — and forget about moving herself to 1600 Pennsylvania. As recent experience has shown, it doesn’t matter how liberal a president is if the rest of his party is still in big money’s pocket. When the piece first ran, it wasn’t really a prediction so much as a hope. I had no real insight into Warren’s thinking or her long-term plans. And the allure of the presidency must be overwhelming, especially when there are so many outsiders practically begging for you to run. It’s undoubtedly a much more romantic and exciting prospect than a decades-long struggle to move the unwieldy bureaucracy of the Democratic Party to the left. However, it may turn out that my column was rather unnecessary; because, judging by her speech this week to a group of financial reformers, Warren doesn’t sound like she’s readying herself for a presidential campaign. No, she sounds more like she’s readying for an ideological war. Advertisement: Out of the many reports on Warren’s performance at the “Managing the Economy” conference, I thought the one Salon contributor David Dayen penned for the New Republic did the best job of situating her address within the framework of the fight that’s happening right now among Democrats over the party’s future direction. It would be impossible to categorize the groups perfectly (that Will Rogers quote about being a member of no organized party has endured for a reason). But, in broad strokes, the division is between neoliberals, who want minimal regulations on Wall Street, and populists, who believe Wall Street has become a threat to the middle class. Warren is, by far, the most recognizable member of the latter group, while the neoliberals, lacking a star of their own, have had to settle for Andrew Ross Sorkin, the wunderkind Wall Street reporter who’s repeatedly criticized Warren in the New York Times. Recently, these two sides have been battling over whether President Obama, who is a member of the neoliberal contingent, should withdraw his nomination of Antonio Weiss to be the next undersecretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department (which is the bureaucracy’s third-most-powerful slot). Weiss is currently an employee of the financial powerhouse Lazard, where he specializes in mergers and acquisitions, and from whom he’s set to receive a $20 million bonus if he takes the government job. Warren has argued that Weiss has no experience with the issues pertinent to the Treasury position in question, and that his selection is yet another spin of the revolving door. Being the fly in the White House’s ointment on this issue has predictably earned Warren some criticism from elites; but as Dayen shows in his report, the senator seems inclined to escalate the conflict rather than back down. “We’d all scratch our heads if the president nominated a theoretical physicist to be surgeon general just because she had a background in science,” Warren said to the conference audience, responding indirectly to the barbs thrown her way by Sorkin and others. “It’s no less puzzling to nominate an international mergers specialist to handle largely domestic issues at Treasury because he has a background in finance.” More striking, however, was Warren’s decision to transition from defending her stance on the Weiss nomination to criticizing those who have built and maintained the revolving door — Democrats included. “Time after time in government,” Warren said, “the Wall Street view prevails.” After blaming this epistemic closure on the way Wall Street and fellow-traveling Democrats make it so Wall Street’s critics are “crowded out,” Warren then tied the dynamic to recent Dem-supported policies that, she believes, benefited the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else. Advertisement: This is the kind of rhetoric you hear a lot from Democrats of all kinds during campaign season (though, of course, the blame is always laid entirely on Republicans). But it’s not the kind of rhetoric you’d expect to hear from a newbie senator with presidential aspirations, especially one who’d just been brought into the party’s inner circle — and especially one who’d already received tut-tuts from the Dems’ formidable neoliberal wing. (Running for president is very, very expensive.) What it is instead, as Dayen rightly notes, is the kind of rhetoric you’d expect from someone whose main goal is to drive Wall Street and its defenders “out of the temple of policymaking,” and to give the anti-neoliberal wing within the party, which has been growing in strength since the 2008 financial collapse, a direction and a voice. And the fact that many high-profile Democratic senators — including Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Al Franken, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and even Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia conservative — are joining her in opposing the Weiss nomination shows that it may be working. For those hoping that Warren would respond to her ascension into the Dems’ Senate leadership by keeping her criticisms within the family, as it were, the speech was a bad sign. But for those who want to one day see Sen. Elizabeth Warren running the party’s economic policy, it’s a very good one indeed.

www.salon.com

left

1Uo06n69TggRZPQc

test

AxBMlEMFw7l7eHix

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/february/9th-circuit-rules-no-right-to-privacy-in-or-trans-bathroom-case-three-girls-sue-ct-over-trans-athletes-policy

9th Circuit Rules 'No Right to Privacy' in Trans Bathroom Case - Three Girls Sue CT Over Trans Athlete Policy

2020-02-13

ABOVE : Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Christiana Holcomb appeared on the Thursday afternoon edition of ███ Newswatch to discuss the case . Newswatch is seen weekdays on the ███ News Channel . For a programming schedule , click here . The most liberal federal appeals court in the country has upheld a pro-transgender ruling . A lower court had dismissed a lawsuit against an Oregon school district that had allowed a transgender student to use bathrooms , locker rooms , and showers that match his gender identity . The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision , saying the policy does not violate other students ' or parents ' privacy . The Ninth Circuit ruling said Dallas School District No . 2 in Dallas , Oregon did not violate Title IX and other constitutional rights of other students and parents when it initiated the policy , according to The Recorder . `` We hold further that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a fundamental parental right to determine the bathroom policies of the public schools to which parents may send their children , '' the court said in its Feb. 12 decision in Parents for Privacy v. Barr . The ruling also states , `` The panel held that there is no Fourteenth Amendment fundamental privacy right to avoid all risk of intimate exposure to or by a transgender person who was assigned the opposite biological sex at birth . '' The Ninth Circuit 's decision was consistent with a recent wave of federal district and appeals court rulings that have ruled in favor of transgender student rights and against privacy arguments raised by students who object to using the same locker rooms as transgender students . The Supreme Court last May declined to hear an appeal in a case from Pennsylvania in which lower federal courts upheld a school district 's pro-transgender policy against a similar challenge by objecting students . Meanwhile , in Connecticut , a new lawsuit is putting the spotlight on women 's sports in high school , the threat from transgender athletes , and the focus on Title IX - a federal law designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls . Connecticut is one of 17 states that allow male athletes who identify as female to compete against female athletes . Transgender athlete Terry Miller wins the 55-meter dash over trans athlete Andraya Yearwood , far left , both defeating the girls in the Connecticut girls Class S indoor track meet at Hillhouse High School in New Haven , Conn. , Feb. 7 , 2019 ( AP photo ) On Wednesday , three female athletes and their mothers filed suit in a federal court in Hartford . They want the state to revise its athletic rules that allow boys to compete in girls ' sports . According to the Alliance for Defending Freedom , the girls have asked a simple question . Do female athletes deserve the right to compete on a level playing field ? That 's why Title IX was created . `` Now when we line up in front of our blocks and the starters call us to get in position , we all know how the race will end , '' said Selina Soule , one of the plaintiffs . `` We ca n't win . We 've lived it . We 've watched it happen . We 've missed out on medals and opportunities to compete . '' The Connecticut Association of Schools and the state Interscholastic Athletic Conference say the transgender policy follows a state anti-discrimination law . The law says students must be treated according to the gender by which they identify . It also says the policy is appropriate under federal law . The lawsuit follows a Title IX complaint filed by the female athletes and their families with the Department of Education 's Office of Civil Rights . As ███ News reported last August , the federal government announced it would investigate the allegations of discrimination filed by the three girls against Connecticut 's policy regarding transgender athletes .

ABOVE: Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Christiana Holcomb appeared on the Thursday afternoon edition of CBN Newswatch to discuss the case. Newswatch is seen weekdays on the CBN News Channel. For a programming schedule, click here. The most liberal federal appeals court in the country has upheld a pro-transgender ruling. A lower court had dismissed a lawsuit against an Oregon school district that had allowed a transgender student to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers that match his gender identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision, saying the policy does not violate other students' or parents' privacy. The Ninth Circuit ruling said Dallas School District No. 2 in Dallas, Oregon did not violate Title IX and other constitutional rights of other students and parents when it initiated the policy, according to The Recorder. "We hold further that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a fundamental parental right to determine the bathroom policies of the public schools to which parents may send their children," the court said in its Feb. 12 decision in Parents for Privacy v. Barr. NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY The ruling also states, "The panel held that there is no Fourteenth Amendment fundamental privacy right to avoid all risk of intimate exposure to or by a transgender person who was assigned the opposite biological sex at birth." The Ninth Circuit's decision was consistent with a recent wave of federal district and appeals court rulings that have ruled in favor of transgender student rights and against privacy arguments raised by students who object to using the same locker rooms as transgender students. The Supreme Court last May declined to hear an appeal in a case from Pennsylvania in which lower federal courts upheld a school district's pro-transgender policy against a similar challenge by objecting students. TRANSGENDER ATHLETES LAWSUIT Meanwhile, in Connecticut, a new lawsuit is putting the spotlight on women's sports in high school, the threat from transgender athletes, and the focus on Title IX - a federal law designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Connecticut is one of 17 states that allow male athletes who identify as female to compete against female athletes. Transgender athlete Terry Miller wins the 55-meter dash over trans athlete Andraya Yearwood, far left, both defeating the girls in the Connecticut girls Class S indoor track meet at Hillhouse High School in New Haven, Conn., Feb. 7, 2019 (AP photo) On Wednesday, three female athletes and their mothers filed suit in a federal court in Hartford. They want the state to revise its athletic rules that allow boys to compete in girls' sports. According to the Alliance for Defending Freedom, the girls have asked a simple question. Do female athletes deserve the right to compete on a level playing field? That's why Title IX was created. "Now when we line up in front of our blocks and the starters call us to get in position, we all know how the race will end," said Selina Soule, one of the plaintiffs. "We can't win. We've lived it. We've watched it happen. We've missed out on medals and opportunities to compete." The Connecticut Association of Schools and the state Interscholastic Athletic Conference say the transgender policy follows a state anti-discrimination law. The law says students must be treated according to the gender by which they identify. It also says the policy is appropriate under federal law. The lawsuit follows a Title IX complaint filed by the female athletes and their families with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. As CBN News reported last August, the federal government announced it would investigate the allegations of discrimination filed by the three girls against Connecticut's policy regarding transgender athletes.

www1.cbn.com

right

AxBMlEMFw7l7eHix

test

ig3S1EdArImYR6fr

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/08/liberal-media-conservatism-socialism

The Liberal Media's Answer to Ideological Diversity Concerns: Ban Conservatives, Hire Socialists

2018-05-08

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

Should the liberal , conservative-disdaining media be even more liberal and disdainful of conservatives ? It would be hard to make a better argument for including a broader range of right-leaning perspectives at mainstream publications than this recent , tone-deaf plea from New York magazine 's Eric Levitz to do just the opposite . Responding to The Atlantic 's much-discussed ( at ███ and elsewhere ) hiring and firing of conservative journalist Kevin Williamson over his comments about hanging women who have had abortions , Levitz makes note of a recent discussion about the Williamson affair between Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg and writer Ta-Nehisi Coates , the transcript of which was leaked to The Huffington Post . Goldberg claims to desire intellectual diversity at his publication—though not if it means making women who work at The Atlantic and have had abortions feel unsafe—and asked Coates whether he was concerned that narrowing the bounds of acceptable discourse would hurt the magazine : Coates : Again , I do n't think it 's a question of narrowing . I think it 's where the lines are drawn . Goldberg : Well , it is if you bring the lines in . Coates : Well , no , you open it up . You understand what I 'm saying ? Like , as I said before , I do n't think 15 years ago or 20 years ago we would have ran `` The Case For Reparations . '' So that means it 's opened up in a different direction . I think if we publish kick-ass stories , very little of this will actually matter . Coates was essentially saying that the publication could still have intellectual diversity without conservative opinions , as long as it shifted the goalpost in the other direction—i.e. , by including more perspectives that were further and further left . Levitz takes this ball and runs with it , providing two basic arguments for doing so : first , most conservative opinion writers are completely irrelevant to the conservative movement as it exists the age of Trump ; and second , conservative arguments are obviously wrong and thus not worth debating at all . Socialist arguments , on the other hand , Levitz asserts , have yet to be debunked , and so mainstream magazines and op-ed pages would be well-served by hiring more advocates of such views . According to Levitz : There are a lot of interesting questions that currently divide liberals from the socialist left . And exploring those disagreements would almost certainly do more to challenge the average Atlantic reader intellectually than running Kevin Williamson 's latest diatribe against the shiftless poor people he grew up among ( but proved himself better than ) . Take the most fundamental question dividing left-liberals from socialists : Should the means of production be socialized ? Many on the center-left regard this as a dead debate—one that Joseph Stalin settled decisively long ago . But the events of recent decades have lent some credence to the socialists ' case… I 'm fairly convinced that full-on socialism leads to poverty and totalitarianism , but yes , journalistic outlets that strive for ideological diversity should make space for smart writers to present the best case for this system . It seems incoherent , though , to insist that Williamson-esque opinions like abortion is murder and should be dealt with as such and poor people bear much responsibility for their lot in life are uninteresting or beyond the pale while Joseph Stalin was on to something is not . To think that severe social conservatism is so kooky as to be un-printable , but Stalinism is at least debatable , requires a certain amount of unhealthy ideological blindness . These kinds of contradictions are what result from blithely and selectively declaring certain conversations off-limits . It can be difficult to overcome our biases , but the project of opinion journalism requires good writers and editors to do so . Even bad or extreme arguments may contain kernels of truth , or may contribute something to the public 's awareness that the conventional , moderate liberal punditocracy would have missed . For instance , virtually the entire liberal press seemed assured of Hillary Clinton 's victory . Had they listened more closely to the far-left grievances of the Bernie Sanders wing , they might have been better prepared for the actual outcome of the 2016 election . Showcasing the various shades of opinion on the right is no less vital than extending a platform to a newly relevant socialist left . That might mean including a Trump-sympathetic writer from time to time , instead of yet another neoconservative . It would certainly mean recognizing that there are a whole lot of people—in the country at large , and within intellectual circles—who dissent from both liberal and leftist orthodoxy and have something worthwhile to say . As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in response to Levitz , `` You 've got conservatives representing the center-right flank of # TheResistance , conservatives experimenting with European-style nationalism and Catholic integralism , conservatives for isolation and internationalism and everything in between . These arguments are n't shaping Trumpian policymaking because nothing is likely to shape Trumpian policymaking . But it is very likely that they 'll shape future formations of right-wing and centrist policy , and have influence on the liberal-left debate Levitz cites as well . '' It 's true that op-ed conservatism does n't have very much influence in the Trump administration at the moment . But the further left that the opinion pages move , the easier it is for Trump to rally his base around the idea that the media hates them . If you think Trump voters are too reliant on Fox News , talk radio , and explicit conspiracy sites , you should be at least a little wary of exacerbating this problem . Widening the range of permissible views on the left while banishing conventional , widely held conservative opinions hardly seems like an antidote for the polarization afflicting American discourse .

Should the liberal, conservative-disdaining media be even more liberal and disdainful of conservatives? It would be hard to make a better argument for including a broader range of right-leaning perspectives at mainstream publications than this recent, tone-deaf plea from New York magazine's Eric Levitz to do just the opposite. Responding to The Atlantic's much-discussed (at Reason and elsewhere) hiring and firing of conservative journalist Kevin Williamson over his comments about hanging women who have had abortions, Levitz makes note of a recent discussion about the Williamson affair between Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg and writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, the transcript of which was leaked to The Huffington Post. Goldberg claims to desire intellectual diversity at his publication—though not if it means making women who work at The Atlantic and have had abortions feel unsafe—and asked Coates whether he was concerned that narrowing the bounds of acceptable discourse would hurt the magazine: Coates: Again, I don't think it's a question of narrowing. I think it's where the lines are drawn. Goldberg: Well, it is if you bring the lines in. Coates: Well, no, you open it up. You understand what I'm saying? Like, as I said before, I don't think 15 years ago or 20 years ago we would have ran "The Case For Reparations." So that means it's opened up in a different direction. I think if we publish kick-ass stories, very little of this will actually matter. Coates was essentially saying that the publication could still have intellectual diversity without conservative opinions, as long as it shifted the goalpost in the other direction—i.e., by including more perspectives that were further and further left. Levitz takes this ball and runs with it, providing two basic arguments for doing so: first, most conservative opinion writers are completely irrelevant to the conservative movement as it exists the age of Trump; and second, conservative arguments are obviously wrong and thus not worth debating at all. Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked, and so mainstream magazines and op-ed pages would be well-served by hiring more advocates of such views. According to Levitz: There are a lot of interesting questions that currently divide liberals from the socialist left. And exploring those disagreements would almost certainly do more to challenge the average Atlantic reader intellectually than running Kevin Williamson's latest diatribe against the shiftless poor people he grew up among (but proved himself better than). Take the most fundamental question dividing left-liberals from socialists: Should the means of production be socialized? Many on the center-left regard this as a dead debate—one that Joseph Stalin settled decisively long ago. But the events of recent decades have lent some credence to the socialists' case… I'm fairly convinced that full-on socialism leads to poverty and totalitarianism, but yes, journalistic outlets that strive for ideological diversity should make space for smart writers to present the best case for this system. It seems incoherent, though, to insist that Williamson-esque opinions like abortion is murder and should be dealt with as such and poor people bear much responsibility for their lot in life are uninteresting or beyond the pale while Joseph Stalin was on to something is not. To think that severe social conservatism is so kooky as to be un-printable, but Stalinism is at least debatable, requires a certain amount of unhealthy ideological blindness. These kinds of contradictions are what result from blithely and selectively declaring certain conversations off-limits. It can be difficult to overcome our biases, but the project of opinion journalism requires good writers and editors to do so. Even bad or extreme arguments may contain kernels of truth, or may contribute something to the public's awareness that the conventional, moderate liberal punditocracy would have missed. For instance, virtually the entire liberal press seemed assured of Hillary Clinton's victory. Had they listened more closely to the far-left grievances of the Bernie Sanders wing, they might have been better prepared for the actual outcome of the 2016 election. Showcasing the various shades of opinion on the right is no less vital than extending a platform to a newly relevant socialist left. That might mean including a Trump-sympathetic writer from time to time, instead of yet another neoconservative. It would certainly mean recognizing that there are a whole lot of people—in the country at large, and within intellectual circles—who dissent from both liberal and leftist orthodoxy and have something worthwhile to say. As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in response to Levitz, "You've got conservatives representing the center-right flank of #TheResistance, conservatives experimenting with European-style nationalism and Catholic integralism, conservatives for isolation and internationalism and everything in between. These arguments aren't shaping Trumpian policymaking because nothing is likely to shape Trumpian policymaking. But it is very likely that they'll shape future formations of right-wing and centrist policy, and have influence on the liberal-left debate Levitz cites as well." It's true that op-ed conservatism doesn't have very much influence in the Trump administration at the moment. But the further left that the opinion pages move, the easier it is for Trump to rally his base around the idea that the media hates them. If you think Trump voters are too reliant on Fox News, talk radio, and explicit conspiracy sites, you should be at least a little wary of exacerbating this problem. Widening the range of permissible views on the left while banishing conventional, widely held conservative opinions hardly seems like an antidote for the polarization afflicting American discourse.

www.reason.com

right

ig3S1EdArImYR6fr

test

UTB6pgCTy2R8x8f3

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/03/democrats-progressives-trump-2016-election

A journey in search of the American left: fragile and feisty, hopeful and fearful

2019-09-03

Gary Younge

The first in a five-day series where our writer gauges the mood of US progressives during a 10-day trip across the country . A few months after the 2016 election , 29-year-old Emily Marburger posted an update on a private Facebook group , Pantsuit Nation , that had been set up to support Hillary Clinton ’ s failed presidential bid . “ Like the rest of us last November , I woke up to a situation I didn ’ t know existed , ” she wrote . “ I knew I had to get involved . I felt driven to help . But I never imagined I ’ d find myself , at 29 , running for Mayor in the heated Democratic primary in my tiny square mile borough of 8,000 ( just outside Pittsburgh ) . ” The incumbent mayor of Marburger ’ s small Pennsylvania town of Bellevue was an open Trump supporter . His sole opponent – until Marburger entered the race – was a conservative pastor . “ I thought : No . This Can ’ t Happen , ” Marburger wrote . “ The main criticism ( so far ) is that I don ’ t have the experience . Here ’ s what I say to that : Yes , I do have the experience . Yes , I can do this job . ” Marburger ’ s post went viral . Donations flooded in from as far away as Hawaii . She raised $ 10,000 in 48 hours . The incumbent mayor was knocked out in the first round . Marburger won the second round easily . From the debris of Clinton ’ s loss Marburger had built an unexpected triumph . Her experience is by no means exceptional . Trump ’ s win was a devastating setback for American progressives . But it has also galvanized them in ways a Clinton victory would not have , stoking them to campaign , advocate , donate or run for office – to engage politically in ways and at levels they never previously imagined . Put bluntly , there ’ s a lot going on with the left in America , producing a realignment that is at one and the same time ideological and structural . The pressure is both leftwards and downwards with the balance of power shifting towards the grassroots while demands for Medicare for All , free college tuition , fewer corporate donations and a Green New Deal are no longer routinely dismissed as fringe but embraced by many 2020 candidates . There is a moment in Knock Down the House , a documentary that follows four candidates challenging established party operatives in the 2018 Democratic congressional primaries , when the future New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comforts Amy Vilela , who was running in Nevada . As Vilela realizes she is going to lose , Ocasio-Cortez , who has yet to be elected , reminds her that the odds were always stacked against them . “ It ’ s not about any one of us , individually , ” she tells Vilela . “ It ’ s about the – the whole movement . It ’ s just the reality that in order for one of us to make it through , 100 of us have to try . ” During a 10-day journey across the country talking to activists , mayors , academics , trade unionists , city and state representatives , it is clear that thousands of Democrats , progressives , liberals and socialists have been “ trying ” in a range of ways . Many , like Marburger , have broken through . It was really only after I won the primary that I began to feel like there was something bigger happening and that this might be part of it Emily Marburger “ I was the only one running on the Democratic ticket who was actually a Democrat , ” she explains . “ I ran with a message that I wanted to bring a new energy , a new perspective and a new direction to what the mayor was doing . The fact that I won I think shows that the town was ready for that kind of change . It was really only after I won the primary that I began to feel like there was something bigger happening and that this might be part of it. ” Almost half the incumbent mayors in the area were voted out that day . I met Marburger in Superior Motors restaurant in Braddock , a former mill town just outside Pittsburgh that has lost 90 % of its population since the 1950s and is now down to just a couple of thousand , a third of whom live in poverty . Superior Motors , situated in what was once a car dealership , was the first restaurant to open in the town in 20 years . Set up with Kickstarter money and in premises owned and donated rent-free by the then mayor , John Fetterman , it offers job training to local people and a discount to local people who eat there . It ’ s high-end and struggled at first but took off after a positive review from the celebrated , late TV food critic Anthony Bourdain . Fetterman lives upstairs . Only now he is the lieutenant governor , following a campaign supported by Bernie Sanders . His wife , Gisele Barreto Fetterman , joined us for dinner . Barreto Fetterman came to the US from Brazil as a child with her mother and was undocumented . For this she receives regular threats and daily hate mail . Before drinks she pulls out her cellphone to show us a picture of a man who has threatened her recently . He has been violent before , she has been told by her security detail , so it is a credible threat and she needs to know what he looks like . Like most evenings discussing politics with progressives in the US , the conversation swings a bit like this – between buoyed spirits at how much is changing , how many new possibilities are emerging and the breakthroughs that are taking place , but also what dark times these are , how scary things have become and how bad things might get . Everyone around the table thinks Trump could win again ; half of those at the table think he will . Such is the dialectical pivot between hope and fear , risk and opportunity , progress and reaction that has put the American left in a mood that is both feisty and fragile . Quite where this is all going in terms of a national agenda , the Democratic party , a presidential candidate or the presidential election is not yet clear . The four largest demonstrations in American history have taken place in the last two and a half years , and 40 % of the country , including 55 % of women aged between 18 and 54 , say they prefer socialism to capitalism . Meanwhile the leading contender for the Democratic nomination is former vice-president Joe Biden – one of the most moderate with the strongest ties to the establishment . Trump may have been a catalyst for much of it , but he does not entirely define the response – many Democrats are seeking to do that on their own . “ I don ’ t think there ’ s any foregone conclusions here , ” explains Daniel Biss , a former Illinois state senator , House representative and gubernatorial candidate . “ The progressive heart of the Democratic electorate is getting bolder . It is less and less satisfied with getting told : ‘ Shut up . Sit down . ’ ”

The first in a five-day series where our writer gauges the mood of US progressives during a 10-day trip across the country. A few months after the 2016 election, 29-year-old Emily Marburger posted an update on a private Facebook group, Pantsuit Nation, that had been set up to support Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid. “Like the rest of us last November, I woke up to a situation I didn’t know existed,” she wrote. “I knew I had to get involved. I felt driven to help. But I never imagined I’d find myself, at 29, running for Mayor in the heated Democratic primary in my tiny square mile borough of 8,000 (just outside Pittsburgh).” The incumbent mayor of Marburger’s small Pennsylvania town of Bellevue was an open Trump supporter. His sole opponent – until Marburger entered the race – was a conservative pastor. “I thought: No. This Can’t Happen,” Marburger wrote. “The main criticism (so far) is that I don’t have the experience. Here’s what I say to that: Yes, I do have the experience. Yes, I can do this job.” Marburger’s post went viral. Donations flooded in from as far away as Hawaii. She raised $10,000 in 48 hours. The incumbent mayor was knocked out in the first round. Marburger won the second round easily. From the debris of Clinton’s loss Marburger had built an unexpected triumph. Her experience is by no means exceptional. Trump’s win was a devastating setback for American progressives. But it has also galvanized them in ways a Clinton victory would not have, stoking them to campaign, advocate, donate or run for office – to engage politically in ways and at levels they never previously imagined. Put bluntly, there’s a lot going on with the left in America, producing a realignment that is at one and the same time ideological and structural. The pressure is both leftwards and downwards with the balance of power shifting towards the grassroots while demands for Medicare for All, free college tuition, fewer corporate donations and a Green New Deal are no longer routinely dismissed as fringe but embraced by many 2020 candidates. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a still from Knock Down the House. Photograph: Netflix There is a moment in Knock Down the House, a documentary that follows four candidates challenging established party operatives in the 2018 Democratic congressional primaries, when the future New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comforts Amy Vilela, who was running in Nevada. As Vilela realizes she is going to lose, Ocasio-Cortez, who has yet to be elected, reminds her that the odds were always stacked against them. “It’s not about any one of us, individually,” she tells Vilela. “It’s about the – the whole movement. It’s just the reality that in order for one of us to make it through, 100 of us have to try.” During a 10-day journey across the country talking to activists, mayors, academics, trade unionists, city and state representatives, it is clear that thousands of Democrats, progressives, liberals and socialists have been “trying” in a range of ways. Many, like Marburger, have broken through. It was really only after I won the primary that I began to feel like there was something bigger happening and that this might be part of it Emily Marburger “I was the only one running on the Democratic ticket who was actually a Democrat,” she explains. “I ran with a message that I wanted to bring a new energy, a new perspective and a new direction to what the mayor was doing. The fact that I won I think shows that the town was ready for that kind of change. It was really only after I won the primary that I began to feel like there was something bigger happening and that this might be part of it.” Almost half the incumbent mayors in the area were voted out that day. I met Marburger in Superior Motors restaurant in Braddock, a former mill town just outside Pittsburgh that has lost 90% of its population since the 1950s and is now down to just a couple of thousand, a third of whom live in poverty. Superior Motors, situated in what was once a car dealership, was the first restaurant to open in the town in 20 years. Set up with Kickstarter money and in premises owned and donated rent-free by the then mayor, John Fetterman, it offers job training to local people and a discount to local people who eat there. It’s high-end and struggled at first but took off after a positive review from the celebrated, late TV food critic Anthony Bourdain. Fetterman lives upstairs. Only now he is the lieutenant governor, following a campaign supported by Bernie Sanders. His wife, Gisele Barreto Fetterman, joined us for dinner. Barreto Fetterman came to the US from Brazil as a child with her mother and was undocumented. For this she receives regular threats and daily hate mail. Before drinks she pulls out her cellphone to show us a picture of a man who has threatened her recently. He has been violent before, she has been told by her security detail, so it is a credible threat and she needs to know what he looks like. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Demonstrators protest against then president-elect Donald Trump in front of Trump Tower in New York City on 12 November 2016. Photograph: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images Like most evenings discussing politics with progressives in the US, the conversation swings a bit like this – between buoyed spirits at how much is changing, how many new possibilities are emerging and the breakthroughs that are taking place, but also what dark times these are, how scary things have become and how bad things might get. Everyone around the table thinks Trump could win again; half of those at the table think he will. Such is the dialectical pivot between hope and fear, risk and opportunity, progress and reaction that has put the American left in a mood that is both feisty and fragile. Quite where this is all going in terms of a national agenda, the Democratic party, a presidential candidate or the presidential election is not yet clear. The four largest demonstrations in American history have taken place in the last two and a half years, and 40% of the country, including 55% of women aged between 18 and 54, say they prefer socialism to capitalism. Meanwhile the leading contender for the Democratic nomination is former vice-president Joe Biden – one of the most moderate with the strongest ties to the establishment. Trump may have been a catalyst for much of it, but he does not entirely define the response – many Democrats are seeking to do that on their own. “I don’t think there’s any foregone conclusions here,” explains Daniel Biss, a former Illinois state senator, House representative and gubernatorial candidate. “The progressive heart of the Democratic electorate is getting bolder. It is less and less satisfied with getting told: ‘Shut up. Sit down.’”

www.theguardian.com

left

UTB6pgCTy2R8x8f3

test

NCmya3XpqeJmpVL5

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40651502

Trump and Putin had another, undisclosed conversation at G20

US President Donald Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin had another , previously undisclosed conversation at this month 's G20 , the White House has confirmed . They spoke towards the end of a formal dinner but the White House has not revealed what was discussed . President Trump has condemned media revelations of the talks as `` sick '' . The two leaders ' relationship is under scrutiny amid allegations of Russian interference in the US election . US intelligence agencies believe Moscow tried to tip the election in Mr Trump 's favour , something denied by Russia . Mr Trump has rejected allegations of any collusion . The extra conversation happened during a private meal of heads of state at the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier in the month . The Kremlin said at the time that the two leaders had had `` an opportunity to continue their discussion during the dinner '' , but the extent of the meeting was not known . Mr Trump left his seat and headed to Mr Putin , who had been sitting next to Mr Trump 's wife , Melania , US media said . The US president was alone with Mr Putin , apart from the attendance of the Russian president 's official interpreter . Mr Trump had been seated next to Japanese PM Shinzo Abe 's wife , so the US interpreter at the dinner spoke Japanese , not Russian . No media were in attendance . Given the poor state of relations between Washington and Moscow and the controversy surrounding Russia 's efforts to interfere with the US presidential campaign , each and every encounter between Mr Putin and Mr Trump is bound to be carefully scrutinised . Thus the apparently impromptu discussion between the two men at the G20 dinner inevitably raises many questions . What was President Trump seeking to do in approaching the Russian president ? Were matters of substance discussed ? If so , why was no formal note taken ? And why did the US president have to rely upon a Russian official for translation ? This is all highly unusual , especially at a time when relations between the two countries are laden with so many problems . Mr Trump also appeared unaware of another dimension - the message that his tete-a-tete would send to other leaders in the room , who must have watched the US president 's gambit with some unease . Mr Trump 's spokesperson Sarah Sanders told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that the dinner was part of the president 's publicly released schedule . `` You guys came and took pictures of it , '' she told journalists . `` It was n't like this was some sort of hidden dinner . To act as if this was some secret is just absolutely absurd . '' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the two leaders had `` exchanged opinions and phrases in the margins of the visit on more than one occasion '' . `` There were no covert or secret meetings . It is absolutely absurd to claim this , '' he was quoted as saying by Russia 's TASS news agency . Mr Peskov also mocked the notion that the subject of a conversation between the two men could have been kept secret , saying that is a `` manifestation of schizophrenia '' . Ian Bremmer , president of the US-based Eurasia Group , who first reported them in a newsletter to clients , said : `` Donald Trump got up from the table and sat down with Putin for about an hour . It was very animated and very friendly . '' No-one else was nearby , so the topics of discussion were not known , he said . Mr Bremmer had not been at the dinner but said details were given to him by unnamed attendees who , he said , were `` flummoxed , confused and startled '' by the turn of events . `` At summit meetings you have little 'pull-asides ' between heads of state to discuss business all the time - a one-hour pull-aside is highly unusual in any context , '' he told the BBC . `` A one-hour pull-aside between Putin and Trump where only the Kremlin translator is there , where we do n't know what 's discussed , given the uniqueness of the US-Russia relationship ... makes the [ US ] president , surprisingly and disturbingly , not credible . '' In a statement , a senior White House official said there was no `` second meeting '' , just a brief conversation after dinner . Skip Twitter post by @ realDonaldTrump The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest ! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) July 19 , 2017 Report The official said : `` The insinuation that the White House has tried to 'hide ' a second meeting is false , malicious and absurd . It is not merely perfectly normal , it is part of a president 's duties , to interact with world leaders . '' National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said : `` A conversation over dessert should not be characterised as a meeting . '' Mr Trump later said on Twitter : `` Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is 'sick . ' All G20 leaders , and spouses , were invited by the Chancellor of Germany . Press knew ! '' The dinner and its attendees have always been known . Only the Trump-Putin discussion had not been reported before . At the earlier , formal meeting , their first face-to-face encounter , Mr Trump said he had repeatedly pressed Mr Putin about the allegations of interference in the US vote . `` I said , 'Did you do it ? ' He said , 'No , I did not , absolutely not . ' I then asked him a second time , in a totally different way . He said , 'Absolutely not . ' '' There are congressional investigations , and one by a special counsel , into the allegations of Russian interference in the US election and possible collusion with the Trump team . On Tuesday , the Senate intelligence committee said it wanted to interview Mr Trump 's son , Donald Jr , and other members of the Trump team , over a meeting they had with a Russian lawyer in June last year . Mr Trump Jr said he had attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya as he was promised damaging material on Hillary Clinton , but it did not materialise . On Wednesday , Ms Veselnitskaya told Russia 's RT television channel she would be willing to testify before the Senate on the matter . Meanwhile , the White House said Mr Trump would nominate former Utah governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Russia , a key post for a president who promised to improve relations with Moscow . Mr Huntsman , who served as ambassador to China and Singapore , needs to have his name confirmed by the Senate . The suspicions over Russian interference are likely to play a significant factor in his confirmation process , correspondents say .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump-Putin dinner talks highly unusual, says Ian Bremmer US President Donald Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin had another, previously undisclosed conversation at this month's G20, the White House has confirmed. They spoke towards the end of a formal dinner but the White House has not revealed what was discussed. President Trump has condemned media revelations of the talks as "sick". The two leaders' relationship is under scrutiny amid allegations of Russian interference in the US election. US intelligence agencies believe Moscow tried to tip the election in Mr Trump's favour, something denied by Russia. Mr Trump has rejected allegations of any collusion. The extra conversation happened during a private meal of heads of state at the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier in the month. The Kremlin said at the time that the two leaders had had "an opportunity to continue their discussion during the dinner", but the extent of the meeting was not known. Mr Trump left his seat and headed to Mr Putin, who had been sitting next to Mr Trump's wife, Melania, US media said. The US president was alone with Mr Putin, apart from the attendance of the Russian president's official interpreter. Mr Trump had been seated next to Japanese PM Shinzo Abe's wife, so the US interpreter at the dinner spoke Japanese, not Russian. No media were in attendance. Analysis: Uncomfortable questions raised Jonathan Marcus, BBC News defence and diplomatic correspondent Given the poor state of relations between Washington and Moscow and the controversy surrounding Russia's efforts to interfere with the US presidential campaign, each and every encounter between Mr Putin and Mr Trump is bound to be carefully scrutinised. Thus the apparently impromptu discussion between the two men at the G20 dinner inevitably raises many questions. What was President Trump seeking to do in approaching the Russian president? Were matters of substance discussed? If so, why was no formal note taken? And why did the US president have to rely upon a Russian official for translation? This is all highly unusual, especially at a time when relations between the two countries are laden with so many problems. Mr Trump also appeared unaware of another dimension - the message that his tete-a-tete would send to other leaders in the room, who must have watched the US president's gambit with some unease. Mr Trump's spokesperson Sarah Sanders told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that the dinner was part of the president's publicly released schedule. "You guys came and took pictures of it," she told journalists. "It wasn't like this was some sort of hidden dinner. To act as if this was some secret is just absolutely absurd." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the two leaders had "exchanged opinions and phrases in the margins of the visit on more than one occasion". "There were no covert or secret meetings. It is absolutely absurd to claim this," he was quoted as saying by Russia's TASS news agency. Mr Peskov also mocked the notion that the subject of a conversation between the two men could have been kept secret, saying that is a "manifestation of schizophrenia". The length of the talks has been disputed. Ian Bremmer, president of the US-based Eurasia Group, who first reported them in a newsletter to clients, said: "Donald Trump got up from the table and sat down with Putin for about an hour. It was very animated and very friendly." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What Trump said of his first, formal meeting with Putin No-one else was nearby, so the topics of discussion were not known, he said. Mr Bremmer had not been at the dinner but said details were given to him by unnamed attendees who, he said, were "flummoxed, confused and startled" by the turn of events. "At summit meetings you have little 'pull-asides' between heads of state to discuss business all the time - a one-hour pull-aside is highly unusual in any context," he told the BBC. "A one-hour pull-aside between Putin and Trump where only the Kremlin translator is there, where we don't know what's discussed, given the uniqueness of the US-Russia relationship... makes the [US] president, surprisingly and disturbingly, not credible." In a statement, a senior White House official said there was no "second meeting", just a brief conversation after dinner. Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2017 Report The official said: "The insinuation that the White House has tried to 'hide' a second meeting is false, malicious and absurd. It is not merely perfectly normal, it is part of a president's duties, to interact with world leaders." National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said: "A conversation over dessert should not be characterised as a meeting." Mr Trump later said on Twitter: "Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is 'sick.' All G20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!" The dinner and its attendees have always been known. Only the Trump-Putin discussion had not been reported before. Trump and Putin: Comparing the men Image copyright Reuters Image caption At the dinner, Mr Trump's wife, Melania, sat next to Mr Putin At the earlier, formal meeting, their first face-to-face encounter, Mr Trump said he had repeatedly pressed Mr Putin about the allegations of interference in the US vote. "I said, 'Did you do it?' He said, 'No, I did not, absolutely not.' I then asked him a second time, in a totally different way. He said, 'Absolutely not.'" There are congressional investigations, and one by a special counsel, into the allegations of Russian interference in the US election and possible collusion with the Trump team. On Tuesday, the Senate intelligence committee said it wanted to interview Mr Trump's son, Donald Jr, and other members of the Trump team, over a meeting they had with a Russian lawyer in June last year. Mr Trump Jr said he had attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya as he was promised damaging material on Hillary Clinton, but it did not materialise. On Wednesday, Ms Veselnitskaya told Russia's RT television channel she would be willing to testify before the Senate on the matter. Trump at six months Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Commander in tweets: What we can learn from Trump's Twitter Meanwhile, the White House said Mr Trump would nominate former Utah governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Russia, a key post for a president who promised to improve relations with Moscow. Mr Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China and Singapore, needs to have his name confirmed by the Senate. The suspicions over Russian interference are likely to play a significant factor in his confirmation process, correspondents say.

www.bbc.com

center

NCmya3XpqeJmpVL5

test

UgLkysXhZ9OWXrt2

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/14/media-forced-to-acknowledge-bill-clintons-alleged-sex-crimes/

Media Forced To Acknowledge Bill Clinton’s Alleged Sex Crimes

2017-11-14

The flood of recent sex-related accusations against Harvey Weinstein , Roy Moore and other prominent men has forced members of the establishment media to acknowledge former President Bill Clinton ’ s alleged sex crimes . Paula Jones , Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick have long accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment or worse . Broaddrick accused Clinton of violently raping her in an Arkansas hotel room while she was volunteering on his campaign for governor . I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton , Ark . Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me . I am now 73….it never goes away . — Juanita Broaddrick ( @ atensnut ) January 6 , 2016 Willey accused Clinton of making advances on her and groping her in the Oval Office — the same place where Clinton instructed a young intern , Monica Lewinsky , to perform oral sex on him . Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexually harassing her at an Arkansas hotel room where she worked . After making several ( unsuccessful ) advances towards her , Jones said , Clinton “ lowered his trousers and underwear , exposed his penis ( which was erect ) and told me to ‘ kiss it . ' ” All three alleged victims have long struggled to get the media to believe their stories . Now , as the Clintons are on their way out in Democratic Party politics , some journalists are ready to acknowledge the seriousness of the accusations against Bill Clinton . MSNBC host Chris Hayes acknowledged Friday that it is “ true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against [ Bill Clinton ] . ” Does this sound familiar ? pic.twitter.com/eCby6bxsGS — Chris Hayes ( @ chrislhayes ) November 10 , 2017 “ I think it ’ s time to talk about Juanita Broaddrick , ” Vice ’ s Eve Peyser wrote on Twitter . “ I believe her . ” The Atlantic editor Caitlin Flanagan acknowledged that Bill Clinton ’ s defenders were “ on the wrong side of history ” in a piece on Monday titled , “ Bill Clinton : A Reckoning . ” “ The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton , ” Flanagan wrote , noting the way that prominent feminists leapt to Clinton ’ s defense . New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote a column for Tuesday ’ s paper titled , “ I Believe Juanita. ” Unlike Flanagan , Goldberg blamed conservatives for the fact that liberals didn ’ t believe Juanita Broaddrick . Liberals , Goldberg said , “ should be wary of allegations that bubble up from the right-wing press . ” “ It ’ s fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick ’ s allegations , Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society , ” Goldberg conceded . “ But we should remember that it ’ s not simply partisan tribalism that led liberals to doubt her . ” Broaddrick ’ s reaction to someone at the NYT believing her : “ Hell has definitely frozen over . ” Referring to the recent accusations against Moore , CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted on Monday that “ the accusers of Bill Clinton back in the ’ 90s were never given the credence and treated with the same respect that these women are being treated and I think that there is something to be said about how society has evolved since then. ” Tapper said that “ it ’ s hard not to look back at that period and think ” that “ [ t ] he media treated those women poorly . ” That reality is that during Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign just last year , prominent media figures were dismissive of Bill Clinton ’ s accusers , essentially accusing them of lying . Ian Milhiser , an editor with left-wing website Think Progress , outright dismissed the accusations against Clinton in January 2016 . “ Number of Americans who are suffering because of Bill Clinton ’ s penis : 0 , ” Milhiser wrote on Twitter . He only deleted the tweet within the last few days . In January 2016 , NBC News scrapped an interview with Broaddrick because she didn ’ t have “ anything new ” to say about the alleged rape . Four months later in May , NBC News anchor Andrea Mitchell inaccurately characterized Broaddrick ’ s account as a “ discredited and long-denied accusation . ” The women of “ The View ” trashed Clinton ’ s accusers less than a month before the election . Two hosts , Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg , said that Bill Clinton ’ s victims were partially to blame because Clinton was a married man . Behar went so far as to call the women “ tramps . ”

The flood of recent sex-related accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore and other prominent men has forced members of the establishment media to acknowledge former President Bill Clinton’s alleged sex crimes. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick have long accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment or worse. Broaddrick accused Clinton of violently raping her in an Arkansas hotel room while she was volunteering on his campaign for governor. I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away. — Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 6, 2016 Willey accused Clinton of making advances on her and groping her in the Oval Office — the same place where Clinton instructed a young intern, Monica Lewinsky, to perform oral sex on him. Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexually harassing her at an Arkansas hotel room where she worked. After making several (unsuccessful) advances towards her, Jones said, Clinton “lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to ‘kiss it.'” All three alleged victims have long struggled to get the media to believe their stories. Now, as the Clintons are on their way out in Democratic Party politics, some journalists are ready to acknowledge the seriousness of the accusations against Bill Clinton. MSNBC host Chris Hayes acknowledged Friday that it is “true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against [Bill Clinton].” Does this sound familiar? pic.twitter.com/eCby6bxsGS — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 10, 2017 “I think it’s time to talk about Juanita Broaddrick,” Vice’s Eve Peyser wrote on Twitter. “I believe her.” The Atlantic editor Caitlin Flanagan acknowledged that Bill Clinton’s defenders were “on the wrong side of history” in a piece on Monday titled, “Bill Clinton: A Reckoning.” “The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton,” Flanagan wrote, noting the way that prominent feminists leapt to Clinton’s defense. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote a column for Tuesday’s paper titled, “I Believe Juanita.” Unlike Flanagan, Goldberg blamed conservatives for the fact that liberals didn’t believe Juanita Broaddrick. Liberals, Goldberg said, “should be wary of allegations that bubble up from the right-wing press.” “It’s fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick’s allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society,” Goldberg conceded. “But we should remember that it’s not simply partisan tribalism that led liberals to doubt her.” Broaddrick’s reaction to someone at the NYT believing her: “Hell has definitely frozen over.” Referring to the recent accusations against Moore, CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted on Monday that “the accusers of Bill Clinton back in the ’90s were never given the credence and treated with the same respect that these women are being treated and I think that there is something to be said about how society has evolved since then.” Tapper said that “it’s hard not to look back at that period and think” that “[t]he media treated those women poorly.” That reality is that during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign just last year, prominent media figures were dismissive of Bill Clinton’s accusers, essentially accusing them of lying. Ian Milhiser, an editor with left-wing website Think Progress, outright dismissed the accusations against Clinton in January 2016. “Number of Americans who are suffering because of Bill Clinton’s penis: 0,” Milhiser wrote on Twitter. He only deleted the tweet within the last few days. In January 2016, NBC News scrapped an interview with Broaddrick because she didn’t have “anything new” to say about the alleged rape. Four months later in May, NBC News anchor Andrea Mitchell inaccurately characterized Broaddrick’s account as a “discredited and long-denied accusation.” The women of “The View” trashed Clinton’s accusers less than a month before the election. Two hosts, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, said that Bill Clinton’s victims were partially to blame because Clinton was a married man. Behar went so far as to call the women “tramps.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

UgLkysXhZ9OWXrt2

test

TY4PRKnPITGZdSmx

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/theresa-may-trump-victory/2016/11/13/id/758616/

May Says Trump's Victory Shows Voter Concerns Must Be Heard

2016-11-13

Robert Hutton

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May will respond to Donald Trump ’ s U.S. election victory by telling supporters of economic liberalization and free trade that they have to listen to the concerns of those who think such forces have more downsides than benefits . At the Mansion House in London on Monday evening , May will give her first major speech on foreign policy since taking office in July . It will also be her first analysis of Trump ’ s victory last week . According to extracts released by her office , she ’ ll argue that “ change is in the air ” and that it is the job of politicians to respond to voters who are unhappy with changes in society . “ These people -- often those on modest to low incomes living in rich countries like our own -- see their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut , ” she ’ ll say . “ They see their communities changing around them and don ’ t remember giving their permission . ” With voters worried about Trump -- a ComRes Ltd. poll found two-thirds of Britons thought his victory made the world a more dangerous place -- U.K. politicians are divided on how to respond . Jeremy Corbyn , the leader of the opposition Labour Party , attacked him as a populist who needed to “ grow up. ” Nigel Farage , who as leader of the U.K . Independence Party was a chief advocate in the campaign to get Britain out of the European Union , on Saturday became the first British figure to meet Trump since the election . He tweeted a picture of the two of them standing together , and said he found the president-elect “ relaxed and full of good ideas . ” May has tried to plot a middle course . Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson skipped an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers on Sunday to discuss the U.S. election . The prime minister will say that the concerns of voters are valid and deserve an answer . “ If we are to continue to make the case for liberalism and globalization , as we must , we must also face up to and respond to these concerns , ” May will say . “ If we believe , as I do , that liberalism and globalization continue to offer the best future for our world , we must deal with the downsides and show that we can make these twin forces work for everyone . ” In a leaked memo reprinted by the Sunday Times , Kim Darroch , Britain ’ s ambassador to the U.S. , suggested that Trump might be “ open to outside influence if pitched right. ” He said that because his embassy had “ built better relationships with his team than have the rest of the Washington diplomatic corps , we should be well-placed to do this . ” Of immediate concern to Britain and the rest of the EU is Trump ’ s suggestions during his campaign that he had a cooler view of the NATO alliance and would look to improve relations with Russia . Jens Stoltenberg , the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization , urged the U.S. against “ going it alone . ” But Corbyn in this area called for a better relationship with Russia . “ There has to be a process that we try and demilitarize the border between what are now the NATO states and Russia , ” he said on the “ Andrew Marr Show ” on the BBC . “ So that we drive apart those forces . Keep them further apart in order to bring about some kind of accommodation . We can ’ t descend into a new Cold War . ”

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May will respond to Donald Trump’s U.S. election victory by telling supporters of economic liberalization and free trade that they have to listen to the concerns of those who think such forces have more downsides than benefits. At the Mansion House in London on Monday evening, May will give her first major speech on foreign policy since taking office in July. It will also be her first analysis of Trump’s victory last week. According to extracts released by her office, she’ll argue that “change is in the air” and that it is the job of politicians to respond to voters who are unhappy with changes in society. “These people -- often those on modest to low incomes living in rich countries like our own -- see their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut,” she’ll say. “They see their communities changing around them and don’t remember giving their permission.” With voters worried about Trump -- a ComRes Ltd. poll found two-thirds of Britons thought his victory made the world a more dangerous place -- U.K. politicians are divided on how to respond. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, attacked him as a populist who needed to “grow up.” Nigel Farage, who as leader of the U.K. Independence Party was a chief advocate in the campaign to get Britain out of the European Union, on Saturday became the first British figure to meet Trump since the election. He tweeted a picture of the two of them standing together, and said he found the president-elect “relaxed and full of good ideas.” Middle Course May has tried to plot a middle course. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson skipped an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers on Sunday to discuss the U.S. election. The prime minister will say that the concerns of voters are valid and deserve an answer. “If we are to continue to make the case for liberalism and globalization, as we must, we must also face up to and respond to these concerns,” May will say. “If we believe, as I do, that liberalism and globalization continue to offer the best future for our world, we must deal with the downsides and show that we can make these twin forces work for everyone.” In a leaked memo reprinted by the Sunday Times, Kim Darroch, Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., suggested that Trump might be “open to outside influence if pitched right.” He said that because his embassy had “built better relationships with his team than have the rest of the Washington diplomatic corps, we should be well-placed to do this.” Of immediate concern to Britain and the rest of the EU is Trump’s suggestions during his campaign that he had a cooler view of the NATO alliance and would look to improve relations with Russia. Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, urged the U.S. against “going it alone.” But Corbyn in this area called for a better relationship with Russia. “There has to be a process that we try and demilitarize the border between what are now the NATO states and Russia,” he said on the “Andrew Marr Show” on the BBC. “So that we drive apart those forces. Keep them further apart in order to bring about some kind of accommodation. We can’t descend into a new Cold War.”

www.newsmax.com

right

TY4PRKnPITGZdSmx

test

ZSm6UEoD2uAlHhaA

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41804740

Ex-Trump aide Manafort charged with US tax fraud over Ukraine work

Donald Trump 's former presidential campaign manager , Paul Manafort , has been charged with conspiring to defraud the US in his dealings with Ukraine . The 12 charges brought against Mr Manafort and one of his business associates , Rick Gates , include conspiracy to launder money . They stem from an inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the US election . It has emerged that another adviser to Mr Trump admitted this month to lying about his links to Russia . George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about his dealings with an unnamed overseas academic who allegedly informed him that the Russians possessed `` dirt '' on Mr Trump 's presidential opponent , Hillary Clinton . The charges against Mr Manafort and Mr Gates do not relate to Mr Trump 's campaign but to the alleged concealment of payments from the pair 's Ukrainian business dealings up to 2016 . An investigation headed by special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into any links between Russia and the Trump campaign . Both sides deny any collusion . Responding to news of the charges , Mr Trump tweeted to point out that they did not concern his campaign and asked why `` the focus '' was not on alleged wrongdoing involving Mrs Clinton instead . Skip Twitter post by @ realDonaldTrump Sorry , but this is years ago , before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign . But why are n't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus ? ? ? ? ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 30 , 2017 Report For years Paul Manafort operated on the fringes of power , a once-influential Washington player who worked with some less-than-savoury international characters because his services were no longer in high demand domestically , the BBC 's Anthony Zurcher writes from Washington . Then , like many other politicos in Donald Trump 's orbit , he was thrust into the spotlight because more established hands wanted nothing to do with the upstart 's presidential campaign . Mr Manafort got his big break but it may end up breaking him . That resulting spotlight has drawn attention to Mr Manafort 's past dealings and raised questions about his actions while in at the top of the Trump campaign . The good news for Mr Trump is these charges stem from Mr Manafort 's past business dealings , not his campaign efforts . He is being accused of working for years for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and laundering millions in subsequent payments . It certainly makes Mr Trump 's decision to cut Mr Manafort loose last August after details emerged of his Ukrainian ties seem a wise one . The good news has its limits , however . Mr Manafort will be under growing pressure to co-operate with the Mueller investigation . If he offers up useful information about his time during the campaign , this could be just the first domino to fall . The indictment looks at their links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine between 2006 and 2015 . It says they acted as `` unregistered agents '' of Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych and his party , both in opposition and government . Mr Yanukovych was deposed as president in 2014 amid mass unrest over his pro-Russian policies . Mr Manafort is accused of having laundered more than $ 18m ( £14m ) through offshore bank accounts , using it to buy property , goods and services in transactions concealed from the US authorities . He is said to have `` used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle '' in America . Altogether , at least $ 75m in payments from Ukraine flowed through the accounts , the indictment says . Mr Manafort and his lawyer arrived at an FBI office in Washington on Monday . Mr Gates is accused of having transferred more than $ 3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he controlled . He has been ordered to surrender to authorities , according to US media reports . No immediate comment from lawyers for Mr Manafort and Mr Gates was reported after the charges were revealed . Mr Manafort , 68 , has worked on several Republican presidential campaigns , beginning with Gerald Ford 's in 1976 . He resigned as chairman of the Trump campaign in August 2016 after being accused over his dealings with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine . He denies any wrongdoing . US intelligence agencies believe the Russian government sought to help Mr Trump win the election . The justice department statement on Mr Trump 's former foreign policy adviser has the potential to damage the US leader because it relates directly to his election campaign . When Mr Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI this January , he told them that his interactions with the foreign professor , who is said to have `` substantial connections to Russian government officials '' , had taken place before he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 . But according to the US justice department , his meetings with the professor actually took place after he became an adviser to Mr Trump . The professor only took interest in him because of his new status within the Trump campaign , it is alleged . Mr Papadopoulos admitted having sought to arrange a meeting `` between the Campaign and Russian government officials '' . The alleged Russian `` dirt '' on Mrs Clinton took the form of `` thousands of emails '' . No further details were given . On Friday , Mr Trump accused Mrs Clinton of links with Moscow . Republican lawmakers have alleged that a uranium deal with a Russian company in 2010 , when Mrs Clinton was secretary of state , was sealed in exchange for donations to her husband 's charity . A Congressional investigation has been opened into the case . Democrats say it is an attempt to divert attention from the alleged ties between Russia and Mr Trump .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ex-Trump aide Paul Manafort (left) arrives at FBI offices Donald Trump's former presidential campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has been charged with conspiring to defraud the US in his dealings with Ukraine. The 12 charges brought against Mr Manafort and one of his business associates, Rick Gates, include conspiracy to launder money. They stem from an inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the US election. It has emerged that another adviser to Mr Trump admitted this month to lying about his links to Russia. George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about his dealings with an unnamed overseas academic who allegedly informed him that the Russians possessed "dirt" on Mr Trump's presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton. The charges against Mr Manafort and Mr Gates do not relate to Mr Trump's campaign but to the alleged concealment of payments from the pair's Ukrainian business dealings up to 2016. An investigation headed by special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into any links between Russia and the Trump campaign. Both sides deny any collusion. Responding to news of the charges, Mr Trump tweeted to point out that they did not concern his campaign and asked why "the focus" was not on alleged wrongdoing involving Mrs Clinton instead. Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump 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????? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2017 Report What does this mean for Trump? Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Rick Gates (second from left) and Paul Manafort (second from right) on stage with the Trumps on 21 July 2016 For years Paul Manafort operated on the fringes of power, a once-influential Washington player who worked with some less-than-savoury international characters because his services were no longer in high demand domestically, the BBC's Anthony Zurcher writes from Washington. Then, like many other politicos in Donald Trump's orbit, he was thrust into the spotlight because more established hands wanted nothing to do with the upstart's presidential campaign. Mr Manafort got his big break but it may end up breaking him. That resulting spotlight has drawn attention to Mr Manafort's past dealings and raised questions about his actions while in at the top of the Trump campaign. The good news for Mr Trump is these charges stem from Mr Manafort's past business dealings, not his campaign efforts. He is being accused of working for years for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and laundering millions in subsequent payments. It certainly makes Mr Trump's decision to cut Mr Manafort loose last August after details emerged of his Ukrainian ties seem a wise one. The good news has its limits, however. Mr Manafort will be under growing pressure to co-operate with the Mueller investigation. If he offers up useful information about his time during the campaign, this could be just the first domino to fall. What are the charges against Manafort and Gates? The indictment looks at their links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine between 2006 and 2015. It says they acted as "unregistered agents" of Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych and his party, both in opposition and government. Mr Yanukovych was deposed as president in 2014 amid mass unrest over his pro-Russian policies. Mr Manafort is accused of having laundered more than $18m (£14m) through offshore bank accounts, using it to buy property, goods and services in transactions concealed from the US authorities. He is said to have "used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle" in America. Altogether, at least $75m in payments from Ukraine flowed through the accounts, the indictment says. Mr Manafort and his lawyer arrived at an FBI office in Washington on Monday. Mr Gates is accused of having transferred more than $3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he controlled. He has been ordered to surrender to authorities, according to US media reports. No immediate comment from lawyers for Mr Manafort and Mr Gates was reported after the charges were revealed. What were Manafort's links to Trump? Mr Manafort, 68, has worked on several Republican presidential campaigns, beginning with Gerald Ford's in 1976. He resigned as chairman of the Trump campaign in August 2016 after being accused over his dealings with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. He denies any wrongdoing. US intelligence agencies believe the Russian government sought to help Mr Trump win the election. How does the Papadopoulos case affect Trump? The justice department statement on Mr Trump's former foreign policy adviser has the potential to damage the US leader because it relates directly to his election campaign. When Mr Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI this January, he told them that his interactions with the foreign professor, who is said to have "substantial connections to Russian government officials", had taken place before he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016. But according to the US justice department, his meetings with the professor actually took place after he became an adviser to Mr Trump. The professor only took interest in him because of his new status within the Trump campaign, it is alleged. Mr Papadopoulos admitted having sought to arrange a meeting "between the Campaign and Russian government officials". The alleged Russian "dirt" on Mrs Clinton took the form of "thousands of emails". No further details were given. Why did Trump bring up Clinton? On Friday, Mr Trump accused Mrs Clinton of links with Moscow. Republican lawmakers have alleged that a uranium deal with a Russian company in 2010, when Mrs Clinton was secretary of state, was sealed in exchange for donations to her husband's charity. A Congressional investigation has been opened into the case. Democrats say it is an attempt to divert attention from the alleged ties between Russia and Mr Trump.

www.bbc.com

center

ZSm6UEoD2uAlHhaA

test

0tQWxLjS8VuzDni9

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/marriage-equality-activists-have-never-been-more-hopeful/

Marriage Equality Activists ‘Have Never Been More Hopeful’

Sarah Parnass

A number of wins these past few weeks for proponents of same-sex marriage have fueled an unprecedented level of optimism , said Stuart Gaffney , a board member of Marriage Equality USA . With a marriage bill passing the Illinois Senate , Defense Secretary Leon Panetta 's step forward on extending benefits to same-sex military spouses , the president 's renewed support for their movement and two pivotal Supreme Court cases pending , Gaffney said supporters `` have never been more hopeful . '' `` We are really hoping that this year will be the greatest year ever for the freedom to marry in the United States , '' Gaffney told ███ Friday . `` There 's so many historic firsts that have been happening , day after day . '' Here is a look at what steps forward - and back - proponents of same-sex marriage have taken this week : President Obama gave a brief but noteworthy mention to same-sex couples in his State of the Union address Tuesday night . `` It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country - the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities , you can get ahead no matter where you come from , what you look like or who you love , '' the president told members of Congress and their guests in Statuary Hall . That small shout-out was a step back from the level of support he showed in his inaugural address . Obama directly compared the gay rights struggle to such civil rights movements as the women 's movement and the fight for racial equality during his swearing-in ceremony . That speech was considered historic because it was the first time a president included the issue of gay rights in an inaugural address . Panetta Adds to List of Benefits Available to Same-Sex Military Spouses While it was n't a full approval of what activists were asking for , an announcement this week by Panetta significantly increased the resources available to military members ' same-sex spouses . Panetta added 22 new benefits - including access to child care - to the list of those extended to same-sex partners . The Defense of Marriage Act , which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and is up for consideration by the Supreme Court this year , precludes same-sex military spouses from receiving many of the additional benefits for which advocates have asked . One of the unmet demands was burial at Arlington National Cemetery , but a decision from the Veterans ' Affairs bureau Thursday could signal changing attitudes towards that policy . VA Secretary Eric Shinseki decided to allow retired Lt. Col. Linda Campbell to bury the ashes of her wife in a national military cemetery Friday . In what the Chicago Tribune called a `` Valentine 's Day victory , '' the Illinois Senate voted to legalize marriage for same-sex couples Thursday . If the legislation passes in the House and is signed by Democratic Gov . Pat Quinn , it would make Illinois the 10th state to allow same-sex marriage . But it would not allow residents of Illinois who marry under the law to receive federal benefits , like those available under the Family and Medical Leave Act . Sen. Jeff Merkley , D-Ore. , led a group of 37 senators in sending a letter to President Obama on Valentine 's Day , asking him to sign an executive order to protect GLBT workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity , the Washington Post reported . According to the White House website , President Obama believes workplace protection `` should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity . '' Woman in Army National Guard Seeking Benefits for Spouse Dies Jeanne Shaheen took to the Senate floor Thursday to tell the story of Charlie Morgan , a New Hampshire woman in the Army National Guard who died of breast cancer Sunday after fighting to get benefits for her wife and their 4-year-old daughter , according to The Associated Press . Sen. Shaheen , D-N.H. , posted a video of her floor speech on Twitter and YouTube . Morgan 's wife , Karen , spoke of hope for marriage equality at her funeral in Portsmouth , N.H . `` `` I 'll be on the courthouse steps with your picture when DOMA goes down , '' she said , according to the Seacoast Online . `` I 'll see you there . It 's a date . '' Shaheen introduced a bill with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand , D-N.Y. , in Charlie Morgan 's name that would require DOD to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states like New Hampshire where such practices are legal .

Jim Mone/AP Photo A number of wins these past few weeks for proponents of same-sex marriage have fueled an unprecedented level of optimism, said Stuart Gaffney, a board member of Marriage Equality USA. With a marriage bill passing the Illinois Senate, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's step forward on extending benefits to same-sex military spouses, the president's renewed support for their movement and two pivotal Supreme Court cases pending, Gaffney said supporters "have never been more hopeful." "We are really hoping that this year will be the greatest year ever for the freedom to marry in the United States," Gaffney told ABC News Friday. "There's so many historic firsts that have been happening, day after day." Here is a look at what steps forward - and back - proponents of same-sex marriage have taken this week: President Obama's SOTU Shout-Out to Same-Sex Couples President Obama gave a brief but noteworthy mention to same-sex couples in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. "It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country - the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead no matter where you come from, what you look like or who you love," the president told members of Congress and their guests in Statuary Hall. That small shout-out was a step back from the level of support he showed in his inaugural address. Obama directly compared the gay rights struggle to such civil rights movements as the women's movement and the fight for racial equality during his swearing-in ceremony. That speech was considered historic because it was the first time a president included the issue of gay rights in an inaugural address. Panetta Adds to List of Benefits Available to Same-Sex Military Spouses While it wasn't a full approval of what activists were asking for, an announcement this week by Panetta significantly increased the resources available to military members' same-sex spouses. Panetta added 22 new benefits - including access to child care - to the list of those extended to same-sex partners. The Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and is up for consideration by the Supreme Court this year, precludes same-sex military spouses from receiving many of the additional benefits for which advocates have asked. One of the unmet demands was burial at Arlington National Cemetery, but a decision from the Veterans' Affairs bureau Thursday could signal changing attitudes towards that policy. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki decided to allow retired Lt. Col. Linda Campbell to bury the ashes of her wife in a national military cemetery Friday. Illinois Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill In what the Chicago Tribune called a " Valentine's Day victory," the Illinois Senate voted to legalize marriage for same-sex couples Thursday. If the legislation passes in the House and is signed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, it would make Illinois the 10th state to allow same-sex marriage. But it would not allow residents of Illinois who marry under the law to receive federal benefits, like those available under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Senators Encourage Obama to End Workplace Discrimination Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., led a group of 37 senators in sending a letter to President Obama on Valentine's Day, asking him to sign an executive order to protect GLBT workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Washington Post reported. According to the White House website, President Obama believes workplace protection "should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity." Woman in Army National Guard Seeking Benefits for Spouse Dies Jeanne Shaheen took to the Senate floor Thursday to tell the story of Charlie Morgan, a New Hampshire woman in the Army National Guard who died of breast cancer Sunday after fighting to get benefits for her wife and their 4-year-old daughter, according to The Associated Press. Sen. Shaheen, D-N.H., posted a video of her floor speech on Twitter and YouTube. Morgan's wife, Karen, spoke of hope for marriage equality at her funeral in Portsmouth, N.H. ""I'll be on the courthouse steps with your picture when DOMA goes down," she said, according to the Seacoast Online. "I'll see you there. It's a date." Shaheen introduced a bill with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., in Charlie Morgan's name that would require DOD to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states like New Hampshire where such practices are legal.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

0tQWxLjS8VuzDni9

test

3oGy0uJrFzBHuFgJ

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/trump-and-the-truth/

Trump and ‘The Truth’

William Murchison, Greg Jones, Debra J. Saunders, Geoff Shepard, Stuart Schwartz, Dov Fischer, Daniel J. Flynn

A once-upon-a-time voice for journalistic respectability — the Columbia Journalism Review — has consigned to the well-known hot place the notion that respectability entails letting voters rather than reporters decide whether a president is Abe Lincoln or a dirty lying rat . The Review rather leans to the latter conclusion . The Review ’ s daily , always ( to me ) absorbing look at media goings-on raises the question of how to talk about , well , a lying rat of a president : a distinction most media institutions have awarded Donald Trump . The Review highlights the New York Times ’ efforts to call Trump a liar without actually calling him one . “ Trump Falsely Says Times Made Up Source in Report on Korea Summit Meeting. ” That would be just one example of journalistic efforts to downplay the President ’ s commitment , such as it is , to the Truth that Makes You Free . The Journalism Review quotes Times White House Reporter Maggie Haberman ’ s disparaging Tweet the other day : “ Trump told two demonstrable falsehoods this AM . ” The Review says “ the argument consumed political media conversations on Twitter for much of the weekend. ” Some Twitterists thought Haberman ’ s charge a little mild . On May 28 came the Times ’ charge that “ He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust . ” Here we go again , trying , as a society , as a culture , to make heads or tails of a president who defies efforts to categorize him . Over the uproar concerning his gift for veracity or falsehood , alarm bells should sound . The anti-Trump media are nuts if they think they ’ re improving their status in 21stcentury life . They ’ re undermining it further : deepening national disarray by abandoning standards more necessary than ever before in public life . May it please the court , reporters and editors have neither right nor duty to show up the president as a liar . It ’ s lousy journalism to try . But oh , such modern journalism ! Which is the problem . Look : The media are our eyes and ears . Our brains they aren ’ t , though our media clearly suppose the opposite . Which supposition makes them try to lead mere viewers and readers by the nose : telling them what to think . Good luck with that ! “ Speaking truth to power ” — an old Quaker ideal beloved of modern Thought Leaders — involves telling Trump voters they laid an egg . What a non-fruitful mode of argumentation and discussion . The President ’ s grasp of facts is his own , certainly . But : 1 ) He ’ s not always wrong , even when being obnoxious ; and 2 ) a statement out of line with the truth doesn ’ t suggest the need to go at him , as per the Times , with eyes bulging ; rather , it demands bringing to view — without indignation or contempt — asseverations and facts that undermine the Trumpian account . Only you set such asseverations and facts side by side with his own : quoting responsible , preferably neutral , or neutral-ish , sources . You let the White House answer those sources . Then you stand back and let the people make up their own minds ! Strange conceit , that — trusting votes and consumers of news to make up their minds without pointed assistance from the media . For which , if it doesn ’ t work out , maybe we need to examine the U.S. education system with more alarm . And maybe also the lack of trust that previous media forays against previous presidents have engendered . Media fury at one Donald Trump is sowing worrisome consequences for the future . The lying so-and-so , as most of the media view him , is going to be gone one day : possibly with the media ’ s invaluable assistance . And will there linger , save in progressive circles , any public inclination to believe , or even listen to , a word the anti-Trump press says about anything ? Including the weather ? A certain… call it mutual trust , or sense of shared conviction , lies at the foundation of any free society . I can not see the anti-Trump media adding to our depleted storehouse of trust . I see , indeed , the media ’ s angry judgmentalism — its love of crying “ Liar ! ” — making things far angrier , far more divisive , than they are now . And what we have right now isn ’ t great . Just subscribe ( as I do ) to the Times . And judge . William Murchison is writing a book about moral restoration . He most recently was Radford Distinguished Professor of Journalism at Baylor University .

A once-upon-a-time voice for journalistic respectability — the Columbia Journalism Review — has consigned to the well-known hot place the notion that respectability entails letting voters rather than reporters decide whether a president is Abe Lincoln or a dirty lying rat. The Review rather leans to the latter conclusion. The Review’s daily, always (to me) absorbing look at media goings-on raises the question of how to talk about, well, a lying rat of a president: a distinction most media institutions have awarded Donald Trump. The Review highlights the New York Times’ efforts to call Trump a liar without actually calling him one. “Trump Falsely Says Times Made Up Source in Report on Korea Summit Meeting.” That would be just one example of journalistic efforts to downplay the President’s commitment, such as it is, to the Truth that Makes You Free. The Journalism Review quotes Times White House Reporter Maggie Haberman’s disparaging Tweet the other day: “Trump told two demonstrable falsehoods this AM.” The Review says “the argument consumed political media conversations on Twitter for much of the weekend.” Some Twitterists thought Haberman’s charge a little mild. On May 28 came the Times’ charge that “He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust.” Here we go again, trying, as a society, as a culture, to make heads or tails of a president who defies efforts to categorize him. Over the uproar concerning his gift for veracity or falsehood, alarm bells should sound. The anti-Trump media are nuts if they think they’re improving their status in 21stcentury life. They’re undermining it further: deepening national disarray by abandoning standards more necessary than ever before in public life. May it please the court, reporters and editors have neither right nor duty to show up the president as a liar. It’s lousy journalism to try. But oh, such modern journalism! Which is the problem. Look: The media are our eyes and ears. Our brains they aren’t, though our media clearly suppose the opposite. Which supposition makes them try to lead mere viewers and readers by the nose: telling them what to think. Good luck with that! “Speaking truth to power” — an old Quaker ideal beloved of modern Thought Leaders — involves telling Trump voters they laid an egg. What a non-fruitful mode of argumentation and discussion. The President’s grasp of facts is his own, certainly. But: 1) He’s not always wrong, even when being obnoxious; and 2) a statement out of line with the truth doesn’t suggest the need to go at him, as per the Times, with eyes bulging; rather, it demands bringing to view — without indignation or contempt — asseverations and facts that undermine the Trumpian account. Only you set such asseverations and facts side by side with his own: quoting responsible, preferably neutral, or neutral-ish, sources. You let the White House answer those sources. Then you stand back and let the people make up their own minds! Strange conceit, that — trusting votes and consumers of news to make up their minds without pointed assistance from the media. For which, if it doesn’t work out, maybe we need to examine the U.S. education system with more alarm. And maybe also the lack of trust that previous media forays against previous presidents have engendered. Media fury at one Donald Trump is sowing worrisome consequences for the future. The lying so-and-so, as most of the media view him, is going to be gone one day: possibly with the media’s invaluable assistance. And will there linger, save in progressive circles, any public inclination to believe, or even listen to, a word the anti-Trump press says about anything? Including the weather? A certain… call it mutual trust, or sense of shared conviction, lies at the foundation of any free society. I cannot see the anti-Trump media adding to our depleted storehouse of trust. I see, indeed, the media’s angry judgmentalism — its love of crying “Liar!” — making things far angrier, far more divisive, than they are now. And what we have right now isn’t great. Just subscribe (as I do) to the Times. And judge. William Murchison is writing a book about moral restoration. He most recently was Radford Distinguished Professor of Journalism at Baylor University. COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

www.spectator.org

right

3oGy0uJrFzBHuFgJ

test

BasFUNc3Jz6GFoDW

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lois-Lerner-IRS-emails-treasury/2015/04/29/id/641492/

Inspector General Recovers Thousands of Lerner's Emails at IRS

2015-04-29

Melanie Batley

An inspector general at the Treasury has recovered thousands of emails from Lois Lerner when she was at the IRS that were previously believed to have been lost after a computer crash , The Hill reported . Congressional committees involved in the investigation into the improper targeting of tea party groups said the Treasury 's inspector general for tax administration ( TIGTA ) turned over roughly 6,400 new emails either to or from Lerner from between 2004 and 2013.Of the new emails the inspector general found , around 650 were from 2010 and 2011 , while most were from 2012 , The Hill said . In total , 35,000 emails have been recovered from recycled back-up tapes.In a statement , the IRS said it was glad to hear that the inspector general found the Lerner emails , calling it `` an encouraging development that will help resolve remaining questions and dispel uncertainty surrounding the emails . `` The IRS also said it took the inspector general around 10 months to recover the emails affected by Lerner 's computer crash.Lerner had been the focus of a congressional investigation into the targeting . Lerner was placed on leave in May 2013 and retired four months later . She denied any wrongdoing but refused to testify before Congress.Her attorney , William Taylor , recently said he and his client were `` gratified but not surprised '' by a decision by the U.S. Attorney 's Office not to pursue contempt of court charges against her , Fox News reported . A spokesman for Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch said the committee hoped the new emails would bring the panel closer to releasing the findings of its IRS investigation . `` These emails will be carefully examined as part of the Committee 's bipartisan IRS investigation , '' a spokesman said , according to The Hill . `` After TIGTA produces their report regarding the missing data later this year , the Committee hopes to follow suit and move forward with the release of its bipartisan report on this issue . ''

An inspector general at the Treasury has recovered thousands of emails from Lois Lerner when she was at the IRS that were previously believed to have been lost after a computer crash, The Hill reported. Congressional committees involved in the investigation into the improper targeting of tea party groups said the Treasury's inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) turned over roughly 6,400 new emails either to or from Lerner from between 2004 and 2013.Of the new emails the inspector general found, around 650 were from 2010 and 2011, while most were from 2012, The Hill said. In total, 35,000 emails have been recovered from recycled back-up tapes.In a statement, the IRS said it was glad to hear that the inspector general found the Lerner emails, calling it "an encouraging development that will help resolve remaining questions and dispel uncertainty surrounding the emails."The IRS also said it took the inspector general around 10 months to recover the emails affected by Lerner's computer crash.Lerner had been the focus of a congressional investigation into the targeting. Lerner was placed on leave in May 2013 and retired four months later. She denied any wrongdoing but refused to testify before Congress.Her attorney, William Taylor, recently said he and his client were "gratified but not surprised" by a decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office not to pursue contempt of court charges against her, Fox News reported. A spokesman for Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch said the committee hoped the new emails would bring the panel closer to releasing the findings of its IRS investigation."These emails will be carefully examined as part of the Committee's bipartisan IRS investigation," a spokesman said, according to The Hill. "After TIGTA produces their report regarding the missing data later this year, the Committee hopes to follow suit and move forward with the release of its bipartisan report on this issue."

www.newsmax.com

right

BasFUNc3Jz6GFoDW

test

OCyXeA1n50HuR2ks

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/24/first-on-cnn-republicans-launch-their-own-50-state-strategy/?hpt=po_c2

First on CNN: Republicans launch their own '50 state strategy'

2013-07-24

Washington ( CNN ) - After weaknesses in its ground game were badly exposed in 2012 , the Republican National Committee is taking a page straight out of the Democratic playbook and launching an ambitious “ 50 state strategy ” that will steer party resources and staffers to every corner of the country as it works to repair its voter contact effort before the next presidential election . The party ’ s short-term vision with the project is to help the GOP win key races this November and in next year ’ s midterm elections . But that ’ s only part of a larger and more important goal for Republicans : rebuilding a broken and outdated get-out-the-vote operation that seemed dominant during the George W. Bush era , but was overtaken in 2012 by a Democratic coalition that had spent years polishing its tactics in the fields of voter contact , persuasion , data collection and statistical modeling . Led by the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama and aided by independent liberal groups and labor outfits , Republican organizers were badly out-hustled by their Democratic counterparts in the race to get their supporters to the polls , in early voting and on Election Day . The RNC ’ s 50-state project begins with putting new boots on the ground in the two states with gubernatorial elections this fall , Virginia and New Jersey , said party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski . In both states , the RNC will be testing voter contact efforts with controlled experiments and fine-tuning their engagement efforts with African-American , Asian-American and Hispanic communities who are firmly entrenched in the Democratic camp . In May , the RNC hired new staffers and opened offices in Virginia , which has a competitive governor ’ s race , and in New Jersey , the site of a less competitive gubernatorial contest and a special U.S. Senate election . The committee has also placed “ state directors , ” who will work alongside existing state party organizations and candidates to coordinate with the national party , in 10 other states with competitive Senate , House and gubernatorial races in 2014 . Republican state directors have already been deployed to Florida , Michigan , Wisconsin , Montana , West Virginia , Louisiana , Pennsylvania and Ohio . There are currently 125 RNC operatives in the field as of this week , a staff footprint larger than the one at party headquarters on Capitol Hill . By the end of the year , Kukowski said , the RNC will have “ hundreds of staffers ” and “ nearly 100 ” offices around the country , all trained in Washington . Not every state will have a state director , she admitted , but every state in the country , including Democratic strongholds , will have at least one paid staffer and possibly more . The party has also dispatched political staffers – they won ’ t say how many - to work deep-red Texas and deep-blue California , both mega-states with substantial and growing Hispanic populations that will figure prominently in future election cycles . Democratic strategists from the Obama campaign , for instance , have been laboring in Texas for months under the banner of “ Battleground Texas , ” a long-term initiative aimed at flipping the state and its 38 electoral votes from red to blue by 2016 or 2020 . The RNC ’ s 50 state effort , of course , harkens back to Howard Dean ’ s chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee , which began in 2005 . Dean , hoping to expand the Democratic map from just a handful of battleground states , spent precious party funds on placing political staffers in red states to court Republican-leaning voters . Dean was ridiculed at the time by party insiders for wasting precious money on his 50 state strategy . “ What he has spent it on , apparently , is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose , ” longtime Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala sniffed in 2006 . But Barack Obama ’ s presidential campaign in 2008 eventually adopted the expand-the-map model , building a national volunteer infrastructure that proved vital during Obama ’ s historic primary clash with Hillary Clinton , when Obama volunteers out-organized Clinton forces in key caucus states that had long been abandoned by Democrats . Their red state activities also came in handy that November , when Obama won Republican-leaning North Carolina , Indiana and Virginia , the first time a Democrat had won those states on the presidential level in decades . Republicans are now trying to develop a similar bottom-up approach to persuading and motivating voters . Instead of taking rigid marching orders from Washington , RNC staffers in the states will be given a longer leash in order to understand local players and issues , and adapt accordingly . That may seems like an obvious strategy , but it marks a cultural sea change for Republican get-out-the-vote specialists . “ Our approach at the RNC is to try and be as granular and community-based as possible , ” said Reince Priebus , the committee chairman . To that end , Priebus said the party has abandoned its assumptions about voter contact . In 2012 , for instance , the RNC and Mitt Romney ’ s campaign had their volunteers read from a generic script when reaching potential supporters by phone or at the door . The strategy , which relied on large banks of auto-dialer phones , was scattershot and impersonal . The Obama campaign , meanwhile , depended on volunteers who had lived in targeted communities for years , and had pre-existing relationships with potential voters . Priebus said Republicans are trying to cultivate a similar grassroots network among their staffers and volunteers .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - After weaknesses in its ground game were badly exposed in 2012, the Republican National Committee is taking a page straight out of the Democratic playbook and launching an ambitious “50 state strategy” that will steer party resources and staffers to every corner of the country as it works to repair its voter contact effort before the next presidential election. The party’s short-term vision with the project is to help the GOP win key races this November and in next year’s midterm elections. But that’s only part of a larger and more important goal for Republicans: rebuilding a broken and outdated get-out-the-vote operation that seemed dominant during the George W. Bush era, but was overtaken in 2012 by a Democratic coalition that had spent years polishing its tactics in the fields of voter contact, persuasion, data collection and statistical modeling. Led by the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama and aided by independent liberal groups and labor outfits, Republican organizers were badly out-hustled by their Democratic counterparts in the race to get their supporters to the polls, in early voting and on Election Day. The RNC’s 50-state project begins with putting new boots on the ground in the two states with gubernatorial elections this fall, Virginia and New Jersey, said party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski. In both states, the RNC will be testing voter contact efforts with controlled experiments and fine-tuning their engagement efforts with African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic communities who are firmly entrenched in the Democratic camp. In May, the RNC hired new staffers and opened offices in Virginia, which has a competitive governor’s race, and in New Jersey, the site of a less competitive gubernatorial contest and a special U.S. Senate election. The committee has also placed “state directors,” who will work alongside existing state party organizations and candidates to coordinate with the national party, in 10 other states with competitive Senate, House and gubernatorial races in 2014. Republican state directors have already been deployed to Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, West Virginia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio. There are currently 125 RNC operatives in the field as of this week, a staff footprint larger than the one at party headquarters on Capitol Hill. By the end of the year, Kukowski said, the RNC will have “hundreds of staffers” and “nearly 100” offices around the country, all trained in Washington. Not every state will have a state director, she admitted, but every state in the country, including Democratic strongholds, will have at least one paid staffer and possibly more. The party has also dispatched political staffers – they won’t say how many - to work deep-red Texas and deep-blue California, both mega-states with substantial and growing Hispanic populations that will figure prominently in future election cycles. Democratic strategists from the Obama campaign, for instance, have been laboring in Texas for months under the banner of “Battleground Texas,” a long-term initiative aimed at flipping the state and its 38 electoral votes from red to blue by 2016 or 2020. The RNC’s 50 state effort, of course, harkens back to Howard Dean’s chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, which began in 2005. Dean, hoping to expand the Democratic map from just a handful of battleground states, spent precious party funds on placing political staffers in red states to court Republican-leaning voters. Dean was ridiculed at the time by party insiders for wasting precious money on his 50 state strategy. “What he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose,” longtime Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala sniffed in 2006. But Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 eventually adopted the expand-the-map model, building a national volunteer infrastructure that proved vital during Obama’s historic primary clash with Hillary Clinton, when Obama volunteers out-organized Clinton forces in key caucus states that had long been abandoned by Democrats. Their red state activities also came in handy that November, when Obama won Republican-leaning North Carolina, Indiana and Virginia, the first time a Democrat had won those states on the presidential level in decades. Republicans are now trying to develop a similar bottom-up approach to persuading and motivating voters. Instead of taking rigid marching orders from Washington, RNC staffers in the states will be given a longer leash in order to understand local players and issues, and adapt accordingly. That may seems like an obvious strategy, but it marks a cultural sea change for Republican get-out-the-vote specialists. “Our approach at the RNC is to try and be as granular and community-based as possible,” said Reince Priebus, the committee chairman. To that end, Priebus said the party has abandoned its assumptions about voter contact. In 2012, for instance, the RNC and Mitt Romney’s campaign had their volunteers read from a generic script when reaching potential supporters by phone or at the door. The strategy, which relied on large banks of auto-dialer phones, was scattershot and impersonal. The Obama campaign, meanwhile, depended on volunteers who had lived in targeted communities for years, and had pre-existing relationships with potential voters. Priebus said Republicans are trying to cultivate a similar grassroots network among their staffers and volunteers.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

OCyXeA1n50HuR2ks

test

SVDHaA6jKpLj5PsZ

politics

Salon

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

GOP’s one sacred principle: A spending philosophy of lies and troop worship

2014-08-13

David Dayen

Something extraordinary happened in Congress before they took their month-long August break . No , not that they passed a bill , though that has become a rare feat these days . This Congress , so obsessed with the deficit that they imposed a spending cap on themselves , and vowed that no new legislation would ever pass without being paid for , did just that last Thursday . Moreover , the same Republican House that has taken several dozen votes to repeal Obamacare passed this deficit-spending bill to further fund the country ’ s only system of socialized medicine . How did this happen ? Because when you support the troops , federal spending is magic spending that doesn ’ t count . The bill , signed by the president last Thursday , seeks to reform the Veterans Administration , though you can make a credible case that the new spending represents an attempt to undermine it . We ’ re only talking about an infinitesimal sliver of the federal budget , $ 10 billion in new spending spread out over a couple of years . But if the government allows itself to spend in reaction to an emergency without having to pay for it , suddenly a whole host of options come into play . It overturns so many false ideas that have perniciously made their way into the mainstream over the past several years , from the virtues of austerity to the inadequacies of economic stimulus . And it exposes how anything that has to do with the military gets a free pass , one that should be extended to all kinds of worthy policies . Under the legislation passed by Congress , the $ 10 billion will go toward vouchers that enable any VA patient who experiences long wait times or lives more than 40 miles from the nearest VA facility to access private medical coverage . Another $ 6.3 billion in the bill goes toward hiring more VA doctors , upgrading current VA health centers , and entering into leases with 27 major medical facilities across the country . That $ 6.3 billion gets paid for internally with offsets from the VA budget . But Congress was taken by surprise , amazingly , at the cost of private medical care . The Congressional Budget Office scored the private coverage aspect of the initial bill as costing $ 35 billion between now and 2016 . According to CBO , covering private care would cost $ 25 billion just in 2016 , when the entire VA budget costs $ 44 billion annually . Congressional negotiators got their hands around the cost by turning it into a pilot program , with a fixed limit to the spending . And it will be worth tracking to see how long it takes for that funding to dry up when routed through the inefficient and wasteful private healthcare system . In reality , only 0.6 percent of VA enrollees ever experienced wait times over 90 days ; this was a political rather than a policy problem . And it ’ s worth noting that many veterans advocates would rather have more money put into the specialized VA system than into back-door privatization , especially if growing the private care benefit means eroding the VA . But Congress still had the bigger problem of how to fund that $ 10 billion , with the clock ticking before the statutorily mandated August recess ( that ’ s right , Congress is obligated by law to go on vacation after July 31 ) . So in the end , they decided not to pay for it . They would not be able to get away with that , politically , with virtually any other priority of the federal government . Spending for national parks , medical research through the National Institutes of Health , food stamps , housing vouchers , anything else you can name , would require an offset . The Budget Control Act attempts to prevent Congress from spending above a top-line number on the discretionary budget for the next several years . Sequestration , most of which remains in effect , cuts spending rigidly without allowances . Paygo legislation disallows spending without offsets ; efforts like the VA bill require a special vote to waive that statute . Not even unemployment insurance for the large segment of long-term unemployed workers can get by without an offset , which is why it has yet to be renewed . Most reasonable people would consider being unemployed for months on end an emergency . But Congress finds it hard to rouse itself even with respect to unquestioned emergencies . The same week that they were handing out $ 10 billion for private voucher coverage through the VA , Republicans in both houses of Congress rejected $ 650 million in spending for wildfires along the West Coast , even as more than a dozen continue to burn . They didn ’ t mind spending more than 15 times that on the VA without paying for it . This kind of thing happens like clockwork every few months or so . Recall back in January , when the budget bill contained a loophole restoring military pension cuts while exempting the cost of that restoration from paygo requirements . In other words , then as now , military spending gets put in a separate category from everything else in the budget , freed from the strictures of budgetary politics . The lesson here is that the only emergency spending that matters to Washington has to do with the troops . Bernie Sanders , the lead negotiator on the Senate side of the VA bill , said that “ Funding for veterans ' needs must be considered a cost of war and appropriated as emergency spending , ” just like supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan . That ’ s true , but why not extend that out ? It ’ s not that I would hold soldiers to the same miserly standard as the rest of the budget , it ’ s that I would use the proper definition of the word “ emergency ” to describe all of our pressing national priorities , not just the ones that require guns and tanks . When a child ’ s family doesn ’ t have enough money for breakfast and lunch , that ’ s an emergency . When particularly flammable parts of the country catch fire because of the debilitating effects of climate change , that ’ s an emergency . When our fellow citizens have no shelter , no job and no hope of advancement , that ’ s an emergency . As a wealthy nation , we can organize our resources to accommodate whatever emergencies exist , without the false conceit of “ bankrupting ” the country . If you can spend on the military , you can spend on anything . It ’ s incredibly likely that the VA back-door privatization measure will become permanent in future years . Once Congress starts spending on they military , they find it exceedingly hard to stop . Politicians make the military and its members a priority . I wish they had the same concern for the rest of our 300 million citizens .

Something extraordinary happened in Congress before they took their month-long August break. No, not that they passed a bill, though that has become a rare feat these days. This Congress, so obsessed with the deficit that they imposed a spending cap on themselves, and vowed that no new legislation would ever pass without being paid for, did just that last Thursday. Moreover, the same Republican House that has taken several dozen votes to repeal Obamacare passed this deficit-spending bill to further fund the country’s only system of socialized medicine. How did this happen? Because when you support the troops, federal spending is magic spending that doesn’t count. Advertisement: The bill, signed by the president last Thursday, seeks to reform the Veterans Administration, though you can make a credible case that the new spending represents an attempt to undermine it. We’re only talking about an infinitesimal sliver of the federal budget, $10 billion in new spending spread out over a couple of years. But if the government allows itself to spend in reaction to an emergency without having to pay for it, suddenly a whole host of options come into play. It overturns so many false ideas that have perniciously made their way into the mainstream over the past several years, from the virtues of austerity to the inadequacies of economic stimulus. And it exposes how anything that has to do with the military gets a free pass, one that should be extended to all kinds of worthy policies. Under the legislation passed by Congress, the $10 billion will go toward vouchers that enable any VA patient who experiences long wait times or lives more than 40 miles from the nearest VA facility to access private medical coverage. Another $6.3 billion in the bill goes toward hiring more VA doctors, upgrading current VA health centers, and entering into leases with 27 major medical facilities across the country. That $6.3 billion gets paid for internally with offsets from the VA budget. But Congress was taken by surprise, amazingly, at the cost of private medical care. The Congressional Budget Office scored the private coverage aspect of the initial bill as costing $35 billion between now and 2016. According to CBO, covering private care would cost $25 billion just in 2016, when the entire VA budget costs $44 billion annually. Advertisement: Congressional negotiators got their hands around the cost by turning it into a pilot program, with a fixed limit to the spending. And it will be worth tracking to see how long it takes for that funding to dry up when routed through the inefficient and wasteful private healthcare system. In reality, only 0.6 percent of VA enrollees ever experienced wait times over 90 days; this was a political rather than a policy problem. And it’s worth noting that many veterans advocates would rather have more money put into the specialized VA system than into back-door privatization, especially if growing the private care benefit means eroding the VA. But Congress still had the bigger problem of how to fund that $10 billion, with the clock ticking before the statutorily mandated August recess (that’s right, Congress is obligated by law to go on vacation after July 31). So in the end, they decided not to pay for it. They would not be able to get away with that, politically, with virtually any other priority of the federal government. Spending for national parks, medical research through the National Institutes of Health, food stamps, housing vouchers, anything else you can name, would require an offset. The Budget Control Act attempts to prevent Congress from spending above a top-line number on the discretionary budget for the next several years. Sequestration, most of which remains in effect, cuts spending rigidly without allowances. Paygo legislation disallows spending without offsets; efforts like the VA bill require a special vote to waive that statute. Not even unemployment insurance for the large segment of long-term unemployed workers can get by without an offset, which is why it has yet to be renewed. Advertisement: Most reasonable people would consider being unemployed for months on end an emergency. But Congress finds it hard to rouse itself even with respect to unquestioned emergencies. The same week that they were handing out $10 billion for private voucher coverage through the VA, Republicans in both houses of Congress rejected $650 million in spending for wildfires along the West Coast, even as more than a dozen continue to burn. They didn’t mind spending more than 15 times that on the VA without paying for it. This kind of thing happens like clockwork every few months or so. Recall back in January, when the budget bill contained a loophole restoring military pension cuts while exempting the cost of that restoration from paygo requirements. In other words, then as now, military spending gets put in a separate category from everything else in the budget, freed from the strictures of budgetary politics. Advertisement: The lesson here is that the only emergency spending that matters to Washington has to do with the troops. Bernie Sanders, the lead negotiator on the Senate side of the VA bill, said that “Funding for veterans' needs must be considered a cost of war and appropriated as emergency spending,” just like supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s true, but why not extend that out? It’s not that I would hold soldiers to the same miserly standard as the rest of the budget, it’s that I would use the proper definition of the word “emergency” to describe all of our pressing national priorities, not just the ones that require guns and tanks. When a child’s family doesn’t have enough money for breakfast and lunch, that’s an emergency. When particularly flammable parts of the country catch fire because of the debilitating effects of climate change, that’s an emergency. When our fellow citizens have no shelter, no job and no hope of advancement, that’s an emergency. As a wealthy nation, we can organize our resources to accommodate whatever emergencies exist, without the false conceit of “bankrupting” the country. If you can spend on the military, you can spend on anything. It’s incredibly likely that the VA back-door privatization measure will become permanent in future years. Once Congress starts spending on they military, they find it exceedingly hard to stop. Politicians make the military and its members a priority. I wish they had the same concern for the rest of our 300 million citizens.

www.salon.com

left

SVDHaA6jKpLj5PsZ

test

bD2c6cwdwQfcbCsU

labor

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/12/29/new-york-times-disdains-wage-raises-for-americans/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

New York Times Disdains Wage Raises for Blue-Collar Americans

2019-12-29

Neil Munro

Wages for Americans have jumped since ICE arrested almost 700 illegals at several labor-intensive chicken plants in Mississippi — yet the New York Times disdains the extra cash as “ little . ” On December 2018 , The NYT reported the wage-gains since the August enforcement : [ Juan ] Grant , only two years out of high school and still finding his way in the world . He said it felt good to be earning $ 11.23 an hour , even if the new job entailed cutting off necks and pulling out guts on a seemingly endless conveyor of carcasses . It was about $ 4 better , he said , than what he used to earn at a Madison County cookie factory . … … the opportunity to earn more than $ 11 an hour can still turn heads in this part of Mississippi . Mr. Grant was not the only person to jump at the chance the raids provided . Niah Hill , manager of the Sonic Drive-In in Morton , said 10 of her workers quit soon after the raid at Koch Foods . “ When they heard about the raids they all went over there and got jobs right away , ” Ms. Hill said . Carhops at this Sonic make $ 4.25 an hour — three dollars less than the state ’ s minimum wage — plus tips , she said . But the NYT ’ s reporter dismissed the economic gains for working-class Americans , with a quote from a press release issued by the University of Pennsylvania : A 2016 study on the effects of immigration on the United States economy found that immigration had “ little long run effect ” on American wages . But the university group admitted in 2017 that President Donald Trump ’ s proposals would raise Americans ’ wages . Also , a 2016 blue-ribbon study by the National Academies of Sciences told a very different story . For example , on page 171 of its September 2016 report , the academies ’ experts agreed to a formula which shows that immigration imposes a 5.2 percent income tax on Americans : Immigrant labor accounts for 16.5 percent of the total number of hours worked in the United States , which . . . implies that the current stock of immigrants lowered [ Americans ’ ] wages by 5.2 percent . The NAS panel declined to state the dollar value of the 5.2 percent immigration tax . But panel member George Borjas , a Harvard economist , calculated the value of the tax at $ 500 billion a year . This $ 500 billion immigration tax is not paid to the government — it is paid by employees to employers and investors who gain whenever wages are lowered by the increased supply of workers jostling and competing for wages . That ’ s a political boon for Democrats because economic pressure tends to push Americans to vote for the big-spending party . The press release hid that immediate damage by focusing reporters ’ attention to the “ long-run ” — while ignoring the reality that the “ long-run ” will never arrive if the federal government keeps adding imported labor . Almost 50 % of U.S. employees got higher wages in 2019 , up from almost 40 % in 2018 . That 's useful progress – but wage growth will likely rise faster if Congress stopped inflating the labor supply for the benefit of business . https : //t.co/4Q7KgaOJkW — Neil Munro ( @ NeilMunroDC ) December 24 , 2019 After downplaying the wage losses , the NYT article also downplayed the transfer of jobs from Americans to illegal migrants , starting in the late-1970s . For example , the author quoted a local African-American activist sympathizing with the illegals , despite the loss of jobs to Americans : Wesley Odom , 79 , president of the Scott County N.A.A.C.P. , spoke of the family members separated — the Hispanic mothers and fathers who remain in custody , as well as the moments , on the day of the raids , when some schoolchildren must have wondered whether they would walk into empty homes . “ The blacks were witness to that same thing as slaves , ” he said . The NYT article also downplayed the impact of cheap labor on Americans ’ productivity . For example , companies have used cheap labor to avoid investing in labor-saving technology that would improve Americans ’ working conditions and wages . But in President Donald Trump ’ s tight labor market , companies are being pressured to invest in the labor-saving machinery that allows Americans to be paid more for doing more work every day . In Fremont , Nebraska , Costco has opened huge chicken industry and a high-tech-factory — with 1,000 jobs — to deliver roughly 100 million chickens to customers nationwide annually . It is reportedly paying local Americans $ 13 to $ 17 per hour to work on the chicken processing line . In September , Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue visited Costco ’ s chicken-processing factory , according to a report in the Fremont Tribune : “ With all the processing , I mentioned one factor : It looked like the deboning process , mechanically , was better than I could do by hand , ” he said . “ And so it delivers a consistent product , which is what the consumer is looking for. ” … “ It ’ s just a great ecosystem that develops , ” Perdue said . “ It allows us , the United States , to enjoy the lowest-cost food in all the developed world . It takes things like this to continue . This is cutting-edge. ” … “ The technology and innovation out there today , optic technology , sensors , using less water , using less inputs with more productivity , that ’ s what it ’ s going to take to make the family farmers survive , ” he said . “ And it takes all of us . ” A second report in the Fremont Tribune said nearly all the workers were recruited locally : [ Company spokesman Jessica ] Kolterman said around 97 % of the current employees are from Fremont and the surrounding communities , which have also seen the creation of new businesses as a result of the plant . “ Anecdotal comments on why they chose to come work for us have run the gamut , but many have cited wanting a shorter commute , not wanting to ever be caught outside of their community again during a flood event , wanting more opportunities for growth , better pay , benefits and the like , ” she said . Despite Costco ’ s pay increase , the wages for slaughterhouse workers remain far below the $ 20 per hour peak in the 1980s . Since then , wages have dropped as companies worked with the federal government to weaken unions and import illegals . However , the NYT ’ s article is typical of media coverage , because very few establishment reporters follow the money through the immigration debate .

Wages for Americans have jumped since ICE arrested almost 700 illegals at several labor-intensive chicken plants in Mississippi — yet the New York Times disdains the extra cash as “little.” On December 2018, The NYT reported the wage-gains since the August enforcement: [Juan] Grant, only two years out of high school and still finding his way in the world. He said it felt good to be earning $11.23 an hour, even if the new job entailed cutting off necks and pulling out guts on a seemingly endless conveyor of carcasses. It was about $4 better, he said, than what he used to earn at a Madison County cookie factory. … … the opportunity to earn more than $11 an hour can still turn heads in this part of Mississippi. Mr. Grant was not the only person to jump at the chance the raids provided. Niah Hill, manager of the Sonic Drive-In in Morton, said 10 of her workers quit soon after the raid at Koch Foods. “When they heard about the raids they all went over there and got jobs right away,” Ms. Hill said. Carhops at this Sonic make $4.25 an hour — three dollars less than the state’s minimum wage — plus tips, she said. But the NYT’s reporter dismissed the economic gains for working-class Americans, with a quote from a press release issued by the University of Pennsylvania: A 2016 study on the effects of immigration on the United States economy found that immigration had “little long run effect” on American wages. But the university group admitted in 2017 that President Donald Trump’s proposals would raise Americans’ wages. Also, a 2016 blue-ribbon study by the National Academies of Sciences told a very different story. For example, on page 171 of its September 2016 report, the academies’ experts agreed to a formula which shows that immigration imposes a 5.2 percent income tax on Americans: Immigrant labor accounts for 16.5 percent of the total number of hours worked in the United States, which . . . implies that the current stock of immigrants lowered [Americans’] wages by 5.2 percent. The NAS panel declined to state the dollar value of the 5.2 percent immigration tax. But panel member George Borjas, a Harvard economist, calculated the value of the tax at $500 billion a year. This $500 billion immigration tax is not paid to the government — it is paid by employees to employers and investors who gain whenever wages are lowered by the increased supply of workers jostling and competing for wages. That’s a political boon for Democrats because economic pressure tends to push Americans to vote for the big-spending party. The press release hid that immediate damage by focusing reporters’ attention to the “long-run” — while ignoring the reality that the “long-run” will never arrive if the federal government keeps adding imported labor. Almost 50% of U.S. employees got higher wages in 2019, up from almost 40% in 2018. That's useful progress – but wage growth will likely rise faster if Congress stopped inflating the labor supply for the benefit of business. https://t.co/4Q7KgaOJkW — Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) December 24, 2019 After downplaying the wage losses, the NYT article also downplayed the transfer of jobs from Americans to illegal migrants, starting in the late-1970s. For example, the author quoted a local African-American activist sympathizing with the illegals, despite the loss of jobs to Americans: Wesley Odom, 79, president of the Scott County N.A.A.C.P., spoke of the family members separated — the Hispanic mothers and fathers who remain in custody, as well as the moments, on the day of the raids, when some schoolchildren must have wondered whether they would walk into empty homes. “The blacks were witness to that same thing as slaves,” he said. The NYT article also downplayed the impact of cheap labor on Americans’ productivity. For example, companies have used cheap labor to avoid investing in labor-saving technology that would improve Americans’ working conditions and wages. But in President Donald Trump’s tight labor market, companies are being pressured to invest in the labor-saving machinery that allows Americans to be paid more for doing more work every day. In Fremont, Nebraska, Costco has opened huge chicken industry and a high-tech-factory — with 1,000 jobs — to deliver roughly 100 million chickens to customers nationwide annually. It is reportedly paying local Americans $13 to $17 per hour to work on the chicken processing line. In September, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue visited Costco’s chicken-processing factory, according to a report in the Fremont Tribune: “With all the processing, I mentioned one factor: It looked like the deboning process, mechanically, was better than I could do by hand,” he said. “And so it delivers a consistent product, which is what the consumer is looking for.” … “It’s just a great ecosystem that develops,” Perdue said. “It allows us, the United States, to enjoy the lowest-cost food in all the developed world. It takes things like this to continue. This is cutting-edge.” … “The technology and innovation out there today, optic technology, sensors, using less water, using less inputs with more productivity, that’s what it’s going to take to make the family farmers survive,” he said. “And it takes all of us.” A second report in the Fremont Tribune said nearly all the workers were recruited locally: [Company spokesman Jessica] Kolterman said around 97% of the current employees are from Fremont and the surrounding communities, which have also seen the creation of new businesses as a result of the plant. “Anecdotal comments on why they chose to come work for us have run the gamut, but many have cited wanting a shorter commute, not wanting to ever be caught outside of their community again during a flood event, wanting more opportunities for growth, better pay, benefits and the like,” she said. Despite Costco’s pay increase, the wages for slaughterhouse workers remain far below the $20 per hour peak in the 1980s. Since then, wages have dropped as companies worked with the federal government to weaken unions and import illegals. However, the NYT’s article is typical of media coverage, because very few establishment reporters follow the money through the immigration debate.

www.breitbart.com

right

bD2c6cwdwQfcbCsU

test

uFvqUBfxmdodtHjG

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/stop_poisoning_the_race_debate_how_respectability_politics_rears_its_ugly_head_again/

Stop poisoning the race debate: How “respectability politics” rears its ugly head — again

2015-03-18

Brittney Cooper

Last week , I had the opportunity to participate in local protests in Madison , Wisconsin , over the killing of Tony Robinson , a 19-year-old unarmed Black teenager killed by a police officer . It was an unusually warm early March day in the city , which encouraged several hundred people and many media outlets to show up for the protests . Despite my fatigue at yet another killing of an unarmed Black youth , I took heart in the sincere rage and unapologetic stance of the people . Their presence at the protests proved wrong all those naysayers who hoped that the burning embers of the Black Lives Matter movement would be extinguished in the harsh cold of winter . Indeed this movement has its fair share of skeptics , including Black folks quick to declare the movement dead on arrival . When I listen to these people , I can never quite detect whether they are being descriptive or prescriptive , but frequently I ’ m convinced it ’ s the latter . There is also a more insidious kind of participant in the movement , the moderate Black folks , the Respectables , I call them , who still believe that our energies should be spent demonstrating to white people that Black people can be self-critical . One such person is Jonathan Capehart . In a recent column for the Washington Post , Capehart argues , on the heels of the release of the official Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown , that Brown is an “ inappropriate symbol ” for this new , burgeoning movement . The DOJ report does ultimately back Wilson ’ s recounting of events , that Brown reached into his car , punched him , tried to take his gun , ran after being shot , and then turned around and came forward . Thus Capehart concludes that : “ now that black lives matter to everyone it is imperative that we continue marching for and giving voice to those killed in racially charged incidents at the hands of police and others . But we must never allow ourselves to march under the banner of a false narrative on behalf of someone who would otherwise offend our sense of right and wrong . And when we discover that we have , we must acknowledge it , admit our error , and keep on marching . ” I get Capehart ’ s play . He ostensibly believes in the rightness of the Black Lives Matter movement , and he hopes that if as a Black person , he acknowledges that “ we ” were wrong in our assumptions about Mike Brown ’ s innocence , then he , and by extension “ we , ” will retain the moral high ground upon which the movement is built . Our claims will be more credible to “ reasonable ” white people , who want to believe us , but can ’ t because of their innate disposition toward believing that nothing is racist , unless the N-word is used . Moderate Black people – Barack Obama included – continue to believe that the way to bring white people into the anti-racist fold is by conceding some ground in order to gain more ground . It ’ s an old debate tactic , but it only works if everyone plays fair . There are two problems with this . First , those with racial privilege generally don ’ t play fair in racial discussions . More than that , they play downright dirty , denying the persistence of racism , trotting out erroneous statistics , blaming Black behavior for white racism . The Ferguson Police Department , for example , has conceded nothing even after being found guilty of decades of egregious , consistent and systematic violations of the rights of Ferguson ’ s Black citizens . Second , Capehart implicitly concedes that it is Black people who must prove that incidents are racially inflected , rather than white people who must prove that they are not . Since we now know for a fact that Darren Wilson policed in a racially hostile city and police department , and since Ferguson residents – Michael Brown included – knew that long before a Justice Department report merely affirmed their experience , it is perfectly reasonable for Black folks to view Ferguson police and police around the country with suspicion . And it is reasonable for Black folks to want clear evidence that this incident was not racial . The DOJ ’ s own report foregoes such conclusions . Moreover , though I am absolutely fatigued in my relitigation of the events of Aug. 9 , I do want to point to two statements in the DOJ report on the killing of Brown , that Capehart glosses over in his attempt to be undeservedly magnanimous to Darren Wilson . First , the report states that though Wilson , knowing of the incident with the Cigarillos at the convenience store , suspected Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson of the petty crime , when he initially saw them , he told them to “ walk on the sidewalk . ” They refused . Having visited Canfield Drive , and seeing the narrowness of the street , I can attest that such a request would have seemed ridiculous and unnecessarily harassing . Coupled with the generally hostile context in which the FPD polices , the resistance from the two teen boys makes sense . Wilson did not approach them and say he wanted to question them about a crime at a convenience store . He approached them and told them to “ walk on the sidewalk , ” according to the DOJ , or “ get the fuck up on the sidewalk , ” according to Michael Brown ’ s friend . Then the report says that Wilson parked his car at an angle to keep the two young men from walking any further . “ Wilson attempted to open the driver ’ s door of the SUV to exit his vehicle , but as he swung it open , the door came into contact with Brown ’ s body and either rebounded closed or Brown pushed it closed . ” Then the altercation where Brown allegedly reached into Wilson ’ s vehicle happened . Now let us lay that aside for a moment , to consider that during this entire time , Wilson has not let these young men know what his business is with them . He rolled up on them and demanded that they get on the sidewalk in a small apartment complex . Beyond that point , the report remains inconclusive on the question of the door making initial contact with Brown ’ s body . His friend said the officer slammed the door into Brown ’ s body , while Wilson says the door either rebounded closed or Brown pushed the door closed . This is not insignificant . If these boys perceived this officer as harassing them about the sidewalk and then slamming a door into Brown ’ s body , then certainly Brown may have reacted aggressively . I do not know , and won ’ t further speculate . I will say , however , that Wilson receives the benefit of the doubt even though he works for a corrupt police department with a hostile relationship to the community . Are police always worthy of the benefit of the doubt ? Are young Black men ever deemed worthy of the benefit of the doubt ? Moreover , there are the pure shenanigans that took place in the grand jury in which the prosecutor used an out-of-date and unconstitutional statute about an officer ’ s right to shoot a fleeing suspect in his statements to the grand jury . One of those grand jurors later sued because of blatant irregularities in the legal procedure . But none of this matters in determining Mike Brown ’ s appropriateness for movement work . First , Brown does n't have to be a perfect victim to be deserving of a place in movement history . The Department of Justice would never have investigated the Ferguson Police without Brown being killed and the people rising up in protest . Second , even if , for the sake of argument , I concede that Brown did everything Wilson said he did ( and I ’ m not conceding any of this , mind you ) , we must ask why we are outraged at these two young men for not respecting the rule of law in a city where a corrupt police force has exploited and abused its Black residents for decades . Those who take an oath to uphold the law and protect citizens surely are held to a higher standard than two teen boys engaged in youthful mischief . Three , there is no scenario in which a teenager or any other person should be dead for stealing cigarillos and not walking on the sidewalk . Period . The Black Lives Matter movement is asking us at base level to reject many of the assumptions that undergird our current thinking about how policing takes place in Black and Brown communities . Why are the police trained to shoot-to-kill rather than to shoot to disarm ? Why do police use authority and weapons to escalate situations rather than deescalate them ? And why , then , are Black men the most frequent casualties of these severe police tactics ? These are not the kinds of questions that can be asked when the victim is a perfect victim . What , then , is to be gained by arguing that Wilson was justified for shooting a kid who allegedly took some cigarillos ? To me , this killing is evidence at best of a piss-poor policing structure . Moreover , while some witnesses may have been mistaken , all of them were not . Just because Brown had no bullet wounds in his back , does not mean Wilson did not shoot at him as he ran away . The bullet wounds in his forearms very easily could have entered his body while he was running away . The report remains inconclusive on this point , and it is a major point . The report is also inconclusive about whether Brown was in fact charging Wilson . It concludes only that Brown was “ coming towards Wilson . ” Michael Brown remains an appropriate symbol of this movement . For one , his acts of resistance and refusal – and I do see them as such – pointed us to a city that balances its budget on the backs of poor Black residents . The police merely act as thuggish enforcers for the racket that constitutes city government . Beyond that , this movement , before it is all said and done , will force all of us to grow up and stop believing in the myth of our own purity . We must stop believing that our lives only have value , that they are only worthy of protection , when we ’ ve done everything right . Even though I am no believer in capital punishment , we do have an understanding in this country that capital punishment is reserved for capital crimes . If Michael and Dorian were two white teenagers , it would be easier for us to look at the adult and the person with more power in this situation – Darren Wilson – and hold him responsible for escalating a conflict and devastating a community over a pack of cigarettes . In his desire to placate white folks and appear reasonable , Jonathan Capehart lets Wilson off the hook . The implication of Capehart ’ s argument is that Michael Brown is an acceptable , justifiable casualty in this decades-long police war on a small Midwestern community . But if you believe that All Black lives matter , that is an unconscionable conclusion , one that “ offends my sense of right and wrong. ” As “ respectable ” Blacks are wont to do , the Capeharts of the world need to believe that if Black people would just “ act right ” and “ do right , ” we would be all right . But in a system of white supremacy , there isn ’ t that much act right in the world . Jonathan , surely you know a suit and tie won ’ t protect you . So we ’ re going to keep on marching , as you said . And we will keep holding aloft the banner of Michael Brown . We will do so , because Black folks have already tested out your theory of respectability . We ’ ve been trying to save our lives by dressing right , talking right and never , ever fucking up since about 1877 . That shit has not worked . In an ideal world of crime and punishment , the officer would have had the legal leeway and good sense to pick these boys up , take them back down to the convenience store , make them apologize and work out an arrangement to work off the cigarillos they stole . That is one example of restorative justice and of the world we are fighting for . We are trying to get free , and that means we bring everybody with us , whether your suit is tailored or your pants sag . When the revolution comes , we will leave no one behind .

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in local protests in Madison, Wisconsin, over the killing of Tony Robinson, a 19-year-old unarmed Black teenager killed by a police officer. It was an unusually warm early March day in the city, which encouraged several hundred people and many media outlets to show up for the protests. Despite my fatigue at yet another killing of an unarmed Black youth, I took heart in the sincere rage and unapologetic stance of the people. Their presence at the protests proved wrong all those naysayers who hoped that the burning embers of the Black Lives Matter movement would be extinguished in the harsh cold of winter. Indeed this movement has its fair share of skeptics, including Black folks quick to declare the movement dead on arrival. When I listen to these people, I can never quite detect whether they are being descriptive or prescriptive, but frequently I’m convinced it’s the latter. Advertisement: There is also a more insidious kind of participant in the movement, the moderate Black folks, the Respectables, I call them, who still believe that our energies should be spent demonstrating to white people that Black people can be self-critical. One such person is Jonathan Capehart. In a recent column for the Washington Post, Capehart argues, on the heels of the release of the official Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown, that Brown is an “inappropriate symbol” for this new, burgeoning movement. The DOJ report does ultimately back Wilson’s recounting of events, that Brown reached into his car, punched him, tried to take his gun, ran after being shot, and then turned around and came forward. Thus Capehart concludes that: “now that black lives matter to everyone it is imperative that we continue marching for and giving voice to those killed in racially charged incidents at the hands of police and others. But we must never allow ourselves to march under the banner of a false narrative on behalf of someone who would otherwise offend our sense of right and wrong. And when we discover that we have, we must acknowledge it, admit our error, and keep on marching.” I get Capehart’s play. He ostensibly believes in the rightness of the Black Lives Matter movement, and he hopes that if as a Black person, he acknowledges that “we” were wrong in our assumptions about Mike Brown’s innocence, then he, and by extension “we,” will retain the moral high ground upon which the movement is built. Our claims will be more credible to “reasonable” white people, who want to believe us, but can’t because of their innate disposition toward believing that nothing is racist, unless the N-word is used. Moderate Black people – Barack Obama included – continue to believe that the way to bring white people into the anti-racist fold is by conceding some ground in order to gain more ground. It’s an old debate tactic, but it only works if everyone plays fair. There are two problems with this. First, those with racial privilege generally don’t play fair in racial discussions. More than that, they play downright dirty, denying the persistence of racism, trotting out erroneous statistics, blaming Black behavior for white racism. The Ferguson Police Department, for example, has conceded nothing even after being found guilty of decades of egregious, consistent and systematic violations of the rights of Ferguson’s Black citizens. Second, Capehart implicitly concedes that it is Black people who must prove that incidents are racially inflected, rather than white people who must prove that they are not. Since we now know for a fact that Darren Wilson policed in a racially hostile city and police department, and since Ferguson residents – Michael Brown included – knew that long before a Justice Department report merely affirmed their experience, it is perfectly reasonable for Black folks to view Ferguson police and police around the country with suspicion. And it is reasonable for Black folks to want clear evidence that this incident was not racial. The DOJ’s own report foregoes such conclusions. Advertisement: Moreover, though I am absolutely fatigued in my relitigation of the events of Aug. 9, I do want to point to two statements in the DOJ report on the killing of Brown, that Capehart glosses over in his attempt to be undeservedly magnanimous to Darren Wilson. First, the report states that though Wilson, knowing of the incident with the Cigarillos at the convenience store, suspected Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson of the petty crime, when he initially saw them, he told them to “walk on the sidewalk.” They refused. Having visited Canfield Drive, and seeing the narrowness of the street, I can attest that such a request would have seemed ridiculous and unnecessarily harassing. Coupled with the generally hostile context in which the FPD polices, the resistance from the two teen boys makes sense. Wilson did not approach them and say he wanted to question them about a crime at a convenience store. He approached them and told them to “walk on the sidewalk,” according to the DOJ, or “get the fuck up on the sidewalk,” according to Michael Brown’s friend. Then the report says that Wilson parked his car at an angle to keep the two young men from walking any further. “Wilson attempted to open the driver’s door of the SUV to exit his vehicle, but as he swung it open, the door came into contact with Brown’s body and either rebounded closed or Brown pushed it closed.” Advertisement: Then the altercation where Brown allegedly reached into Wilson’s vehicle happened. Now let us lay that aside for a moment, to consider that during this entire time, Wilson has not let these young men know what his business is with them. He rolled up on them and demanded that they get on the sidewalk in a small apartment complex. Beyond that point, the report remains inconclusive on the question of the door making initial contact with Brown’s body. His friend said the officer slammed the door into Brown’s body, while Wilson says the door either rebounded closed or Brown pushed the door closed. This is not insignificant. If these boys perceived this officer as harassing them about the sidewalk and then slamming a door into Brown’s body, then certainly Brown may have reacted aggressively. Advertisement: I do not know, and won’t further speculate. I will say, however, that Wilson receives the benefit of the doubt even though he works for a corrupt police department with a hostile relationship to the community. Are police always worthy of the benefit of the doubt? Are young Black men ever deemed worthy of the benefit of the doubt? Moreover, there are the pure shenanigans that took place in the grand jury in which the prosecutor used an out-of-date and unconstitutional statute about an officer’s right to shoot a fleeing suspect in his statements to the grand jury. One of those grand jurors later sued because of blatant irregularities in the legal procedure. But none of this matters in determining Mike Brown’s appropriateness for movement work. Advertisement: First, Brown doesn't have to be a perfect victim to be deserving of a place in movement history. The Department of Justice would never have investigated the Ferguson Police without Brown being killed and the people rising up in protest. Second, even if, for the sake of argument, I concede that Brown did everything Wilson said he did (and I’m not conceding any of this, mind you), we must ask why we are outraged at these two young men for not respecting the rule of law in a city where a corrupt police force has exploited and abused its Black residents for decades. Those who take an oath to uphold the law and protect citizens surely are held to a higher standard than two teen boys engaged in youthful mischief. Three, there is no scenario in which a teenager or any other person should be dead for stealing cigarillos and not walking on the sidewalk. Period. The Black Lives Matter movement is asking us at base level to reject many of the assumptions that undergird our current thinking about how policing takes place in Black and Brown communities. Why are the police trained to shoot-to-kill rather than to shoot to disarm? Why do police use authority and weapons to escalate situations rather than deescalate them? And why, then, are Black men the most frequent casualties of these severe police tactics? Advertisement: These are not the kinds of questions that can be asked when the victim is a perfect victim. What, then, is to be gained by arguing that Wilson was justified for shooting a kid who allegedly took some cigarillos? To me, this killing is evidence at best of a piss-poor policing structure. Moreover, while some witnesses may have been mistaken, all of them were not. Just because Brown had no bullet wounds in his back, does not mean Wilson did not shoot at him as he ran away. The bullet wounds in his forearms very easily could have entered his body while he was running away. The report remains inconclusive on this point, and it is a major point. The report is also inconclusive about whether Brown was in fact charging Wilson. It concludes only that Brown was “coming towards Wilson.” Michael Brown remains an appropriate symbol of this movement. For one, his acts of resistance and refusal – and I do see them as such – pointed us to a city that balances its budget on the backs of poor Black residents. The police merely act as thuggish enforcers for the racket that constitutes city government. Advertisement: Beyond that, this movement, before it is all said and done, will force all of us to grow up and stop believing in the myth of our own purity. We must stop believing that our lives only have value, that they are only worthy of protection, when we’ve done everything right. Even though I am no believer in capital punishment, we do have an understanding in this country that capital punishment is reserved for capital crimes. If Michael and Dorian were two white teenagers, it would be easier for us to look at the adult and the person with more power in this situation – Darren Wilson – and hold him responsible for escalating a conflict and devastating a community over a pack of cigarettes. In his desire to placate white folks and appear reasonable, Jonathan Capehart lets Wilson off the hook. The implication of Capehart’s argument is that Michael Brown is an acceptable, justifiable casualty in this decades-long police war on a small Midwestern community. But if you believe that All Black lives matter, that is an unconscionable conclusion, one that “offends my sense of right and wrong.” As “respectable” Blacks are wont to do, the Capeharts of the world need to believe that if Black people would just “act right” and “do right,” we would be all right. But in a system of white supremacy, there isn’t that much act right in the world. Jonathan, surely you know a suit and tie won’t protect you. So we’re going to keep on marching, as you said. And we will keep holding aloft the banner of Michael Brown. We will do so, because Black folks have already tested out your theory of respectability. We’ve been trying to save our lives by dressing right, talking right and never, ever fucking up since about 1877. That shit has not worked. Advertisement: In an ideal world of crime and punishment, the officer would have had the legal leeway and good sense to pick these boys up, take them back down to the convenience store, make them apologize and work out an arrangement to work off the cigarillos they stole. That is one example of restorative justice and of the world we are fighting for. We are trying to get free, and that means we bring everybody with us, whether your suit is tailored or your pants sag. When the revolution comes, we will leave no one behind.

www.salon.com

left

uFvqUBfxmdodtHjG

test

XlgeCdTpUllWzcUy

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/jury-to-weigh-manafort-fate-for-second-day-after-reasonable-doubt-surprise-idUSKBN1L20Z6

Jury to weigh Manafort fate for second day after 'reasonable doubt' surprise

2018-08-18

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - In a break with convention , President Donald Trump weighed in on a criminal trial as the jury considered a verdict on Friday , calling the tax and bank fraud case against Paul Manafort “ very sad ” and lauding his former campaign chairman as a “ very good person . ” A federal court jury in Alexandria , Virginia completed its second day of deliberations without reaching a verdict in the first trial stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s 15-month-old investigation of Russia ’ s role in the 2016 U.S. election . U.S. District Judge T.S . Ellis , presiding over the case , said he personally had received threats related to the trial and was being protected by U.S. marshals . Ellis revealed the threats as he rejected a motion by a group of news organizations to make public the names of the jurors , saying he was concerned about their “ peace and safety . ” “ I had no idea this case would excite these emotions ... I don ’ t feel right if I release their names , ” the judge said . In remarks to reporters at the White House , Trump again called Mueller ’ s investigation , which had cast a cloud over his presidency , a “ rigged witch hunt , ” but sidestepped a question about whether he would issue a presidential pardon for Manafort . Related Coverage Manafort jury breaks for weekend without reaching a verdict “ I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad , when you look at what ’ s going on there . I think it ’ s a very sad day for our country , ” Trump said . “ He worked for me for a very short period of time . But you know what ? He happens to be a very good person . And I think it ’ s very sad what they ’ ve done to Paul Manafort . ” Trump made his comments while the jurors , mulling 18 criminal counts against Manafort , deliberated behind closed doors on Friday morning . As president , Trump has the power to pardon Manafort on the federal charges . He has already issued a number of pardons , including for a political ally , former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio . Asked by a reporter on Friday if he would pardon Manafort , Trump said , “ I don ’ t talk about that now . ” The jurors are not sequestered but have been instructed not to watch news reports or talk to others about the case . Deliberations by the six women and six men in the jury were set to resume on Monday morning . Prosecutors accused Manafort , 69 , of hiding from U.S. tax authorities $ 16 million in money he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine to fund an opulent lifestyle and then lying to banks to secure $ 20 million in loans after his Ukrainian income dried up and he needed cash . Manafort faces five counts of filing false tax returns , four counts of failing to disclose his offshore bank accounts and nine counts of bank fraud . If convicted on all counts , he could spend the rest of his life in prison . The charges largely predate Manafort ’ s five months working on Trump ’ s campaign during a pivotal period in the 2016 presidential race , including three months as campaign chairman . It is unusual for a U.S. president to comment about the character of a defendant in an ongoing trial and criticize the legal proceedings . It was not the first time Trump has weighed in since Manafort ’ s trial began on July 31 . On the first day of testimony , Trump said Manafort had been treated worse than 1920s gangster Al Capone . Trump has made previous comments criticizing various federal judges and courts and has been harshly critical of Mueller , a former FBI director who is investigating whether Trump ’ s campaign colluded with Russia , an allegation the president and Moscow deny . On Friday , he accused Mueller of having “ a lot of conflicts , ” but said the special counsel should be allowed to finish a report on his investigation . Prohibitions on jurors reading about a case they are deciding are difficult to enforce in the smartphone era , Cornell University criminal law professor Jens David Ohlin said . “ We trust jurors to be on their best behavior and wall themselves off but that kind of goes against human nature , ” Ohlin said . “ I think it was very ill-advised for the president to do this . He should have kept his mouth shut , ” Ohlin added . The prosecution could request a mistrial , but such a maneuver was very unlikely , Ohlin said . The jury sent a note on Thursday afternoon asking Ellis four questions including one about defining “ reasonable doubt. ” In a criminal case , a jury must find a defendant guilty “ beyond a reasonable doubt . ”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - In a break with convention, President Donald Trump weighed in on a criminal trial as the jury considered a verdict on Friday, calling the tax and bank fraud case against Paul Manafort “very sad” and lauding his former campaign chairman as a “very good person.” A federal court jury in Alexandria, Virginia completed its second day of deliberations without reaching a verdict in the first trial stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 15-month-old investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, presiding over the case, said he personally had received threats related to the trial and was being protected by U.S. marshals. Ellis revealed the threats as he rejected a motion by a group of news organizations to make public the names of the jurors, saying he was concerned about their “peace and safety.” “I had no idea this case would excite these emotions ... I don’t feel right if I release their names,” the judge said. In remarks to reporters at the White House, Trump again called Mueller’s investigation, which had cast a cloud over his presidency, a “rigged witch hunt,” but sidestepped a question about whether he would issue a presidential pardon for Manafort. Related Coverage Manafort jury breaks for weekend without reaching a verdict “I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad, when you look at what’s going on there. I think it’s a very sad day for our country,” Trump said. “He worked for me for a very short period of time. But you know what? He happens to be a very good person. And I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.” Trump made his comments while the jurors, mulling 18 criminal counts against Manafort, deliberated behind closed doors on Friday morning. As president, Trump has the power to pardon Manafort on the federal charges. He has already issued a number of pardons, including for a political ally, former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. Asked by a reporter on Friday if he would pardon Manafort, Trump said, “I don’t talk about that now.” The jurors are not sequestered but have been instructed not to watch news reports or talk to others about the case. Deliberations by the six women and six men in the jury were set to resume on Monday morning. PRO-RUSSIAN POLITICIANS 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 Prosecutors accused Manafort, 69, of hiding from U.S. tax authorities $16 million in money he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine to fund an opulent lifestyle and then lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans after his Ukrainian income dried up and he needed cash. Manafort faces five counts of filing false tax returns, four counts of failing to disclose his offshore bank accounts and nine counts of bank fraud. If convicted on all counts, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. The charges largely predate Manafort’s five months working on Trump’s campaign during a pivotal period in the 2016 presidential race, including three months as campaign chairman. It is unusual for a U.S. president to comment about the character of a defendant in an ongoing trial and criticize the legal proceedings. It was not the first time Trump has weighed in since Manafort’s trial began on July 31. On the first day of testimony, Trump said Manafort had been treated worse than 1920s gangster Al Capone. Trump has made previous comments criticizing various federal judges and courts and has been harshly critical of Mueller, a former FBI director who is investigating whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, an allegation the president and Moscow deny. On Friday, he accused Mueller of having “a lot of conflicts,” but said the special counsel should be allowed to finish a report on his investigation. Prohibitions on jurors reading about a case they are deciding are difficult to enforce in the smartphone era, Cornell University criminal law professor Jens David Ohlin said. Slideshow (5 Images) “We trust jurors to be on their best behavior and wall themselves off but that kind of goes against human nature,” Ohlin said. “I think it was very ill-advised for the president to do this. He should have kept his mouth shut,” Ohlin added. The prosecution could request a mistrial, but such a maneuver was very unlikely, Ohlin said. The jury sent a note on Thursday afternoon asking Ellis four questions including one about defining “reasonable doubt.” In a criminal case, a jury must find a defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

www.reuters.com

center

XlgeCdTpUllWzcUy

test

G3xIU2wqwXuXpX7f

mexico

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/border-conditions-congress-happen-acting-uscis-director/story?id=64316816&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_related

Border conditions are 'because Congress has let it happen': Acting USCIS director

Adia Robinson

Border conditions are 'because Congress has let it happen ' : Acting USCIS director Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli appeared on ABC 's `` This Week '' Sunday . Ken Cuccinelli on detained migrants : 'They can also go home ' Acting U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli said that conditions at border detention facilities are `` because Congress has let it happen . '' `` When Congress provides the professionals at the border what they need , success happens . Success being measured as avoiding overcrowding , '' he told ███ Chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl on `` This Week '' Sunday . Cuccinelli went on to call for Congress to close `` asylum loopholes '' to discourage illegal immigration . Vice President Mike Pence and Republican lawmakers toured two border detention facilities in Texas on Friday . When the vice president toured a newer facility housing children , many nodded when asked if they were comfortable and had enough food . However , troubling video emerged from his visit to the second facility in McAllen Texas , housing adult men . One detained man told reporters he had been held for 40 days and a report from the Washington Post noted the strong smell of body odor in the air . `` This is very tough stuff , '' Pence said after interacting with detainees . The conditions , Cuccinelli said on Sunday , are `` a reality of facilities not designed to handle the swamping at the border . '' More than 100,000 people have been apprehended for attempting to illegally cross the border in each of the last four months , numbers he said the Department of Homeland Security is trying to manage . When asked about the alternative of letting people go and then return for court hearings , Cuccinelli argued that ’ s the wrong alternative . `` They can also go home , which is our preference , when they come illegally here , '' he added . He echoed administration claims that many migrants fail to return for asylum hearings when released from detention , but according to The Washington Post , the most recent Justice Department annual figures show that `` 44 % of migrants who were not in custody failed to show up for their court proceedings , '' a rate lower than the administration had claimed in recent weeks . Those `` claiming asylum with no basis , '' he said are `` clogging a system for legitimate asylum seekers , '' a process USCIS oversees . On Friday , President Donald Trump confirmed that immigration raids would begin on Sunday . `` They 're going to take people out and they 're going to bring them back to their countries or they 're going to take criminals out , put them in prison , or put them in prison in the countries they came from , '' Trump said at the White House . While Cuccinelli declined to get specific on when the expected immigration raids would start , he said on Sunday that `` it shows how far we 've fallen that it 's even news that ICE is doing its job . '' He added that ICE agents have a tougher time doing their job when `` a lot of people in Congress throw the vitriol at them . '' Cuccinelli was named the acting director of USCIS in June . The conservative immigration hardliner is the former Virginia attorney general and was initially critical of Trump during the 2016 election .

Border conditions are 'because Congress has let it happen': Acting USCIS director Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli appeared on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. Ken Cuccinelli on detained migrants: 'They can also go home' Ken Cuccinelli on detained migrants: 'They can also go home' Drew Angerer/Getty Images Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli said that conditions at border detention facilities are "because Congress has let it happen." "When Congress provides the professionals at the border what they need, success happens. Success being measured as avoiding overcrowding," he told ABC News Chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl on "This Week" Sunday. Cuccinelli went on to call for Congress to close "asylum loopholes" to discourage illegal immigration. Vice President Mike Pence and Republican lawmakers toured two border detention facilities in Texas on Friday. When the vice president toured a newer facility housing children, many nodded when asked if they were comfortable and had enough food. However, troubling video emerged from his visit to the second facility in McAllen Texas, housing adult men. One detained man told reporters he had been held for 40 days and a report from the Washington Post noted the strong smell of body odor in the air. "This is very tough stuff," Pence said after interacting with detainees. The conditions, Cuccinelli said on Sunday, are "a reality of facilities not designed to handle the swamping at the border." More than 100,000 people have been apprehended for attempting to illegally cross the border in each of the last four months, numbers he said the Department of Homeland Security is trying to manage. When asked about the alternative of letting people go and then return for court hearings, Cuccinelli argued that’s the wrong alternative. "They can also go home, which is our preference, when they come illegally here," he added. He echoed administration claims that many migrants fail to return for asylum hearings when released from detention, but according to The Washington Post, the most recent Justice Department annual figures show that "44% of migrants who were not in custody failed to show up for their court proceedings," a rate lower than the administration had claimed in recent weeks. Those "claiming asylum with no basis," he said are "clogging a system for legitimate asylum seekers," a process USCIS oversees. Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Ken Cuccinelli leaves the lectern after speaking during a naturalization ceremony on July 2, 2019, in New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty Images On Friday, President Donald Trump confirmed that immigration raids would begin on Sunday. "They're going to take people out and they're going to bring them back to their countries or they're going to take criminals out, put them in prison, or put them in prison in the countries they came from," Trump said at the White House. While Cuccinelli declined to get specific on when the expected immigration raids would start, he said on Sunday that "it shows how far we've fallen that it's even news that ICE is doing its job." He added that ICE agents have a tougher time doing their job when "a lot of people in Congress throw the vitriol at them." Cuccinelli was named the acting director of USCIS in June. The conservative immigration hardliner is the former Virginia attorney general and was initially critical of Trump during the 2016 election.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

G3xIU2wqwXuXpX7f

test

XPxKOEXbxuk9pgbQ

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/25/is-2016-hanging-over-bill-clintons-2014-campaign-efforts/?hpt=po_c1

Is 2016 hanging over Bill Clinton's 2014 campaign efforts?

2014-02-25

As he 's done the past couple of election cycles , the former President 's helping fellow Democrats . But this time around , his campaigning comes with the prospect of his wife making a second bid for the White House in 2016 . First stop for Clinton , who 's arguably his party 's biggest rock star on the campaign trail , was Tuesday in Louisville to help Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes , the Democratic challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell . The top Senate Republican is running this year for a sixth term . Clinton has been a tireless campaigner in recent years , and he was the highest of high-profile surrogates for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election . He gave an impassioned nominating speech for the President at the party 's national convention in Charlotte . Clinton often stumps for fellow Democrats in red or purple states , such as Kentucky , where Obama is not very popular . `` President Clinton has the unique ability to travel to red states to reach Reagan Democrats that most Democratic surrogates do not , '' Democratic strategist Ben LaBolt told CNN . `` Kentucky has more registered Democrats than Republicans , but they often split their ticket between state and federal candidates . President Clinton could help tip the scales , '' added LaBolt , who worked for Obama from his Senate years through 2012 and served as national press secretary for his re-election campaign . The Clintons have a strong track record in Kentucky . Bill Clinton carried the state in his 1992 presidential election and his 1996 re-election , and Hillary Clinton did extremely well there , winning the 2008 Kentucky Democratic primary in a landslide over Obama . `` I love Kentucky . You ’ ve been good to me . You voted for me twice . You have been great to Hillary . I love Kentucky , '' Clinton told the audience , which the Grimes campaign estimated at over 1,200 people . `` Bill Clinton resonates here . He knows how to talk to people here , being from Arkansas , in a way that a lot of other national politicians do not , '' said a top Kentucky Democrat , who asked to remain anonymous to speak more openly . `` I would imagine we 'll see plenty of the former President here in Kentucky this year . '' Clinton 's favorable rating stood at 71 % in a Fox News poll conducted last April . Ninety-four percent of Democrats and two-thirds of independents questioned in that survey said they had a positive view of Clinton , with Republicans divided . And his favorable rating stood in the upper 60 's in CNN/ORC International , CBS News/New York Times , and Gallup polls conducted during the 2012 election year . Paul Begala , a senior political adviser in the Clinton White House and a CNN contributor , said he suspects Clinton 's in such demand because `` he is beloved by Democrats , admired by Independents and respected by Republicans . '' And Maria Cardona , another CNN contributor and veteran of the Clinton administration , said the former President `` can mobilize the base , the Democratic coalition , as well as independent voters . And as a son of the South , he can come 'home ' and credibly speak to voters in Kentucky in a way that President Obama ca n't . '' A senior Democratic Senate source agrees , telling CNN that Clinton 's `` one of our best surrogates in purple and red states . '' That may make Clinton a busy man this year . Democrats hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate ( 53 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the party ) , but are defending 21 of the 36 seats up for grabs in November 's midterm elections . And half of the seats the Democrats are defending are located in red or purple states . On the eve of Clinton 's visit to Kentucky , McConnell 's campaign sent an email to reporters trying to deflate the Clinton image , pointing out that the former president 's track record as a surrogate in the state has not been very successful in recent years . There was a similar message from McConnell on Tuesday , as he spoke to reporters on Capitol Hill . `` In 2008 both Bill and Hillary Clinton came to town including the day before the election and I won by a 100,000 votes . So I welcome President Clinton back to Kentucky . Every time he has come it has been really good for me , '' the minority leader said . And a trio of Republican strategists CNN spoke with agreed . `` Bill Clinton is n't as toxic as President Obama is in Kentucky , but he still wo n't be much of an asset to Grimes , said CNN contributor Kevin Madden , a senior adviser on Mitt Romney 's 2008 and 2012 campaigns . `` Clinton has n't been helpful to Democrats there in the past . Bruce Lunsford lost handily in 2008 , as did Jack Conway in the 2010 cycle , with nothing to show for Clinton 's help . '' `` President Clinton has been to Kentucky nearly every cycle to promote his favored candidate and every cycle that candidate has lost resoundingly , '' agreed GOP strategist Brian Walsh , who served as communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee the past two election cycles . `` The Democrats using Bill Clinton to visit states like Kentucky only accentuates Barack Obama 's toxicity . There 's no doubt Bill Clinton will offer an outstanding stump speech . However , a controversial political figure from the past offering a few well-packaged words will not cause Kentuckians to forget how horrible Barack Obama 's policies are making their lives right now , '' added Hogan Gidley , a Republican strategist who worked as a top aide to then-Arkansas Gov . Mike Huckabee , served as executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party , and was a senior adviser on Rick Santorum 's 2012 White House bid . Grimes is the daughter of a former Kentucky Democratic Party chairman who has long ties to Clinton . Jerry Lundergan was a major supporter of Clinton in both his presidential election victories and chaired Hillary Clinton 's 2008 campaign in Kentucky . One thing that many of the candidates Bill Clinton 's personally helped on the campaign trail the past couple of cycles have in common is that they backed his wife 's 2008 White House bid . But those with ties to the Clintons dismiss the notion that Bill Clinton 's 2014 campaign moves are all about helping his wife if she runs in 2016 . `` I think it 's inaccurate to analyze his 2104 campaign schedule merely through the prism of 2016 . President Clinton believes that campaigns matter because ideas matter , and wherever someone is running on the ideas he championed in the White House , he 's going to want to campaign for them , '' said Begala , a senior adviser for Priorities USA , the super PAC set up to support Obama 's 2012 re-election that 's now raising money for a potential Clinton campaign . `` Everything the Clintons do from here on out will be perceived by as self-serving by some . As such , the same will be read into President Clinton helping fellow Democrats in 2014 , '' admitted Cardona , before listing three reasons why this is n't the case in 2014 . But she added that `` the fact that it ( Bill Clinton 's 2014 campaign efforts ) could ultimately help his wife if she runs , is a very nice added bonus . ''

6 years ago updated 2:30pm ET (CNN) - Bill Clinton's back on the trail. As he's done the past couple of election cycles, the former President's helping fellow Democrats. But this time around, his campaigning comes with the prospect of his wife making a second bid for the White House in 2016. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @psteinhausercnn First stop for Clinton, who's arguably his party's biggest rock star on the campaign trail, was Tuesday in Louisville to help Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The top Senate Republican is running this year for a sixth term. Clinton has been a tireless campaigner in recent years, and he was the highest of high-profile surrogates for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election. He gave an impassioned nominating speech for the President at the party's national convention in Charlotte. Clinton often stumps for fellow Democrats in red or purple states, such as Kentucky, where Obama is not very popular. "President Clinton has the unique ability to travel to red states to reach Reagan Democrats that most Democratic surrogates do not," Democratic strategist Ben LaBolt told CNN. "Kentucky has more registered Democrats than Republicans, but they often split their ticket between state and federal candidates. President Clinton could help tip the scales," added LaBolt, who worked for Obama from his Senate years through 2012 and served as national press secretary for his re-election campaign. The Clintons have a strong track record in Kentucky. Bill Clinton carried the state in his 1992 presidential election and his 1996 re-election, and Hillary Clinton did extremely well there, winning the 2008 Kentucky Democratic primary in a landslide over Obama. "I love Kentucky. You’ve been good to me. You voted for me twice. You have been great to Hillary. I love Kentucky," Clinton told the audience, which the Grimes campaign estimated at over 1,200 people. "Bill Clinton resonates here. He knows how to talk to people here, being from Arkansas, in a way that a lot of other national politicians do not," said a top Kentucky Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more openly. "I would imagine we'll see plenty of the former President here in Kentucky this year." Poll numbers that pop He also remains popular with Americans. Clinton's favorable rating stood at 71% in a Fox News poll conducted last April. Ninety-four percent of Democrats and two-thirds of independents questioned in that survey said they had a positive view of Clinton, with Republicans divided. And his favorable rating stood in the upper 60's in CNN/ORC International, CBS News/New York Times, and Gallup polls conducted during the 2012 election year. Paul Begala, a senior political adviser in the Clinton White House and a CNN contributor, said he suspects Clinton's in such demand because "he is beloved by Democrats, admired by Independents and respected by Republicans." And Maria Cardona, another CNN contributor and veteran of the Clinton administration, said the former President "can mobilize the base, the Democratic coalition, as well as independent voters. And as a son of the South, he can come 'home' and credibly speak to voters in Kentucky in a way that President Obama can't." A senior Democratic Senate source agrees, telling CNN that Clinton's "one of our best surrogates in purple and red states." That may make Clinton a busy man this year. Democrats hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate (53 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the party), but are defending 21 of the 36 seats up for grabs in November's midterm elections. And half of the seats the Democrats are defending are located in red or purple states. Clinton cult in South Carolina? Republicans disagree On the eve of Clinton's visit to Kentucky, McConnell's campaign sent an email to reporters trying to deflate the Clinton image, pointing out that the former president's track record as a surrogate in the state has not been very successful in recent years. There was a similar message from McConnell on Tuesday, as he spoke to reporters on Capitol Hill. "In 2008 both Bill and Hillary Clinton came to town including the day before the election and I won by a 100,000 votes. So I welcome President Clinton back to Kentucky. Every time he has come it has been really good for me," the minority leader said. And a trio of Republican strategists CNN spoke with agreed. "Bill Clinton isn't as toxic as President Obama is in Kentucky, but he still won't be much of an asset to Grimes, said CNN contributor Kevin Madden, a senior adviser on Mitt Romney's 2008 and 2012 campaigns. "Clinton hasn't been helpful to Democrats there in the past. Bruce Lunsford lost handily in 2008, as did Jack Conway in the 2010 cycle, with nothing to show for Clinton's help." "President Clinton has been to Kentucky nearly every cycle to promote his favored candidate and every cycle that candidate has lost resoundingly," agreed GOP strategist Brian Walsh, who served as communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee the past two election cycles. "The Democrats using Bill Clinton to visit states like Kentucky only accentuates Barack Obama's toxicity. There's no doubt Bill Clinton will offer an outstanding stump speech. However, a controversial political figure from the past offering a few well-packaged words will not cause Kentuckians to forget how horrible Barack Obama's policies are making their lives right now," added Hogan Gidley, a Republican strategist who worked as a top aide to then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, served as executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, and was a senior adviser on Rick Santorum's 2012 White House bid. Family ties Grimes is the daughter of a former Kentucky Democratic Party chairman who has long ties to Clinton. Jerry Lundergan was a major supporter of Clinton in both his presidential election victories and chaired Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign in Kentucky. One thing that many of the candidates Bill Clinton's personally helped on the campaign trail the past couple of cycles have in common is that they backed his wife's 2008 White House bid. But those with ties to the Clintons dismiss the notion that Bill Clinton's 2014 campaign moves are all about helping his wife if she runs in 2016. "I think it's inaccurate to analyze his 2104 campaign schedule merely through the prism of 2016. President Clinton believes that campaigns matter because ideas matter, and wherever someone is running on the ideas he championed in the White House, he's going to want to campaign for them," said Begala, a senior adviser for Priorities USA, the super PAC set up to support Obama's 2012 re-election that's now raising money for a potential Clinton campaign. "Everything the Clintons do from here on out will be perceived by as self-serving by some. As such, the same will be read into President Clinton helping fellow Democrats in 2014," admitted Cardona, before listing three reasons why this isn't the case in 2014. But she added that "the fact that it (Bill Clinton's 2014 campaign efforts) could ultimately help his wife if she runs, is a very nice added bonus." Clinton & Bush family names an issue in 2016? CNN's Gabriella Schwarz contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

XPxKOEXbxuk9pgbQ

test

f3oFzCofNq6fDIUB

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dem-disses-obama-mount-trade-military-sexual-assault/story?id=31812616

Dems Continue to Diss Obama

Lindsay Brown

President Obama continues to feel the heat from fellow party members . Today , Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand criticized Obama for failing to show leadership on the fight against military sex crimes , saying he didn ’ t live up to his December 2013 promise to force an overhaul of the Defense Department ’ s judicial system if it didn ’ t make progress within a year . “ A year has long passed and we haven ’ t seen the kind of changes that we need. ” Gillibrand said . “ I do not believe they are taking the issue as seriously as they should and they should not be resisting the professionalization of the military justice system . ” She made these remarks after the Senate voted down an amendment she sponsored that would change the way sexual assault is prosecuted in the military , removing it from the military justice chain of command . Gillibrand ’ s public , Democrat-vs-Democrat rebuke comes just days after Obama ’ s top ally and House democratic leader Nancy Pelosi delivered a stinging blow to the administration by voting against two related trade bills . Pelosi had been seen as a silent ally to Obama and Republicans running the House in promoting Obama ’ s trade agenda , though she kept her position secret until the end of Friday ’ s debate , when she stunned observers by saying she would vote against the bills . Pelosi said her opposition was to win a broader fight . “ Our people would rather have a job than trade assistance , ” she said , adding that that while she supported a bill to help workers who lost their job because of foreign trade , she opposed fast-track legislation — which would allow the president to negotiate trade deals with limited Congressional interference — which prevented her from supporting the bills in the House from going forward . “ I will be voting today to slow down the Fast Track , to get a better deal for the American people — bigger paychecks , better infrastructure , help the American people fulfill the American dream , ” she explained . After Pelosi ’ s bombshell , intra-party resistance to Obama ’ s trade efforts continued as Hilary Clinton , the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election , appeared to back the Democratic leader over President Obama . While Clinton made no specific statement on her position , she did mention Pelosi ’ s efforts to challenge Obama ’ s free trade deal negotiations twice . “ The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress , starting with Nancy Pelosi , who have expressed their concerns about the impact a weak agreement would have on our workers , to make sure we get the best , strongest deal possible , ” Clinton said . “ And if we don ’ t get it , there should be no deal . ” Today in the Senate , Gillibrand ’ s amendment failed , but Democratic opposition to President Obama on trade , military sexual assault and other issues is likely to continue .

President Obama continues to feel the heat from fellow party members. Today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand criticized Obama for failing to show leadership on the fight against military sex crimes, saying he didn’t live up to his December 2013 promise to force an overhaul of the Defense Department’s judicial system if it didn’t make progress within a year. “A year has long passed and we haven’t seen the kind of changes that we need.” Gillibrand said. “I do not believe they are taking the issue as seriously as they should and they should not be resisting the professionalization of the military justice system.” She made these remarks after the Senate voted down an amendment she sponsored that would change the way sexual assault is prosecuted in the military, removing it from the military justice chain of command. Gillibrand’s public, Democrat-vs-Democrat rebuke comes just days after Obama’s top ally and House democratic leader Nancy Pelosi delivered a stinging blow to the administration by voting against two related trade bills. Pelosi had been seen as a silent ally to Obama and Republicans running the House in promoting Obama’s trade agenda, though she kept her position secret until the end of Friday’s debate, when she stunned observers by saying she would vote against the bills. Pelosi said her opposition was to win a broader fight. “Our people would rather have a job than trade assistance,” she said, adding that that while she supported a bill to help workers who lost their job because of foreign trade, she opposed fast-track legislation — which would allow the president to negotiate trade deals with limited Congressional interference — which prevented her from supporting the bills in the House from going forward. “I will be voting today to slow down the Fast Track, to get a better deal for the American people — bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, help the American people fulfill the American dream,” she explained. After Pelosi’s bombshell, intra-party resistance to Obama’s trade efforts continued as Hilary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, appeared to back the Democratic leader over President Obama. While Clinton made no specific statement on her position, she did mention Pelosi’s efforts to challenge Obama’s free trade deal negotiations twice. “The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible,” Clinton said. “And if we don’t get it, there should be no deal.” Today in the Senate, Gillibrand’s amendment failed, but Democratic opposition to President Obama on trade, military sexual assault and other issues is likely to continue.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

f3oFzCofNq6fDIUB

test

Bmh5int5bujl52cF

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/shut-it-down-republicans-chicken-out-yet-again/

Shut It Down: Republicans Chicken Out Yet Again

Ross Kaminsky, Kevin Kosar, Geoff Shepard, Philip Leigh, Melissa Mackenzie, Veronique De Rugy, John Jiang

There was a reason that FDR opposed the unionization of public sector workers . Rather than the natural negotiation tension between a company owner and an employee in which the owner is trying to conserve his capital while the employee across the table tries to get as much as he can , when a politician or bureaucrat is negotiating with a public sector union , they ’ re both on the same side of the table , spending taxpayers ’ money , usually without a taxpayer representative anywhere nearby . It ’ s a recipe for fiscal disaster and perhaps national economic suicide . The same is true , as proved this weekend , when Republicans and Democrats , having colluded to put off legislation needed to “ keep the government open ” until the waning days of existing federal spending authority , crafted a “ deal ” in which taxpayers are utterly betrayed . Government by emergency is never good for the taxpayer , and this emergency was , as so many are , a product of bipartisan conspiracy . Republicans ( notwithstanding President Donald “ No Entitlement Reform ” Trump ) market themselves as the party of fiscal restraint . But once “ last-minute ” negotiations begin on a spending bill under the guise of “ we can ’ t have a shutdown , ” the Republican walks around from his side of the table , sits next to the Democrat , gives him a big hug , and says “ I ’ ll vote for yours if you vote for mine . ” ( For those interested in an insider ’ s look at how this machine works , I recommend Congressman Ken Buck ’ s new book , Drain the Swamp : How Washington Corruption Is Worse Than You Think . ) The result ? A trillion-dollar deal to fund government for the remaining five months of this fiscal year in which Democrats and Republicans , or more precisely the big-spending subset of Republicans , each get a few items on their wish lists and taxpayers get shafted . The Trump administration wanted an additional $ 30 billon for the Defense Department . They got a $ 12 billion increase , enough to begin making up for Barack Obama ’ s shameful disregard for our national defense . Team Trump also wanted $ 3 billion for additional “ border security , ” but got half of that amount , again enough for the time being . Importantly , this money is not for a border wall ; that particular Trump desire was abandoned during this “ negotiation. ” [ UPDATE : During a Tuesday press conference , OMB Director Mick Mulvaney claimed that some of this money will in fact be used for a “ 20-foot high steel wall , ” just not a brick-and-mortar wall , adding “ that ’ s what Democrats don ’ t want you to know . ] What else did the GOP give up ? Any effort to remove federal funding of Planned Parenthood . Any effort to penalize “ sanctuary cities. ” Any effort to substantially reduce funding for any department of the federal government . One truly bipartisan spending priority was included : An additional $ 650 million to fight the nation ’ s opioid epidemic . A worthy cause though I doubt the money will be used to great effect . But the rest of the “ bipartisanship ” looks like a Democratic dream come true : $ 295 million to bail out Puerto Rico ’ s imminent Medicaid insolvency . The Department of Energy ’ s “ Department of Science , ” an office that President Trump ’ s recent “ skinny budget ” proposed to cut $ 900 million from , received a $ 42 million budget increase . The DOE ’ s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy got a $ 17 million increase . Algore can ’ t believe his luck . The 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program , which the Trump budget zeroed out , gets a $ 25 million increase to roughly $ 1.2 billion for this fiscal year . Century Community Learning Centers program , which the Trump budget zeroed out , gets a $ 25 million increase to roughly $ 1.2 billion for this fiscal year . The bill gives a $ 550 million spending increase for “ disadvantaged students ” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( and only a $ 9 million increase for federal charter school initiatives because Democrats hate charter schools ) . And saving the best for last : The “ bipartisan agreement ” includes $ 2 billion of increased funding for the National Institutes of Health . If this doesn ’ t prove that the DC definition of “ bipartisan ” is Republicans accepting Democratic positions , nothing does . The NIH ’ s budget is around $ 32 billion . President Trump has proposed a $ 5.8 billion cut to NIH funding . And yet , once Republicans finished their hard bargain with the party that doesn ’ t control anything in the federal government , the NIH received a bigger increase in funding than border security did . Do you think that is what Trump voters thought they were getting ? And yet it ’ s clear that President Trump will sign this disastrous , immoral , unprincipled bill . So let ’ s go back to politics , shall we ? There are only two possible explanations for these results : Republicans were massively outmaneuvered ( again ) by Chuck Schumer . Many Republicans are all talk when it comes to fiscal responsibility . OK , it was a trick question ; the answer is , of course : Let ’ s remember how this game is played : Democrats and Republicans agree to wait until the last minute to make a deal , forcing both of them to abandon their stated priorities in order to “ get to yes ” quickly . “ Please , ” the Republican faux-conservative says to the Democrat , “ don ’ t make me vote for that NIH funding increase. ” “ Please , ” says the Democrat , “ don ’ t make me vote for your border security in exchange. ” It ’ s political “ Br ’ er Rabbit ” in the big-spending briar patch . Both sides claim that the risk of a government “ shutdown ” is unacceptable , allowing Republicans to excuse their sinful burdening of my children and yours , and generations to come , with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt with each passing year . ( Democrats don ’ t try to excuse themselves for it ; they just claim that they ’ re “ investing . ” ) But do the people of the United States really give a rat ’ s posterior if the government “ shuts down ” ? People cared so little last time that Barack Obama closed the World War II Memorial just to make people feel some pain , a move that backfired spectacularly . Whatever anti-GOP short-term movement in the polls occurred reversed itself rapidly . And this time , Republicans would , more credibly than at any time in recent memory , be able to argue that a shutdown is the fault of intransigent Democrats . Instead , they let Chuck Schumer , keeping a remarkably firm grip on vulnerable Senate Democrats who are likely to lose their re-elections in 18 months , drive a bill such as you would have expected when Barack Obama was in the White House and Democrats had a Senate majority . Unfortunately , since this bill will have the support of many Democrats , it can ’ t be stopped by a few courageous Republicans standing against it , whether in the House or even with a Senate filibuster . But I ’ d love to see Justin Amash and the entire Freedom Caucus in the House , and Mike Lee and Rand Paul and Ben Sasse and other fiscal conservatives in the Senate give it the old college try . This “ deal ” must not sail through unopposed ( although it ’ s easy to oppose a bill when you know it ’ s got the votes without you ) . The best Republican strategy is to call Chuck “ Fake Tears ” Schumer ’ s bluff and let the Democrats “ shut down ” the government ( which means that much of government keeps operating ) . The fact that they haven ’ t shows that deep down too many Republicans like increasing spending . It ’ s utterly shameful . It also will make tax reform that much more difficult as hypocritical Democrats wail and rend garments over a burgeoning budget deficit . Meanwhile , Vice President Mike Pence is spouting “ we could hardly be more pleased ” nonsense , as are some Congressional Republicans and the Speaker ’ s office , trying to put lipstick on this pig . It ’ s one thing to play the happy-political-spin game . It ’ s another thing to do so when you ’ re abandoning any pretense of principle , and maybe the raison d ’ être for your party , while handing the keys to the kingdom to the Senate Minority Leader . Republicans told us repeatedly : “ Give us congressional majorities and the presidency and we ’ ll do our jobs , we promise. ” Instead , this “ conservative ” party , now led by a vaunted great negotiator , gets rolled , yet again , by the oiliest man in politics . And it ’ s hard not to think that they sorta liked it .

There was a reason that FDR opposed the unionization of public sector workers. Rather than the natural negotiation tension between a company owner and an employee in which the owner is trying to conserve his capital while the employee across the table tries to get as much as he can, when a politician or bureaucrat is negotiating with a public sector union, they’re both on the same side of the table, spending taxpayers’ money, usually without a taxpayer representative anywhere nearby. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster and perhaps national economic suicide. The same is true, as proved this weekend, when Republicans and Democrats, having colluded to put off legislation needed to “keep the government open” until the waning days of existing federal spending authority, crafted a “deal” in which taxpayers are utterly betrayed. Government by emergency is never good for the taxpayer, and this emergency was, as so many are, a product of bipartisan conspiracy. Republicans (notwithstanding President Donald “No Entitlement Reform” Trump) market themselves as the party of fiscal restraint. But once “last-minute” negotiations begin on a spending bill under the guise of “we can’t have a shutdown,” the Republican walks around from his side of the table, sits next to the Democrat, gives him a big hug, and says “I’ll vote for yours if you vote for mine.” (For those interested in an insider’s look at how this machine works, I recommend Congressman Ken Buck’s new book, Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption Is Worse Than You Think.) The result? A trillion-dollar deal to fund government for the remaining five months of this fiscal year in which Democrats and Republicans, or more precisely the big-spending subset of Republicans, each get a few items on their wish lists and taxpayers get shafted. The Trump administration wanted an additional $30 billon for the Defense Department. They got a $12 billion increase, enough to begin making up for Barack Obama’s shameful disregard for our national defense. Team Trump also wanted $3 billion for additional “border security,” but got half of that amount, again enough for the time being. Importantly, this money is not for a border wall; that particular Trump desire was abandoned during this “negotiation.” [UPDATE: During a Tuesday press conference, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney claimed that some of this money will in fact be used for a “20-foot high steel wall,” just not a brick-and-mortar wall, adding “that’s what Democrats don’t want you to know.] What else did the GOP give up? Any effort to remove federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Any effort to penalize “sanctuary cities.” Any effort to substantially reduce funding for any department of the federal government. One truly bipartisan spending priority was included: An additional $650 million to fight the nation’s opioid epidemic. A worthy cause though I doubt the money will be used to great effect. But the rest of the “bipartisanship” looks like a Democratic dream come true: $295 million to bail out Puerto Rico’s imminent Medicaid insolvency. The Department of Energy’s “Department of Science,” an office that President Trump’s recent “skinny budget” proposed to cut $900 million from, received a $42 million budget increase. The DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy got a $17 million increase. Algore can’t believe his luck. The 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program, which the Trump budget zeroed out, gets a $25 million increase to roughly $1.2 billion for this fiscal year. Century Community Learning Centers program, which the Trump budget zeroed out, gets a $25 million increase to roughly $1.2 billion for this fiscal year. The bill gives a $550 million spending increase for “disadvantaged students” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (and only a $9 million increase for federal charter school initiatives because Democrats hate charter schools). Additional Pell Grant funding to cover college summer school. And saving the best for last: The “bipartisan agreement” includes $2 billion of increased funding for the National Institutes of Health. If this doesn’t prove that the DC definition of “bipartisan” is Republicans accepting Democratic positions, nothing does. The NIH’s budget is around $32 billion. President Trump has proposed a $5.8 billion cut to NIH funding. And yet, once Republicans finished their hard bargain with the party that doesn’t control anything in the federal government, the NIH received a bigger increase in funding than border security did. Do you think that is what Trump voters thought they were getting? And yet it’s clear that President Trump will sign this disastrous, immoral, unprincipled bill. So let’s go back to politics, shall we? There are only two possible explanations for these results: Republicans were massively outmaneuvered (again) by Chuck Schumer. Many Republicans are all talk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Which do you think explains this “deal”? OK, it was a trick question; the answer is, of course: All of the above. Let’s remember how this game is played: Democrats and Republicans agree to wait until the last minute to make a deal, forcing both of them to abandon their stated priorities in order to “get to yes” quickly. “Please,” the Republican faux-conservative says to the Democrat, “don’t make me vote for that NIH funding increase.” “Please,” says the Democrat, “don’t make me vote for your border security in exchange.” It’s political “Br’er Rabbit” in the big-spending briar patch. Both sides claim that the risk of a government “shutdown” is unacceptable, allowing Republicans to excuse their sinful burdening of my children and yours, and generations to come, with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt with each passing year. (Democrats don’t try to excuse themselves for it; they just claim that they’re “investing.”) But do the people of the United States really give a rat’s posterior if the government “shuts down”? People cared so little last time that Barack Obama closed the World War II Memorial just to make people feel some pain, a move that backfired spectacularly. Whatever anti-GOP short-term movement in the polls occurred reversed itself rapidly. And this time, Republicans would, more credibly than at any time in recent memory, be able to argue that a shutdown is the fault of intransigent Democrats. Instead, they let Chuck Schumer, keeping a remarkably firm grip on vulnerable Senate Democrats who are likely to lose their re-elections in 18 months, drive a bill such as you would have expected when Barack Obama was in the White House and Democrats had a Senate majority. Unfortunately, since this bill will have the support of many Democrats, it can’t be stopped by a few courageous Republicans standing against it, whether in the House or even with a Senate filibuster. But I’d love to see Justin Amash and the entire Freedom Caucus in the House, and Mike Lee and Rand Paul and Ben Sasse and other fiscal conservatives in the Senate give it the old college try. This “deal” must not sail through unopposed (although it’s easy to oppose a bill when you know it’s got the votes without you). The best Republican strategy is to call Chuck “Fake Tears” Schumer’s bluff and let the Democrats “shut down” the government (which means that much of government keeps operating). The fact that they haven’t shows that deep down too many Republicans like increasing spending. It’s utterly shameful. It also will make tax reform that much more difficult as hypocritical Democrats wail and rend garments over a burgeoning budget deficit. Meanwhile, Vice President Mike Pence is spouting “we could hardly be more pleased” nonsense, as are some Congressional Republicans and the Speaker’s office, trying to put lipstick on this pig. It’s one thing to play the happy-political-spin game. It’s another thing to do so when you’re abandoning any pretense of principle, and maybe the raison d’être for your party, while handing the keys to the kingdom to the Senate Minority Leader. Republicans told us repeatedly: “Give us congressional majorities and the presidency and we’ll do our jobs, we promise.” Instead, this “conservative” party, now led by a vaunted great negotiator, gets rolled, yet again, by the oiliest man in politics. And it’s hard not to think that they sorta liked it.

www.spectator.org

right

Bmh5int5bujl52cF

test

vOrQcHsVksGS1rEi

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Valerie-Jarrett-adviser-Obama-midterms/2014/11/11/id/606673/

Report: Valerie Jarrett Keeps White House 'Enemies List'

2014-11-11

Melanie Batley

Calls are growing for the dismissal of Valerie Jarrett , one of President Barack Obama 's most trusted and longest serving advisers , while a new report claims she has been keeping a secret enemies list of those who may have questioned the president . `` Valerie Jarrett is not above keeping a s * * list — or as hers was titled , a 'least constructive ' list , '' said a profile in the New Republic by Noam Scheiber . `` One progressive activist recalls Jarrett holding the document during a meeting and noticing her own name on it , along with the names of others in the room . 'It was kind of an honor , ' the activist told me . `` This was not out of character for Jarrett . The woman who once resisted [ Rahm ] Emanuel 's commandment against rewarding bad behavior has often gone out of her way to suppress dissent among ideological allies and others who question the president . `` The revelation will likely add fuel to the fire among those calling for Jarrett 's departure , particularly in the aftermath of a disastrous election which often prompts the shake-up of top brass in an administration.The profile also describes Jarrett as having a `` legion of detractors , '' as a result of the influence she is seen to wield with the Obamas.She is accused by sources in the article of putting friends in positions of power to maintain her own influence , acting beyond her authority to make decisions , advising the president on issues beyond the scope of her role , and taking a place at the table of virtually all high-level meetings.She is also portrayed as Obama 's yes-woman and the cause of his detachment from critics . Political blogger Carol Felsenthal said Obama should `` fire '' her by shifting her into a ceremonial role . `` Give her an ambassadorship — or something — but for Pete 's sake get her out of the way of the hard work of governing that needs to be done , '' she wrote in a column for Politico entitled `` Fire Valerie Jarrett . `` `` It appears that Jarrett has been more an obstructer than a facilitator over the past six years when it comes to governing , and it 's probably long past time for the president to move her gently into another role . '' Fox News ' Howard Kurtz said the growing opposition to Jarrett among those in the press should earn her the title , `` scapegoat-in-chief . `` `` Reporters are getting tired of the story line about Obama essentially brushing off the [ election ] debacle . So the journalistic knives are out for Jarrett , '' he said . `` It 's not hard to understand why . As a personal pal , Jarrett is easy to cast as the embodiment of the insularity of the White House . `` The reports , however , have prompted some to defend her . MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski , co-host of `` Morning Joe , '' has called the attacks `` sexist , '' Fox News reported . `` Would these criticisms be leveled at men like John Podesta or Dan Pfeiffer ? They work closely with the president . In fact , Ms. Jarrett was out of commission for the most important stretch of the campaign because of a serious medical procedure on her spine . So why is Valerie the focus of these ridiculous attacks ? `` Perhaps it is because she is a woman . ''

Calls are growing for the dismissal of Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama's most trusted and longest serving advisers, while a new report claims she has been keeping a secret enemies list of those who may have questioned the president."Valerie Jarrett is not above keeping a s** list — or as hers was titled, a 'least constructive' list," said a profile in the New Republic by Noam Scheiber."One progressive activist recalls Jarrett holding the document during a meeting and noticing her own name on it, along with the names of others in the room. 'It was kind of an honor,' the activist told me."This was not out of character for Jarrett. The woman who once resisted [Rahm] Emanuel's commandment against rewarding bad behavior has often gone out of her way to suppress dissent among ideological allies and others who question the president."The revelation will likely add fuel to the fire among those calling for Jarrett's departure, particularly in the aftermath of a disastrous election which often prompts the shake-up of top brass in an administration.The profile also describes Jarrett as having a "legion of detractors," as a result of the influence she is seen to wield with the Obamas.She is accused by sources in the article of putting friends in positions of power to maintain her own influence, acting beyond her authority to make decisions, advising the president on issues beyond the scope of her role, and taking a place at the table of virtually all high-level meetings.She is also portrayed as Obama's yes-woman and the cause of his detachment from critics. Political blogger Carol Felsenthal said Obama should "fire" her by shifting her into a ceremonial role."Give her an ambassadorship — or something — but for Pete's sake get her out of the way of the hard work of governing that needs to be done," she wrote in a column for Politico entitled "Fire Valerie Jarrett.""It appears that Jarrett has been more an obstructer than a facilitator over the past six years when it comes to governing, and it's probably long past time for the president to move her gently into another role." Fox News' Howard Kurtz said the growing opposition to Jarrett among those in the press should earn her the title, "scapegoat-in-chief.""Reporters are getting tired of the story line about Obama essentially brushing off the [election] debacle. So the journalistic knives are out for Jarrett," he said."It's not hard to understand why. As a personal pal, Jarrett is easy to cast as the embodiment of the insularity of the White House."The reports, however, have prompted some to defend her. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, co-host of "Morning Joe," has called the attacks "sexist," Fox News reported."Would these criticisms be leveled at men like John Podesta or Dan Pfeiffer? They work closely with the president. In fact, Ms. Jarrett was out of commission for the most important stretch of the campaign because of a serious medical procedure on her spine. So why is Valerie the focus of these ridiculous attacks?"Perhaps it is because she is a woman."

www.newsmax.com

right

vOrQcHsVksGS1rEi

test

94PtIB8YLsM7vUer

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/28/ivanka-trump-defends-use-of-private-email

'There is no attempt to hide': Ivanka Trump defends use of private email

2018-11-28

Erin Durkin

President ’ s daughter denies comparisons with Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a private server : ‘ My emails have not been deleted ’ Ivanka Trump has defended her use of a personal email account for government business when she became an adviser in her father ’ s White House . “ All of my emails are stored and preserved . There were no deletions . There is no attempt to hide , ” Donald Trump ’ s daughter told ABC News in an interview aired on Wednesday morning . Trump insists daughter Ivanka 's private email use for work was 'very innocent ' Read more Ivanka Trump reportedly used her personal account up to 100 times in 2017 to contact other Trump administration officials . The news drew immediate comparisons with Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a private server as secretary of state , which still prompts Donald Trump ’ s supporters to chant “ lock her up ” at rallies . The president apparently wanted Clinton prosecuted after he took the White House . But on Wednesday Ivanka Trump insisted there was no comparison between the two cases . “ In my case , all of my emails are on the White House server . There ’ s no intent to circumvent , ” she told ABC . “ There ’ s no equivalency to what my father ’ s spoken about . ” On the Clinton case , Ivanka Trump said : “ There were mass deletions after a subpoena was issued . My emails have not been deleted . Nor was there anything of substance , nothing confidential that was within them . So there ’ s no connection between the two things . ” Republicans and Democrats in Congress have requested information from the White House to determine whether the first daughter complied with federal record keeping laws . Investigations into Clinton ’ s use of private email dogged her presidential campaign and are believed to have contributed to her losing the 2016 election after she was admonished by the FBI . Donald Trump has also defended his daughter ’ s use of personal email , saying all her messages have been logged as presidential records . Ivanka Trump said in the interview that her email use violated no rules . “ There is no restriction of using personal email , ” she said . “ In fact , we ’ re instructed that if we receive an email to our personal account that could relate to government work , you simply just forward it to your government account so it can be archived . ” Ivanka Trump also said she has no fear of legal liability for herself or her family from the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election and allegations of collusion with Moscow by the Trump campaign . “ I know the facts as they relate to me and my family , and so I have nothing to be concerned about , ” she said . Trump said the investigation should be allowed to run its course , but echoed her father ’ s view that it has gone on long enough . “ I think it should reach its conclusion . I think it ’ s been a long time that this has been ongoing , but I want it to be done in a way in which nobody could question that it was hurried or rushed , ” she said . “ And I think after this long period of time , we ’ re well beyond that point , so I think it absolutely should reach its conclusion . ” This despite experts ’ views that for an investigation of this depth and scope , Mueller is moving very quickly .

President’s daughter denies comparisons with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server: ‘My emails have not been deleted’ Ivanka Trump has defended her use of a personal email account for government business when she became an adviser in her father’s White House. “All of my emails are stored and preserved. There were no deletions. There is no attempt to hide,” Donald Trump’s daughter told ABC News in an interview aired on Wednesday morning. Trump insists daughter Ivanka's private email use for work was 'very innocent' Read more Ivanka Trump reportedly used her personal account up to 100 times in 2017 to contact other Trump administration officials. The news drew immediate comparisons with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server as secretary of state, which still prompts Donald Trump’s supporters to chant “lock her up” at rallies. The president apparently wanted Clinton prosecuted after he took the White House. But on Wednesday Ivanka Trump insisted there was no comparison between the two cases. “In my case, all of my emails are on the White House server. There’s no intent to circumvent,” she told ABC. “There’s no equivalency to what my father’s spoken about.” On the Clinton case, Ivanka Trump said: “There were mass deletions after a subpoena was issued. My emails have not been deleted. Nor was there anything of substance, nothing confidential that was within them. So there’s no connection between the two things.” Republicans and Democrats in Congress have requested information from the White House to determine whether the first daughter complied with federal record keeping laws. Investigations into Clinton’s use of private email dogged her presidential campaign and are believed to have contributed to her losing the 2016 election after she was admonished by the FBI. Donald Trump has also defended his daughter’s use of personal email, saying all her messages have been logged as presidential records. Ivanka Trump said in the interview that her email use violated no rules. Sign up for the new US morning briefing “There is no restriction of using personal email,” she said. “In fact, we’re instructed that if we receive an email to our personal account that could relate to government work, you simply just forward it to your government account so it can be archived.” Ivanka Trump also said she has no fear of legal liability for herself or her family from the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election and allegations of collusion with Moscow by the Trump campaign. “I know the facts as they relate to me and my family, and so I have nothing to be concerned about,” she said. Trump said the investigation should be allowed to run its course, but echoed her father’s view that it has gone on long enough. “I think it should reach its conclusion. I think it’s been a long time that this has been ongoing, but I want it to be done in a way in which nobody could question that it was hurried or rushed,” she said. “And I think after this long period of time, we’re well beyond that point, so I think it absolutely should reach its conclusion.” This despite experts’ views that for an investigation of this depth and scope, Mueller is moving very quickly.

www.theguardian.com

left

94PtIB8YLsM7vUer

test

QsOplTHQ18U5YAm6

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/3042e7db455f21ac75f982e1755b04bc

False news swirls around Minneapolis officer in fatal arrest

2020-05-28

Ali Swenson

Michelle Mullowney , center , of Minneapolis , calls for justice for George Floyd , outside the home of Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman on Wednesday , May 27 , 2020 , in Minneapolis . The mayor of Minneapolis called Wednesday for criminal charges against the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody . ( Aaron Lavinsky/Star Tribune via AP ) Michelle Mullowney , center , of Minneapolis , calls for justice for George Floyd , outside the home of Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman on Wednesday , May 27 , 2020 , in Minneapolis . The mayor of Minneapolis called Wednesday for criminal charges against the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody . ( Aaron Lavinsky/Star Tribune via AP ) A Minneapolis police officer videotaped on Monday holding a black man to the ground with his knee during an arrest has become the target of false claims on social media that attempt to tie him to political agendas and racist ideologies . Twitter and Facebook posts with hundreds of thousands of views on Wednesday claimed Officer Derek Chauvin was pictured wearing a “ Make Whites Great Again ” hat and standing onstage at a Donald Trump rally , neither of which turned out to be true . The spread of false information was so rampant that the president of the Minneapolis police union set the record straight , telling The ███ that none of the officers involved in Monday ’ s incident were at the Trump rally in Minneapolis last October . Chauvin has been the subject of national attention since a video emerged Monday that showed him kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed black man during an arrest outside a south Minneapolis convenience store . In the video captured by a bystander , George Floyd can be seen gasping for breath on the ground while Chauvin pins him to the pavement with his knee . Floyd was pronounced dead at the hospital Monday , and Chauvin and three other officers were dismissed from the department on Tuesday . News of the incident sparked protests in Minneapolis and evoked nationwide outcry . It also contributed to the rapid spread of social media posts misidentifying Chauvin as the subject of politicized photographs . One post circulating widely across social media platforms juxtaposed a screenshot of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd ’ s neck with a photo of a man holding a blackberry between his thumb and index finger and wearing a red baseball cap that said “ Make Whites Great Again . ” The post , shared by prominent figures including the rapper Ice Cube , suggested the two photos featured the same person . But the man in the “ Make Whites Great Again ” photo was actually Jonathan Lee Riches , a known internet troll . Riches told the AP in a Facebook message that he was the person in the photo . However , he said the image was altered and he was not wearing the hat . He could not provide the original . A second set of viral posts on Wednesday featured photos of a man smiling onstage at a Donald Trump rally in Minneapolis last October . The posts falsely claimed the photos , which showed a man wearing a “ Cops for Trump ” shirt and holding up a “ Vote Trump ” sign , were of Chauvin . According to Minneapolis police union president Lt. Bob Kroll , the photos actually showed Mike Gallagher , the president of the police union in Bloomington , Minnesota . “ Can you put a stop to the false narrative please ? ” Kroll told the AP . “ None of the officers in the incident were near the Trump rally . ” ███ writer Amy Forliti contributed to this story from Minneapolis .

Michelle Mullowney, center, of Minneapolis, calls for justice for George Floyd, outside the home of Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis called Wednesday for criminal charges against the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody. (Aaron Lavinsky/Star Tribune via AP) Michelle Mullowney, center, of Minneapolis, calls for justice for George Floyd, outside the home of Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman on Wednesday, May 27, 2020, in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis called Wednesday for criminal charges against the white police officer seen on video kneeling against the neck of a handcuffed black man who complained that he could not breathe and died in police custody. (Aaron Lavinsky/Star Tribune via AP) A Minneapolis police officer videotaped on Monday holding a black man to the ground with his knee during an arrest has become the target of false claims on social media that attempt to tie him to political agendas and racist ideologies. Twitter and Facebook posts with hundreds of thousands of views on Wednesday claimed Officer Derek Chauvin was pictured wearing a “Make Whites Great Again” hat and standing onstage at a Donald Trump rally, neither of which turned out to be true. The spread of false information was so rampant that the president of the Minneapolis police union set the record straight, telling The Associated Press that none of the officers involved in Monday’s incident were at the Trump rally in Minneapolis last October. ADVERTISEMENT Chauvin has been the subject of national attention since a video emerged Monday that showed him kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed black man during an arrest outside a south Minneapolis convenience store. In the video captured by a bystander, George Floyd can be seen gasping for breath on the ground while Chauvin pins him to the pavement with his knee. Floyd was pronounced dead at the hospital Monday, and Chauvin and three other officers were dismissed from the department on Tuesday. News of the incident sparked protests in Minneapolis and evoked nationwide outcry. It also contributed to the rapid spread of social media posts misidentifying Chauvin as the subject of politicized photographs. One post circulating widely across social media platforms juxtaposed a screenshot of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck with a photo of a man holding a blackberry between his thumb and index finger and wearing a red baseball cap that said “Make Whites Great Again.” The post, shared by prominent figures including the rapper Ice Cube, suggested the two photos featured the same person. But the man in the “Make Whites Great Again” photo was actually Jonathan Lee Riches, a known internet troll. Riches told the AP in a Facebook message that he was the person in the photo. However, he said the image was altered and he was not wearing the hat. He could not provide the original. A second set of viral posts on Wednesday featured photos of a man smiling onstage at a Donald Trump rally in Minneapolis last October. The posts falsely claimed the photos, which showed a man wearing a “Cops for Trump” shirt and holding up a “Vote Trump” sign, were of Chauvin. According to Minneapolis police union president Lt. Bob Kroll, the photos actually showed Mike Gallagher, the president of the police union in Bloomington, Minnesota. “Can you put a stop to the false narrative please?” Kroll told the AP. “None of the officers in the incident were near the Trump rally.” ___ Associated Press writer Amy Forliti contributed to this story from Minneapolis.

www.apnews.com

center

QsOplTHQ18U5YAm6

test

OGxIKiP52MSUuxJV

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/03/coronavirus-trauma-resilient-covid-19-parents-kids/

There's Light—and Growth—at the Other End of the Coronavirus Tunnel

2020-04-03

Lenore Skenazy, Josh Blackman, Christy Ford Chapin, Eugene Volokh, Ronald Bailey, Baylen Linnekin, Kurt Loder, Jacob Sullum

Here 's something you might not have heard of : post-traumatic growth . I promise I did n't invent it just to cheer anybody up . But I hope it does cheer you up , because it 's real . `` We are far more resilient than we give each other credit for , '' says Dr. Samantha Boardman , founder of positiveprescription.com and assistant attending psychiatrist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City . And the research proves it . Beginning in the 1990s some psychologists finally started turning their focus away from dysfunction to study its good-twin opposite : how people cope . By some estimates , at least half the population has gone through some kind of real trauma . ( And let 's assume , by September or so , that could be a lot more of us . ) And yet , writes John Tierney , co-author of the new book The Power of Bad : How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It , four out of five trauma victims did not suffer from PTSD . `` In the long run , they typically emerged stronger , '' says Tierney . `` Instead of being permanently scarred they underwent post-traumatic growth . '' The ███ most of us have n't heard of this positive turn of events , according to Tierney , is because good news never gets the kind of attention bad news gets . That 's a big theme in his book : Twitter , cable TV , and even the human brain love bad news and ignore most of the good . This does n't mean trauma is some fabulous thing you should seek out , like probiotic Greek yogurt , because it 's so healthy . Trauma can be , well , traumatizing . But psychologists have seen people coming out the other end with an `` increased appreciation of life , deeper relationships with others , new perspectives and priorities , [ and ] greater personal strength , '' says Tierney . Even in the meantime , while we 're still in the midst of this miserable thing , I 've been hearing from parents who are kind of stunned to see their kids not only coping , but almost unfolding like a tender green shoot , watered by the unexpected gift of the virus : free time . `` My daughter is almost 12 and my son is 9 , and they 've been off school since March 12 , '' a mom in Canada tells me . `` I was expecting a lot of bickering and crabbiness and there 's been a little bit , but not nearly as much as I expected . '' Instead , her son spontaneously took a kite out to fly the other day—for the first time in his life . His sister , who normally goes to bed at 11 p.m. and has to get up at 7 a.m. , is still going to bed at 11 p.m. , but now getting up at 11 a.m. That probably means the girl needed more sleep than she was getting before , and that the extra rest is doing everybody some good . Meagan Heryet , a fundraiser in Oregon City , Oregon , has an 8-year-old daughter who is normally , Megan says , `` a disaster . '' `` She 's a hoarder , she 's an artist , there 's trash everywhere , there 's no laundry basket , '' says Megan . `` But since we 've been home—no prodding from me—she just decided it was important for her bedroom to stay clean . '' The girl is making the bed every day . In suburban Virginia , Stephanie Gillespie 's son , age 14 and normally not too keen on school projects , `` all of a sudden decided that there 's all these things he wants to pursue , '' Gillespie tells me . Top of the list ? Building a computer . Dark are these days but there is light at the end of the tunnel—and some pretty cool light shows inside the tunnel , too .

Here's something you might not have heard of: post-traumatic growth. I promise I didn't invent it just to cheer anybody up. But I hope it does cheer you up, because it's real. "We are far more resilient than we give each other credit for," says Dr. Samantha Boardman, founder of positiveprescription.com and assistant attending psychiatrist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City. And the research proves it. Beginning in the 1990s some psychologists finally started turning their focus away from dysfunction to study its good-twin opposite: how people cope. By some estimates, at least half the population has gone through some kind of real trauma. (And let's assume, by September or so, that could be a lot more of us.) And yet, writes John Tierney, co-author of the new book The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It, four out of five trauma victims did not suffer from PTSD. "In the long run, they typically emerged stronger," says Tierney. "Instead of being permanently scarred they underwent post-traumatic growth." The reason most of us haven't heard of this positive turn of events, according to Tierney, is because good news never gets the kind of attention bad news gets. That's a big theme in his book: Twitter, cable TV, and even the human brain love bad news and ignore most of the good. This doesn't mean trauma is some fabulous thing you should seek out, like probiotic Greek yogurt, because it's so healthy. Trauma can be, well, traumatizing. But psychologists have seen people coming out the other end with an "increased appreciation of life, deeper relationships with others, new perspectives and priorities, [and] greater personal strength," says Tierney. Even in the meantime, while we're still in the midst of this miserable thing, I've been hearing from parents who are kind of stunned to see their kids not only coping, but almost unfolding like a tender green shoot, watered by the unexpected gift of the virus: free time. "My daughter is almost 12 and my son is 9, and they've been off school since March 12," a mom in Canada tells me. "I was expecting a lot of bickering and crabbiness and there's been a little bit, but not nearly as much as I expected." Instead, her son spontaneously took a kite out to fly the other day—for the first time in his life. His sister, who normally goes to bed at 11 p.m. and has to get up at 7 a.m., is still going to bed at 11 p.m., but now getting up at 11 a.m. That probably means the girl needed more sleep than she was getting before, and that the extra rest is doing everybody some good. Meagan Heryet, a fundraiser in Oregon City, Oregon, has an 8-year-old daughter who is normally, Megan says, "a disaster." "She's a hoarder, she's an artist, there's trash everywhere, there's no laundry basket," says Megan. "But since we've been home—no prodding from me—she just decided it was important for her bedroom to stay clean." The girl is making the bed every day. In suburban Virginia, Stephanie Gillespie's son, age 14 and normally not too keen on school projects, "all of a sudden decided that there's all these things he wants to pursue," Gillespie tells me. Top of the list? Building a computer. Dark are these days but there is light at the end of the tunnel—and some pretty cool light shows inside the tunnel, too.

www.reason.com

right

OGxIKiP52MSUuxJV

test

jlF7zLLe5gF0Ymfg

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/02/republican-sen-kirk-endorses-same-sex-marriage/

Republican Sen. Kirk endorses same-sex marriage

2013-04-02

( CNN ) - Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois , a socially moderate Republican , announced on Tuesday his support for same-sex marriage , becoming the second Republican in the chamber to support it . `` Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage , '' he wrote in a statement . `` Our time on this earth is limited , I know that better than most . Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back - government has no place in the middle . '' Sen . Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican in the U.S. Senate to endorse same-sex marriage . He announced last month that he was swayed on the issue by his son , who told his family he was gay . Seven of the 55 Democratic senators have not endorsed same-sex marriage . Sen. Tom Carper , D-Delaware , announced his support earlier on Tuesday . “ Senator Kirk and Senator Carper have shown tremendous leadership in announcing their support for marriage equality , '' said Chad Griffin , the president of the pro-gay rights group Human Rights Campaign . `` It is a sign of our progress that so many of their colleagues are showing the same political will . Democrat or Republican , there can simply be no excuse for standing on the wrong side of history when it comes to this basic question of justice . ” The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two cases on the issue , including a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman . Kirk , 53 , returned to the Senate in January after spending a year in recovery from a stroke . `` When I climbed the Capitol steps in January , I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others , '' he said in Tuesday 's statement . He served in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2010 , where he voted twice against constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage . Kirk holds the Senate seat which President Barack Obama vacated in 2008 .

6 years ago (CNN) - Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a socially moderate Republican, announced on Tuesday his support for same-sex marriage, becoming the second Republican in the chamber to support it. "Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage," he wrote in a statement. "Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back - government has no place in the middle." Follow @politicalticker Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican in the U.S. Senate to endorse same-sex marriage. He announced last month that he was swayed on the issue by his son, who told his family he was gay. Seven of the 55 Democratic senators have not endorsed same-sex marriage. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, announced his support earlier on Tuesday. “Senator Kirk and Senator Carper have shown tremendous leadership in announcing their support for marriage equality," said Chad Griffin, the president of the pro-gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. "It is a sign of our progress that so many of their colleagues are showing the same political will. Democrat or Republican, there can simply be no excuse for standing on the wrong side of history when it comes to this basic question of justice.” The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two cases on the issue, including a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Kirk, 53, returned to the Senate in January after spending a year in recovery from a stroke. "When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others," he said in Tuesday's statement. He served in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2010, where he voted twice against constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Kirk holds the Senate seat which President Barack Obama vacated in 2008.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

jlF7zLLe5gF0Ymfg

test

1Icxp8Qx2nvcwcA7

media_bias

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/you-bet-media-matters-and-thats-why-fox-news-has-to-stand-by-its-people/

OPINION: You Bet Media Matters — and That’s Why Fox News Has to Stand by Its People

Dov Fischer, Scott Mckay, Jeffrey Lord, David Catron, John Jiang

Remember when the Left tried to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air seven years ago after he called Sandra Fluke a “ slut ” ? Oh my , how they salivated as they got some advertisers to withdraw ads from Rush ’ s show ! They thought they had Rush off the air . They really did . Carbonite , the computer-data back-up company , made a big splash when they announced they were pulling their ads off Rush . But Rush stuck it out . He stayed strong . And , like the Energizer Bunny , all these years later he still is going and going and going , while history records that Fluke was a fluke . And Carbonite ’ s stock value nose-dived . Yes , it was right for Fox to dissociate from Bill O ’ Reilly . What can one say ? All those many high-ticket legal settlements with women — too many . That was not about politics or about left-wing pressure , even though the revelations emanated from the New York Times Left . Our society just can not abide that . But then the Left came after Sean Hannity . Remember that one , when he backed Roy Moore against the Democrat in the Alabama race for U.S. Senate ? And they got Keurig to pull some ads ? Remember ? That stopped pretty fast when the media was swamped with images of Hannity fans smashing their $ 100-plus Keurig coffee machines . Some of those tweets got more than two million views . It even got to the point that Sean went on TV and appealed to his viewers to stop smashing their coffee machines . Next the Left tried to take down Laura Ingraham when she tweeted something perfectly legitimate about a narcissistic loud-mouthed kid at the Florida high school where the mass shooting took place . They tried to drive her off the air by pressuring her sponsors to abandon her or face withering boycotts . She withstood the onslaught , and Fox stood by her . She continues to run the best news-commentary show on television , hands down . And now they want Tucker Carlson ’ s much-admired scalp . The Left came up with some offensive stuff he said on a shock-jock radio show ten or so years ago . They smelled blood , but it now seems clear that Fox News is going to stand by him . They better — otherwise , they may as well shift over to CNN/MSNBC Leftism because they will not have any of their current viewers left if they bail on Tucker . And then they likewise may as well switch their “ Fox Nation ” streaming thing to a 24/7 “ Acme Hour ” cartoon station . In this utterly bifurcated society that now lives for character assassination and “ gotcha ! ” destruction , as witness what was done even to Kevin Hart before the Oscars , many of us are numb to the point of no longer giving a darn regarding what garbage they dig up . We are so utterly sick of the double standard . Al Sharpton has a TV show on MSNBC , and yet that fraud promoted the Tawana Brawley circus and defamation . He even got convicted of defamation in a court of law . How many Americans get to experience that honor in a lifetime ? Moreover , Sharpton personally played a role in inciting not one but two anti-Jewish pogroms — one in Crown Heights , Brooklyn , and one at Freddie ’ s , a store in Harlem . There were street riots and deaths . Does anyone on the Left care ? No ? Jimmy Kimmel wore blackface , spoke in comical antebellum “ Shuffling Negro dialect , ” was remarkably gross in his public depiction of women — all in the years before he got himself an ABC nighttime gig . Does anyone on the Left care ? No ? So we don ’ t care what you dig up on Tucker . How ’ s that ? They care about Rush calling Fluke a “ slut ” after she publicly asked you and me to pay for her contraception . What better noun describes a woman who says publicly to an entire nation : “ I want you to pay for my acts of physical coitus ” ? And when Laura rightly calls out a teen who does not control the world , they demand her head . And when Jeffrey Lord legitimately tweets a sarcastic “ Sieg Heil ! ” to someone at Media Matters trying to push him around , they remove him from CNN . And when Tucker goes off color and off script on a shock-jock radio show during a time and place a decade before he ever imagined being a serious talk-show host , they become appalled . Well , they all are full of baloney , double standards , and — as Nancy Pelosi might say — they are “ not worth it . ” There are two sides of the powerhouse media now : The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Fox News ( except for Shepard Smith , whose presence there remains the great conundrum of the Modern Age ) on one side , versus the rest of the mainstream Mediacracy on the Left — CBS , NBC , ABC , MSNBC , PBS , CNN , New York Times , Washington Post . Yet the power of Fox is reflected in the Democrats ’ decision not to let Bret Baier , Chris Wallace , and Martha McCallum conduct a single debate among the Democrat primaries . And that is fine indeed . Alas , Fox News is going ballistic over it . All their talk-show hosts seem assigned to complain about the shutout every night . Chris Wallace presses his Sunday guests and panel about it . They trot out Juan Williams to say that no one at Fox ever censors him . But frankly , my dear , the rest of us do not give a darn . If we want to watch a Democrat debate , we know how to find it . Obviously , Fox ’ s concern is that they want to be treated seriously as a bona fide news organization . Well , they are . They are more fair and balanced , even in commentary and certainly in their news division , than are any of the many , many shills for the Left . One way that Fox viewers know they are fair and balanced is that we all tune out or mute the volume so often daily as we encounter screechy Jessica Tarlov , or see the face of Chris Hahn or Richard Goodstein about to expel air . It is the “ Fox Thumb Twitch ” by which we mute the sound as soon as we see Juan Williams ’ s or Geraldo Rivera ’ s lips start moving , then twitch back to sound to hear Mark Steyn or Dan Bongino , then twitch back to mute as some Democrat shill or Leftist stooge gets on , then back to sound as that former ICE director guy or even Dershowitz gets started . Twitch , twitch . Fox is as fair-and-balanced as today ’ s climate allows . CNN is a joke ; I watch it only one night every two years — election night on even-numbered years — because I like the way John King analyzes the votes precinct by precinct . Otherwise , a complete waste . All their panelists either are shills for the Left or are these pseudo-Republicans who are so bad — so incredibly , repulsively , indigestibly bad — that one is left with either of two assumptions regarding those “ Never Trumpers ” : Either these Ana fingernail-filing Navarros are phony and never-ever-in-their-lives-not-even-for-one-minute were Republicans ever-ever in their lives but , as with “ professional wrestling , ” are paid extra to play the “ bad guy ” for entertainment , so that the “ good guys ” have someone to wrestle ; Or a creep like Navarro actually was a Republican with Jeb Bush , and that reinforces definitively why we voted for Trump , to throw out the whole rotted bunch of phony-baloney RINOs , to get them all out — the Jennifer Rubins and George Wills and Ana Navarros and the whole bunch of them , yellow bananas that went mushy-spoiled-brown within hours of Trump ’ s election , all who have revealed that they would rather have had Hillary naming Supreme Court justices and filling federal judicial vacancies and conducting the economy and healthcare and energy policy and veterans affairs and trade deals and higher-education policy and foreign affairs and setting the national tone in terms of gender and culture . So now the Democrats want to protect their snowflake candidates from being questioned by real reporters when they instead can have Donna Brazile Wannabes passing along batting-practice questions like : “ Vice President Biden , what was it like to know Barack Obama so intimately ? ” “ Senator Warren , what is your favorite beer , and can you do a Rain Dance ? ” “ Senator Harris , what was Willie Brown like in bed ? Uh , I mean : What is your favorite brand of weed ? ” “ Senator O ’ Rourke , how does that title sound , and did you end up having any cavities ? ” “ Senator Klobuchar , what is the longest distance you ever have thrown a binder ? ” “ Senator Gillibrand , how do you stay so up-to-date so that you never are more than ten minutes behind the pack in changing your positions on any issue ? ” In this season of madness , the message for Fox News is “ Stand By Your Man ” — whether it be Tucker or Sean or women like Laura , Martha , and Shannon . Don ’ t worry about not airing a Democrat debate . Let them get comfortable answering fluffy questions . But learn from this that your brand strength and viewer loyalty and corporate profits will not depend on Tom Perez but on how your stand by your core hosts . And one more lesson : When the Presidential debates start between President Trump and his Democrat opponent , Trump ’ s team must learn from the way that CNN ’ s Candy Crowley ambushed Mitt Romney and from the way that Tom Perez blacked out Fox . This round the Trump team must refuse absolutely to participate in any debate on any station until they carefully have approved the panel for neutrality and fairness . Any proposed panelist with the slightest tinge of bias — not just Acosta and Mourning Joe , but even the Jake Tappers and Lester Holts and that woman who cried on the air when Trump won in 2016 — must be deemed as utterly unacceptable . Looking at the names , most stations have one token honest journalist , some have two . Major Garrett at CBS . Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC . Charles Gibson and Frank Reynolds at ABC . James Earl Jones at CNN . So any of them would be OK .

Remember when the Left tried to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air seven years ago after he called Sandra Fluke a “slut”? Oh my, how they salivated as they got some advertisers to withdraw ads from Rush’s show! They thought they had Rush off the air. They really did. Carbonite, the computer-data back-up company, made a big splash when they announced they were pulling their ads off Rush. But Rush stuck it out. He stayed strong. And, like the Energizer Bunny, all these years later he still is going and going and going, while history records that Fluke was a fluke. And Carbonite’s stock value nose-dived. Yes, it was right for Fox to dissociate from Bill O’Reilly. What can one say? All those many high-ticket legal settlements with women — too many. That was not about politics or about left-wing pressure, even though the revelations emanated from the New York Times Left. Our society just cannot abide that. But then the Left came after Sean Hannity. Remember that one, when he backed Roy Moore against the Democrat in the Alabama race for U.S. Senate? And they got Keurig to pull some ads? Remember? That stopped pretty fast when the media was swamped with images of Hannity fans smashing their $100-plus Keurig coffee machines. Some of those tweets got more than two million views. It even got to the point that Sean went on TV and appealed to his viewers to stop smashing their coffee machines. Next the Left tried to take down Laura Ingraham when she tweeted something perfectly legitimate about a narcissistic loud-mouthed kid at the Florida high school where the mass shooting took place. They tried to drive her off the air by pressuring her sponsors to abandon her or face withering boycotts. She withstood the onslaught, and Fox stood by her. She continues to run the best news-commentary show on television, hands down. And now they want Tucker Carlson’s much-admired scalp. The Left came up with some offensive stuff he said on a shock-jock radio show ten or so years ago. They smelled blood, but it now seems clear that Fox News is going to stand by him. They better — otherwise, they may as well shift over to CNN/MSNBC Leftism because they will not have any of their current viewers left if they bail on Tucker. And then they likewise may as well switch their “Fox Nation” streaming thing to a 24/7 “Acme Hour” cartoon station. In this utterly bifurcated society that now lives for character assassination and “gotcha!” destruction, as witness what was done even to Kevin Hart before the Oscars, many of us are numb to the point of no longer giving a darn regarding what garbage they dig up. We are so utterly sick of the double standard. Al Sharpton has a TV show on MSNBC, and yet that fraud promoted the Tawana Brawley circus and defamation. He even got convicted of defamation in a court of law. How many Americans get to experience that honor in a lifetime? Moreover, Sharpton personally played a role in inciting not one but two anti-Jewish pogroms — one in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and one at Freddie’s, a store in Harlem. There were street riots and deaths. Does anyone on the Left care? No? Jimmy Kimmel wore blackface, spoke in comical antebellum “Shuffling Negro dialect,” was remarkably gross in his public depiction of women — all in the years before he got himself an ABC nighttime gig. Does anyone on the Left care? No? So we don’t care what you dig up on Tucker. How’s that? They care about Rush calling Fluke a “slut” after she publicly asked you and me to pay for her contraception. What better noun describes a woman who says publicly to an entire nation: “I want you to pay for my acts of physical coitus”? And when Laura rightly calls out a teen who does not control the world, they demand her head. And when Jeffrey Lord legitimately tweets a sarcastic “Sieg Heil!” to someone at Media Matters trying to push him around, they remove him from CNN. And when Tucker goes off color and off script on a shock-jock radio show during a time and place a decade before he ever imagined being a serious talk-show host, they become appalled. Well, they all are full of baloney, double standards, and — as Nancy Pelosi might say — they are “not worth it.” There are two sides of the powerhouse media now: The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Fox News (except for Shepard Smith, whose presence there remains the great conundrum of the Modern Age) on one side, versus the rest of the mainstream Mediacracy on the Left — CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post. Yet the power of Fox is reflected in the Democrats’ decision not to let Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, and Martha McCallum conduct a single debate among the Democrat primaries. And that is fine indeed. Alas, Fox News is going ballistic over it. All their talk-show hosts seem assigned to complain about the shutout every night. Chris Wallace presses his Sunday guests and panel about it. They trot out Juan Williams to say that no one at Fox ever censors him. But frankly, my dear, the rest of us do not give a darn. If we want to watch a Democrat debate, we know how to find it. Obviously, Fox’s concern is that they want to be treated seriously as a bona fide news organization. Well, they are. They are more fair and balanced, even in commentary and certainly in their news division, than are any of the many, many shills for the Left. One way that Fox viewers know they are fair and balanced is that we all tune out or mute the volume so often daily as we encounter screechy Jessica Tarlov, or see the face of Chris Hahn or Richard Goodstein about to expel air. It is the “Fox Thumb Twitch” by which we mute the sound as soon as we see Juan Williams’s or Geraldo Rivera’s lips start moving, then twitch back to sound to hear Mark Steyn or Dan Bongino, then twitch back to mute as some Democrat shill or Leftist stooge gets on, then back to sound as that former ICE director guy or even Dershowitz gets started. Twitch, twitch. Fox is as fair-and-balanced as today’s climate allows. CNN is a joke; I watch it only one night every two years — election night on even-numbered years — because I like the way John King analyzes the votes precinct by precinct. Otherwise, a complete waste. All their panelists either are shills for the Left or are these pseudo-Republicans who are so bad — so incredibly, repulsively, indigestibly bad — that one is left with either of two assumptions regarding those “Never Trumpers”: Either these Ana fingernail-filing Navarros are phony and never-ever-in-their-lives-not-even-for-one-minute were Republicans ever-ever in their lives but, as with “professional wrestling,” are paid extra to play the “bad guy” for entertainment, so that the “good guys” have someone to wrestle; Or a creep like Navarro actually was a Republican with Jeb Bush, and that reinforces definitively why we voted for Trump, to throw out the whole rotted bunch of phony-baloney RINOs, to get them all out — the Jennifer Rubins and George Wills and Ana Navarros and the whole bunch of them, yellow bananas that went mushy-spoiled-brown within hours of Trump’s election, all who have revealed that they would rather have had Hillary naming Supreme Court justices and filling federal judicial vacancies and conducting the economy and healthcare and energy policy and veterans affairs and trade deals and higher-education policy and foreign affairs and setting the national tone in terms of gender and culture. So now the Democrats want to protect their snowflake candidates from being questioned by real reporters when they instead can have Donna Brazile Wannabes passing along batting-practice questions like: “Senator Sanders, how do you stay so young?” “Vice President Biden, what was it like to know Barack Obama so intimately?” “Senator Warren, what is your favorite beer, and can you do a Rain Dance?” “Senator Harris, what was Willie Brown like in bed? Uh, I mean: What is your favorite brand of weed?” “Senator O’Rourke, how does that title sound, and did you end up having any cavities?” “Senator Booker, what did you like best about Spartacus?” “Senator Klobuchar, what is the longest distance you ever have thrown a binder?” “Senator Gillibrand, how do you stay so up-to-date so that you never are more than ten minutes behind the pack in changing your positions on any issue?” In this season of madness, the message for Fox News is “Stand By Your Man” — whether it be Tucker or Sean or women like Laura, Martha, and Shannon. Don’t worry about not airing a Democrat debate. Let them get comfortable answering fluffy questions. But learn from this that your brand strength and viewer loyalty and corporate profits will not depend on Tom Perez but on how your stand by your core hosts. And one more lesson: When the Presidential debates start between President Trump and his Democrat opponent, Trump’s team must learn from the way that CNN’s Candy Crowley ambushed Mitt Romney and from the way that Tom Perez blacked out Fox. This round the Trump team must refuse absolutely to participate in any debate on any station until they carefully have approved the panel for neutrality and fairness. Any proposed panelist with the slightest tinge of bias — not just Acosta and Mourning Joe, but even the Jake Tappers and Lester Holts and that woman who cried on the air when Trump won in 2016 — must be deemed as utterly unacceptable. Looking at the names, most stations have one token honest journalist, some have two. Major Garrett at CBS. Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC. Charles Gibson and Frank Reynolds at ABC. James Earl Jones at CNN. So any of them would be OK. Because media matters.

www.spectator.org

right

1Icxp8Qx2nvcwcA7

test

CLI8cRYOwcUeMDEb

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/december/government-shutdown-likely-to-stretch-into-next-week

No Solution to Shutdown in Sight Before Dems Take House

2018-12-27

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — It ’ s looking increasingly like the partial government shutdown will be handed off to a divided government to solve in the new year — the first big confrontation between President Donald Trump and Democrats — as agreement eludes Washington in the waning days of the Republican monopoly on power . Now nearly a week old , the impasse is idling hundreds of thousands of federal workers and beginning to pinch citizens who count on varied public services . Gates are closed at some national parks , the government won ’ t issue new federal flood insurance policies and in New York , the chief judge of Manhattan federal courts suspended work on civil cases involving U.S. government lawyers , including several civil lawsuits in which Trump himself is a defendant . Congress is closing out the week without a resolution in sight over the issue holding up an agreement — Trump ’ s demand for money to build a border wall with Mexico and Democrats ’ refusal to give him what he wants . That sets up a struggle upfront when Democrats take control of the House on Jan. 3 . Trump has signaled he welcomes the fight as he heads toward his own bid for re-election in 2020 . “ This isn ’ t about the Wall , ” Trump tweeted Thursday . “ This is only about the Dems not letting Donald Trump & the Republicans have a win. ” He added Democrats may be able to block him now , “ but we have the issue , Border Security . 2020 ! ” With another long holiday weekend coming , just days before House Republicans relinquish control , there is little expectation of a quick fix . Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has vowed to pass legislation as soon as she takes the gavel , which is expected when the new Congress convenes , to reopen the 15 shuttered departments and dozens of agencies now hit by the partial shutdown . “ If they can ’ t do it before January 3 , then we will do it , ” said Rep. Jim McGovern , D-Mass. , incoming chairman of the Rules Committee . “ We ’ re going to do the responsible thing . We ’ re going to behave like adults and do our job . ” But even that may be difficult without a compromise because the Senate will remain in Republican hands and Trump ’ s signature will be needed to turn any bill into law . Negotiations continue between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill , but there ’ s only so much Congress can do without the president . Trump is not budging , having panned Democratic offers to keep money at current levels — $ 1.3 billion for border fencing , but not the wall . Senate Republicans approved that compromise in an earlier bill with Democrats but now say they won ’ t be voting on any more unless something is agreed to by all sides , including Trump . “ I think it ’ s obvious that until the president decides he can sign something — or something is presented to him — that we are where we are , ” said Sen. Pat Roberts , R-Kan. , who opened the Senate on Thursday for a session that only lasted minutes . “ Call it anything , ” he added , “ barrier , fence , I won ’ t say the ‘ w ’ word . ” Trump long promised that Mexico would pay for the wall , but Mexico refuses to do so . Federal workers and contractors forced to stay home or work without pay are experiencing mounting stress from the impasse . As the partial shutdown stretched toward a second week , Ethan James , 21 , a minimum-wage contractor sidelined from his job as an office worker at the Interior Department , wondered if he ’ d be able to make his rent . Contractors , unlike most federal employees , may never get back pay for being idled . “ I ’ m getting nervous , ” he said . “ I live check to check right now . ” For those without a financial cushion , even a few days of lost wages during the shutdown could have dire consequences . Roughly federal 420,000 workers were deemed essential and are working unpaid , unable to take any sick days or vacation . An additional 380,000 are staying home without pay . Like James , Mary Morrow , a components engineer on contract for NASA , is in a predicament . In addition to caring for a family largely on her own , she ’ s got a mortgage . “ I have three teenage boys , it ’ s near Christmas time and we just spent money , there are credit card bills and normal bills and it ’ s really nerve-wracking , ” she said . “ It ’ s scary . ” Steve Reaves , president of Federal Emergency Management Agency union , said the shutdown could have consequences that stretch beyond a temporary suspension of salary . Many federal government jobs require a security clearance , he said , and missed mortgage payments or deepening debt could hurt their clearance . David Dollard , a Federal Bureau of Prisons employee and chief steward for the American Federation of Government Employees Local 709 union in Colorado , said at least two agency employees lost their homes after the 2013 shutdown suspended their salaries . Bureau of Prisons employees are considered essential , and must work without pay . The agency is already understaffed , Dollard said . Shutdown conditions make everything worse . “ You start out at $ 44,000 a year , there ’ s not much room for anything else as far saving money for the next government shutdown , so it puts staff in a very hard situation , ” he said . “ We ’ ve got single fathers who have child support , alimony . It ’ s very hard to figure out what you ’ re going to do . ” Candice Nesbitt , 51 , has worked for 1½ years for the U.S. Coast Guard , the only branch of the military affected by the shutdown . About 44,000 Coast Guard employees are working this week without pay ; 6,000 , including Nesbitt , have been furloughed . Nesbitt worked for a contractor but took a pay cut in exchange for the stability of a government job . She has a mortgage , is the guardian of her special needs , 5-year-old grandson , and makes about $ 45,000 a year , she said . Any lapse in payment could plunge her into debt . “ It shakes me to the core , ” she said .

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s looking increasingly like the partial government shutdown will be handed off to a divided government to solve in the new year — the first big confrontation between President Donald Trump and Democrats — as agreement eludes Washington in the waning days of the Republican monopoly on power. Now nearly a week old, the impasse is idling hundreds of thousands of federal workers and beginning to pinch citizens who count on varied public services. Gates are closed at some national parks, the government won’t issue new federal flood insurance policies and in New York, the chief judge of Manhattan federal courts suspended work on civil cases involving U.S. government lawyers, including several civil lawsuits in which Trump himself is a defendant. Congress is closing out the week without a resolution in sight over the issue holding up an agreement — Trump’s demand for money to build a border wall with Mexico and Democrats’ refusal to give him what he wants. That sets up a struggle upfront when Democrats take control of the House on Jan. 3. Trump has signaled he welcomes the fight as he heads toward his own bid for re-election in 2020. “This isn’t about the Wall,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “This is only about the Dems not letting Donald Trump & the Republicans have a win.” He added Democrats may be able to block him now, “but we have the issue, Border Security. 2020!” With another long holiday weekend coming, just days before House Republicans relinquish control, there is little expectation of a quick fix. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has vowed to pass legislation as soon as she takes the gavel, which is expected when the new Congress convenes, to reopen the 15 shuttered departments and dozens of agencies now hit by the partial shutdown. “If they can’t do it before January 3, then we will do it,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., incoming chairman of the Rules Committee. “We’re going to do the responsible thing. We’re going to behave like adults and do our job.” But even that may be difficult without a compromise because the Senate will remain in Republican hands and Trump’s signature will be needed to turn any bill into law. Negotiations continue between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, but there’s only so much Congress can do without the president. Trump is not budging, having panned Democratic offers to keep money at current levels — $1.3 billion for border fencing, but not the wall. Senate Republicans approved that compromise in an earlier bill with Democrats but now say they won’t be voting on any more unless something is agreed to by all sides, including Trump. “I think it’s obvious that until the president decides he can sign something — or something is presented to him — that we are where we are,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who opened the Senate on Thursday for a session that only lasted minutes. “Call it anything,” he added, “barrier, fence, I won’t say the ‘w’ word.” Trump long promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, but Mexico refuses to do so. Federal workers and contractors forced to stay home or work without pay are experiencing mounting stress from the impasse. As the partial shutdown stretched toward a second week, Ethan James, 21, a minimum-wage contractor sidelined from his job as an office worker at the Interior Department, wondered if he’d be able to make his rent. Contractors, unlike most federal employees, may never get back pay for being idled. “I’m getting nervous,” he said. “I live check to check right now.” For those without a financial cushion, even a few days of lost wages during the shutdown could have dire consequences. Roughly federal 420,000 workers were deemed essential and are working unpaid, unable to take any sick days or vacation. An additional 380,000 are staying home without pay. Like James, Mary Morrow, a components engineer on contract for NASA, is in a predicament. In addition to caring for a family largely on her own, she’s got a mortgage. “I have three teenage boys, it’s near Christmas time and we just spent money, there are credit card bills and normal bills and it’s really nerve-wracking,” she said. “It’s scary.” Steve Reaves, president of Federal Emergency Management Agency union, said the shutdown could have consequences that stretch beyond a temporary suspension of salary. Many federal government jobs require a security clearance, he said, and missed mortgage payments or deepening debt could hurt their clearance. David Dollard, a Federal Bureau of Prisons employee and chief steward for the American Federation of Government Employees Local 709 union in Colorado, said at least two agency employees lost their homes after the 2013 shutdown suspended their salaries. Bureau of Prisons employees are considered essential, and must work without pay. The agency is already understaffed, Dollard said. Shutdown conditions make everything worse. “You start out at $44,000 a year, there’s not much room for anything else as far saving money for the next government shutdown, so it puts staff in a very hard situation,” he said. “We’ve got single fathers who have child support, alimony. It’s very hard to figure out what you’re going to do.” Candice Nesbitt, 51, has worked for 1½ years for the U.S. Coast Guard, the only branch of the military affected by the shutdown. About 44,000 Coast Guard employees are working this week without pay; 6,000, including Nesbitt, have been furloughed. Nesbitt worked for a contractor but took a pay cut in exchange for the stability of a government job. She has a mortgage, is the guardian of her special needs, 5-year-old grandson, and makes about $45,000 a year, she said. Any lapse in payment could plunge her into debt. “It shakes me to the core,” she said. Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

www1.cbn.com

right

CLI8cRYOwcUeMDEb

test

iWhOjxGwxnun5SpW

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/11/robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation

Trump v Mueller: how the president won the messaging wars

2019-06-11

Tom Mccarthy

Critics say Mueller failed to stand up for his investigation and to get the word out to the American people about what he found In so many ways , Robert Mueller was the right man for the job . The former special counsel was fast , precise , ran a tight ship and , working in a hyper-partisan environment under the full glare of history , Mueller managed to investigate and document a historic attack on the United States while retaining the public trust . But one week after Mueller first spoke out about his investigation of Russian election tampering and the Donald Trump campaign , concern has sharpened that in one big way – potentially the biggest way – Mueller was exactly the wrong man for the job . For when the pursuit of justice took Mueller into unprecedented terrain – as the special counsel ’ s investigation came under sustained public attack by the president and the attorney general , William Barr – Mueller failed , his critics say , both to stand up for his investigation and to get the word out to the American people about what he had found . “ To my mind , this is a Shakespearean-level tragedy , ” said Patrick Cotter , a former federal prosecutor who was part of the team that convicted the Gambino family boss John Gotti . “ It is the tragedy of the principled person , who is constrained by principle , being opposed by the completely unprincipled – Barr , and the president , and their lackeys . “ The principled are chained , and the unprincipled romp free . And in a debate over reality , the unprincipled will always win , because they will just lie , and they will make reality whatever they want it to be . ” It is the tragedy of the principled person , who is constrained by principle , being opposed by the completely unprincipled Patrick Cotter Congressional Democrats convened hearings on the Mueller report on Monday , and the judiciary committee chairman , Jerry Nadler , has said he would call Mueller to testify about the 11 instances of potentially criminal obstruction of justice committed by Donald Trump and his campaign that the Mueller report documents . But Mueller has refused , and has said he will continue to refuse , in discussions of his findings , to go beyond the language in his report , which declines to weigh evidence against the president while leaving open the possibility that crimes were committed . “ If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime , we would have said so , ” Mueller said at his news conference on 29 May , in a minor paraphrase of a memorably coy phrase from the document . But against the full firepower of Trump ’ s Twitter account – “ No collusion , no obstruction ” , it chants – and Barr ’ s strategic misrepresentations , Mueller ’ s indirect language fails to communicate to the American people the basic facts of the president ’ s egregious misconduct , critics say . “ Mueller went out like a lamb in his remarks Wednesday , when the country needed a lion , ” columnist David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post . “ He was so polite and deferential , so insistent on following Justice Department rules limiting his actions that , in practical terms , he ceded the ground to Trump and his apologists . ” There is no denial that Mueller , the starched former marine and FBI director , has been caught in a dilemma . To get out the truth about his report , he would need to go beyond its forensic discussion of the evidence , to characterize the thrust of that evidence . But to do that would , in Mueller ’ s view , be unfair to Trump , who as a sitting president can not be indicted , according to justice department guidelines , and so can not have his proverbial day in court to answer the charges against him . It ’ s not Mueller ’ s job as he sees it to interpret his findings . It is his job to present them , not for the justice department to further pursue , but perhaps for Congress to take up . “ People on cable TV say Mueller needs to get out there and be an advocate , ” said Harry Sandick , a former assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York . “ But if he did that , he wouldn ’ t be Mueller . That ’ s not who this person is , and the very reason why he has such credibility is because he didn ’ t engage in that sort of ongoing commentary . ” But others argue that Mueller has a greater duty in this case than painstaking adherence to a playbook written for prosecutors applying the law in quotidian matters . As perhaps the only person with the authority to cut through Trump ’ s lies about the Mueller report and to point the way toward justice , Mueller , by this view , has a national duty to call out the president ’ s lies and to tell the country , using plain language , what he found . He failed because he simply couldn ’ t bring himself to go just a little bit into common language and just say the simple , plain truth Cotter “ He saw the problem , ” Cotter said , referring to the Trump administration campaign of lies about the report . “ He recognized that he had to do something to try to fix it because it ’ s really important . But he failed . He failed because he simply couldn ’ t bring himself to go just a little bit into common language and just say the simple , plain truth . ” Preet Bharara , the former US attorney in the southern district of New York , thought that in his only public address in the two years of his investigation , Mueller seemed unusually drawn . “ It was the same Bob Mueller , ” Bharara said on his podcast . “ He seemed a little less strong in his manner than he usually does . He seemed a little bit more reluctant than I ’ ve seen him before , at other events . ” Mueller ’ s relatively mild presentation was a refreshing change from the typically overheated quality of the national discourse , said Sandick , who was one of more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors and justice department officials to co-sign a letter saying that the Mueller report documents conduct that would be chargeable as criminal were it committed by anyone but the president . “ Hasn ’ t our national debate been coarsened enough , and shouldn ’ t we appreciate the old-school attributes of somebody like Bob Mueller , who declined to engage in hand-to-hand combat with 140 characters ? ” asked Sandick . “ Prosecutors aren ’ t television hosts . They ’ re not entertainers , and they should do their talking in the courtroom and in their court filings . It ’ s not their job to wage the battle of public opinion . It ’ s their job to investigate and prosecute crimes . ” But in fulfilling a prescribed duty , Mueller failed a higher one , said Cotter . “ I think what America needed at this moment was a slightly less strictly principled person , ” he said , “ who was willing to actually take the heat for being arguably somewhat less than 100 % principled in the legal construct , and just talk to people in plain , simple language . ”

Critics say Mueller failed to stand up for his investigation and to get the word out to the American people about what he found In so many ways, Robert Mueller was the right man for the job. The former special counsel was fast, precise, ran a tight ship and, working in a hyper-partisan environment under the full glare of history, Mueller managed to investigate and document a historic attack on the United States while retaining the public trust. But one week after Mueller first spoke out about his investigation of Russian election tampering and the Donald Trump campaign, concern has sharpened that in one big way – potentially the biggest way – Mueller was exactly the wrong man for the job. For when the pursuit of justice took Mueller into unprecedented terrain – as the special counsel’s investigation came under sustained public attack by the president and the attorney general, William Barr – Mueller failed, his critics say, both to stand up for his investigation and to get the word out to the American people about what he had found. “To my mind, this is a Shakespearean-level tragedy,” said Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor who was part of the team that convicted the Gambino family boss John Gotti. “It is the tragedy of the principled person, who is constrained by principle, being opposed by the completely unprincipled – Barr, and the president, and their lackeys. “The principled are chained, and the unprincipled romp free. And in a debate over reality, the unprincipled will always win, because they will just lie, and they will make reality whatever they want it to be.” It is the tragedy of the principled person, who is constrained by principle, being opposed by the completely unprincipled Patrick Cotter Congressional Democrats convened hearings on the Mueller report on Monday, and the judiciary committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, has said he would call Mueller to testify about the 11 instances of potentially criminal obstruction of justice committed by Donald Trump and his campaign that the Mueller report documents. But Mueller has refused, and has said he will continue to refuse, in discussions of his findings, to go beyond the language in his report, which declines to weigh evidence against the president while leaving open the possibility that crimes were committed. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said at his news conference on 29 May, in a minor paraphrase of a memorably coy phrase from the document. But against the full firepower of Trump’s Twitter account – “No collusion, no obstruction”, it chants – and Barr’s strategic misrepresentations, Mueller’s indirect language fails to communicate to the American people the basic facts of the president’s egregious misconduct, critics say. “Mueller went out like a lamb in his remarks Wednesday, when the country needed a lion,” columnist David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post. “He was so polite and deferential, so insistent on following Justice Department rules limiting his actions that, in practical terms, he ceded the ground to Trump and his apologists.” There is no denial that Mueller, the starched former marine and FBI director, has been caught in a dilemma. To get out the truth about his report, he would need to go beyond its forensic discussion of the evidence, to characterize the thrust of that evidence. But to do that would, in Mueller’s view, be unfair to Trump, who as a sitting president cannot be indicted, according to justice department guidelines, and so cannot have his proverbial day in court to answer the charges against him. It’s not Mueller’s job as he sees it to interpret his findings. It is his job to present them, not for the justice department to further pursue, but perhaps for Congress to take up. “People on cable TV say Mueller needs to get out there and be an advocate,” said Harry Sandick, a former assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York. “But if he did that, he wouldn’t be Mueller. That’s not who this person is, and the very reason why he has such credibility is because he didn’t engage in that sort of ongoing commentary.” But others argue that Mueller has a greater duty in this case than painstaking adherence to a playbook written for prosecutors applying the law in quotidian matters. As perhaps the only person with the authority to cut through Trump’s lies about the Mueller report and to point the way toward justice, Mueller, by this view, has a national duty to call out the president’s lies and to tell the country, using plain language, what he found. He failed because he simply couldn’t bring himself to go just a little bit into common language and just say the simple, plain truth Cotter “He saw the problem,” Cotter said, referring to the Trump administration campaign of lies about the report. “He recognized that he had to do something to try to fix it because it’s really important. But he failed. He failed because he simply couldn’t bring himself to go just a little bit into common language and just say the simple, plain truth.” Preet Bharara, the former US attorney in the southern district of New York, thought that in his only public address in the two years of his investigation, Mueller seemed unusually drawn. “It was the same Bob Mueller,” Bharara said on his podcast. “He seemed a little less strong in his manner than he usually does. He seemed a little bit more reluctant than I’ve seen him before, at other events.” Mueller’s relatively mild presentation was a refreshing change from the typically overheated quality of the national discourse, said Sandick, who was one of more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors and justice department officials to co-sign a letter saying that the Mueller report documents conduct that would be chargeable as criminal were it committed by anyone but the president. “Hasn’t our national debate been coarsened enough, and shouldn’t we appreciate the old-school attributes of somebody like Bob Mueller, who declined to engage in hand-to-hand combat with 140 characters?” asked Sandick. “Prosecutors aren’t television hosts. They’re not entertainers, and they should do their talking in the courtroom and in their court filings. It’s not their job to wage the battle of public opinion. It’s their job to investigate and prosecute crimes.” But in fulfilling a prescribed duty, Mueller failed a higher one, said Cotter. “I think what America needed at this moment was a slightly less strictly principled person,” he said, “who was willing to actually take the heat for being arguably somewhat less than 100% principled in the legal construct, and just talk to people in plain, simple language.”

www.theguardian.com

left

iWhOjxGwxnun5SpW

test

EzANsnhWscKKBZ69

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/15/current-former-christie-aides-to-be-subpoenaed-sources-say/?hpt=po_c1

Current, former Christie aides to be subpoenaed, sources say

2014-01-15

( CNN ) - A special New Jersey State Assembly committee investigating the George Washington Bridge scandal that has rocked the administration of Gov . Chris Christie gets to work on Thursday , and the first priority is to subpoena documents as well as current and former aides , two sources familiar with the matter told CNN . Former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly , the governor 's chief spokesman , Mike Drewniak , and Bill Stepien , a sharp-elbowed Christie political confidante who managed both his successful gubernatorial runs , are on the list , according to the sources . Other names are also being discussed by the panel that is led by Democrats and will be assisted by a key figure in the federal prosecution of former Illinois Gov . Rod Blagojevich . The new committee will take the lead from the Assembly 's transportation panel . The New Jersey Senate also has its own special panel conducting an investigation . The U.S. Attorney 's Office in New Jersey is also looking into the scandal that threatens to complicate Christie 's political prospects , which include a possible run for president in 2016 . At issue is whether top aides to the embattled Republican orchestrated traffic gridlock last September on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge as political payback against the mayor of Fort Lee , who did not endorse Christie for re-election last November . Christie has said he was stunned by the suggestion , which was first made by Democrats and subsequently magnified by explosive e-mails released last week by state legislators . Christie fired Kelly . Her name appeared in e-mails with an appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey , David Wildstein , who left his job as the scandal unfolded last fall . One e-mail quoted her as saying : `` Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee . '' In other exchanges involving Wildstein , Stepien described Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich , a Democrat , as an `` idiot . '' E-mails also suggested that Stepien was aware of the maneuvering that led to traffic gridlock . Christie asked Stepien to leave his political operation . E-mails do not link Drewniak to the traffic jam scandal or even suggest it . But they do indicate that he had dinner with Wildstein two days before the transportation official resigned in December . Wildstein thanked him for his `` sound advice , '' and the two men later e-mailed back and forth about how to announce his departure from the Port Authority . On Tuesday , Christie addressed the scandal briefly in his State of the State address , saying that `` mistakes were clearly made . '' He said previously , however , that he knew nothing about any notion of a deliberate attempt to tie up traffic , much less exact revenge on Sokolich . For now , the scandal with overtones of abuse of authority has not resonated much with the public nationally , according to one poll . An NBC News/Marist survey released Wednesday indicated that nearly seven in 10 of those questioned said the bridge controversy had not changed their opinion of Christie , and nearly half describe him as a `` strong leader . '' Only a quarter labeled Christie , known for his swagger and forthright political style , a `` bully . '' The special committee led by Democratic Assemblyman John Wisniewski , who has led the investigation to date , plans to review the documents first , then hear testimony from witnesses . Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar , currently in private practice specializing in white-collar defense and investigations , will assist the panel . He was a point-person in the federal prosecution of Blagojevich , who was convicted in 2011 of corruption charges related to his attempts to `` sell '' Barack Obama 's Senate seat after he was elected President . `` It 's vital to have someone of the caliber of Mr. Schar joining us in this effort , '' Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto said in a release announcing the appointment .

6 years ago (CNN) - A special New Jersey State Assembly committee investigating the George Washington Bridge scandal that has rocked the administration of Gov. Chris Christie gets to work on Thursday, and the first priority is to subpoena documents as well as current and former aides, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly, the governor's chief spokesman, Mike Drewniak, and Bill Stepien, a sharp-elbowed Christie political confidante who managed both his successful gubernatorial runs, are on the list, according to the sources. Follow @politicalticker Other names are also being discussed by the panel that is led by Democrats and will be assisted by a key figure in the federal prosecution of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The new committee will take the lead from the Assembly's transportation panel. The New Jersey Senate also has its own special panel conducting an investigation. The U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey is also looking into the scandal that threatens to complicate Christie's political prospects, which include a possible run for president in 2016. At issue is whether top aides to the embattled Republican orchestrated traffic gridlock last September on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge as political payback against the mayor of Fort Lee, who did not endorse Christie for re-election last November. Christie has said he was stunned by the suggestion, which was first made by Democrats and subsequently magnified by explosive e-mails released last week by state legislators. Christie fired Kelly. Her name appeared in e-mails with an appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, David Wildstein, who left his job as the scandal unfolded last fall. One e-mail quoted her as saying: "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." In other exchanges involving Wildstein, Stepien described Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, as an "idiot." E-mails also suggested that Stepien was aware of the maneuvering that led to traffic gridlock. Christie asked Stepien to leave his political operation. E-mails do not link Drewniak to the traffic jam scandal or even suggest it. But they do indicate that he had dinner with Wildstein two days before the transportation official resigned in December. Wildstein thanked him for his "sound advice," and the two men later e-mailed back and forth about how to announce his departure from the Port Authority. On Tuesday, Christie addressed the scandal briefly in his State of the State address, saying that "mistakes were clearly made." He said previously, however, that he knew nothing about any notion of a deliberate attempt to tie up traffic, much less exact revenge on Sokolich. For now, the scandal with overtones of abuse of authority has not resonated much with the public nationally, according to one poll. An NBC News/Marist survey released Wednesday indicated that nearly seven in 10 of those questioned said the bridge controversy had not changed their opinion of Christie, and nearly half describe him as a "strong leader." Only a quarter labeled Christie, known for his swagger and forthright political style, a "bully." The special committee led by Democratic Assemblyman John Wisniewski, who has led the investigation to date, plans to review the documents first, then hear testimony from witnesses. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar, currently in private practice specializing in white-collar defense and investigations, will assist the panel. He was a point-person in the federal prosecution of Blagojevich, who was convicted in 2011 of corruption charges related to his attempts to "sell" Barack Obama's Senate seat after he was elected President. "It's vital to have someone of the caliber of Mr. Schar joining us in this effort," Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto said in a release announcing the appointment.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

EzANsnhWscKKBZ69

test

EpeNKrMWiScat2Hm

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/loretta-lynch-vote-mcconnell/2015/03/15/id/630206/

Human-Trafficking Bill Fight Could Hold Up Loretta Lynch Vote

2015-03-15

The U.S. Senate majority leader said Sunday he would not schedule a vote to confirm President Barack Obama 's nominee for attorney general , Loretta Lynch , until Democrats stop blocking an unrelated human trafficking bill . Republican Senator Mitch McConnell told CNN 's `` State of the Union '' program he had planned to take up Lynch 's nomination this week but may put it off if an anti-human trafficking measure does not pass first . Democrats last week objected to anti-abortion provisions in that bill , which is otherwise widely supported . But McConnell said the language had been part of the legislation all along , including when it was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee . `` This will have an impact of the timing of considering a new attorney general , '' McConnell said . `` I had hoped to turn to her next week but if we ca n't finish the trafficking bill she will be put off again . '' Politico reported Sunday that the delay could jeopardize Lynch 's confirmation and possibly damage both parties . The GOP might become viewed as holding up a history-making nomination . It also could give Republicans who are on the fence about Lynch an opportunity to vote against her , setting her up for confirmation by the smallest margin in history , Politico says . The Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26 voted in favor of Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder , clearing the way for her expected confirmation in the full Senate . But even the committee vote had fallen victim to partisan bickering . Senate Republicans delayed a scheduled vote on her nomination last month to scrutinize Lynch 's record , in particular her support of the Obama administration 's executive actions on immigration . `` I think the attorney general nominee is suffering from the president 's actions , there 's no question about it , '' McConnell said . McConnell said Obama 's immigration orders , which provided a pathway to legal status for millions of undocumented Americans , enraged many senators . At her Jan. 28 confirmation hearing , Lynch sought to smooth interactions with Republicans , who have repeatedly clashed with Holder . Since the hearing , a Texas district court has thrown Obama 's executive order on immigration into legal limbo .

The U.S. Senate majority leader said Sunday he would not schedule a vote to confirm President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch, until Democrats stop blocking an unrelated human trafficking bill. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell told CNN's "State of the Union" program he had planned to take up Lynch's nomination this week but may put it off if an anti-human trafficking measure does not pass first. Democrats last week objected to anti-abortion provisions in that bill, which is otherwise widely supported. But McConnell said the language had been part of the legislation all along, including when it was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. "This will have an impact of the timing of considering a new attorney general," McConnell said. "I had hoped to turn to her next week but if we can't finish the trafficking bill she will be put off again." Politico reported Sunday that the delay could jeopardize Lynch's confirmation and possibly damage both parties. The GOP might become viewed as holding up a history-making nomination. It also could give Republicans who are on the fence about Lynch an opportunity to vote against her, setting her up for confirmation by the smallest margin in history, Politico says. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26 voted in favor of Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder, clearing the way for her expected confirmation in the full Senate. But even the committee vote had fallen victim to partisan bickering. Senate Republicans delayed a scheduled vote on her nomination last month to scrutinize Lynch's record, in particular her support of the Obama administration's executive actions on immigration. "I think the attorney general nominee is suffering from the president's actions, there's no question about it," McConnell said. McConnell said Obama's immigration orders, which provided a pathway to legal status for millions of undocumented Americans, enraged many senators. At her Jan. 28 confirmation hearing, Lynch sought to smooth interactions with Republicans, who have repeatedly clashed with Holder. Since the hearing, a Texas district court has thrown Obama's executive order on immigration into legal limbo. Reuters contributed to this report.

www.newsmax.com

right

EpeNKrMWiScat2Hm

test

eINEuXs0pMTcqJ9W

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/ex-trump-aide-manafort-lied-to-banks-tax-authorities-prosecutor-idUSKBN1L0100

Ex-Trump aide Manafort lied to banks, tax authorities: prosecutor

2018-08-15

Karen Freifeld

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - Paul Manafort had “ a huge dumpster of hidden money ” abroad , a prosecutor said on Wednesday , urging a jury to convict U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s former campaign chief on financial fraud charges based more on a paper trail of evidence than on the testimony of a former protege . Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Andres gave his closing statement in federal court in Alexandria , Virginia , where Manafort is on trial on tax and bank fraud charges , along with failing to disclose foreign bank accounts . The jury is expected to begin deliberating on a verdict on Thursday morning . The trial is the first to come out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . The charges involve tax and bank fraud , not possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump ’ s campaign for president . A Manafort conviction would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller ’ s Russia inquiry as a political witch hunt , while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel . The star witness against Manafort was seen as Rick Gates , his former right-hand man , who was indicted along with Manafort but pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government . The defense has portrayed Gates as a lying thief who had his hand in the “ cookie jar ” and was only trying to reduce his own sentence , noting Gates will be allowed to argue for probation even though he admitted to embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars and being involved in Manafort ’ s alleged crimes . Andres argued that while Manafort did not “ choose a Boy Scout ” as his associate , Gates ’ testimony was corroborated by other evidence , including nearly 400 exhibits , and a series of financial professionals who took the stand for the prosecution . “ The star witness in this case is the documents , ” Andres told the jury . “ That wasn ’ t a cookie jar , ” he added , referring to the tens of millions of dollars Manafort held overseas . “ It was a huge dumpster of hidden money in foreign bank accounts . ” Prosecutors say Manafort , 69 , tried to mislead bankers with doctored financial statements in 2015 and 2016 to secure more than $ 20 million in loans and failed to pay taxes on more than $ 15 million that he earned as a political consultant in Ukraine . Defense lawyers decided not to call any witnesses in the trial , and Manafort , a veteran Republican political operative , did not testify in his own defense . In the defense ’ s closing argument , Manafort ’ s lawyers argued that issues with his financial situation were known to the bankers before they extended him the loans . They also sought to emphasize the idea that Manafort did not knowingly break the law - a requirement for conviction - and was rather failed by the bookkeepers , accountants and other professionals in whom he trusted his financial affairs . “ Sometimes the people we rely on are trustworthy . Sometimes they are not , ” said lawyer Richard Westling . The defense took particular aim at Gates , who admitted in court to an extramarital affair . Gates also said he helped Manafort doctor financial statements , hide foreign income and evade hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. income taxes . Manafort ’ s attorneys have portrayed Gates as living a secret life of infidelity and embezzlement . Defense lawyer Kevin Downing told the jury that Gates had shown himself to be a liar . “ He came in here trying to look all clean shaven , ” Downing said . “ He came in here and tried to get one over on you . ” Manafort made millions of dollars working for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians before taking an unpaid position with Trump ’ s campaign . He was on the campaign team for five months and led it in mid-2016 when Trump was selected as the Republican presidential nominee . Prosecutors say Manafort hid money in offshore bank accounts and then used it to pay for over $ 6 million in New York and Virginia real estate , items such as antique rugs and fancy clothes , including a $ 15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin . If found guilty on all 18 charges by the 12-person jury , he could face eight to 10 years in prison , according to sentencing expert Justin Paperny . Manafort also faces a second trial in September in Washington , where he is accused of failing to disclose lobbying for Ukrainian politicians , among other crimes . After the defense concluded its closing argument , Andres objected to Downing ’ s suggestions that a civil audit would have been more appropriate for Manafort ’ s tax issues and that Mueller ’ s office had unfairly singled him out . Judge T.S . Ellis sided with Andres , and when he later gave instructions to jurors , he told them that the government was not required to do a civil tax audit before bringing criminal charges . He also instructed them to ignore any argument about the Department of Justice ’ s motives in bringing the case . “ We don ’ t want the jury deciding this case on that issue , ” Ellis said earlier . Before the jurors left for the day , the judge suggested that they not discuss their deliberations with the media after the verdict , claiming it might have a “ chilling effect . ”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Paul Manafort had “a huge dumpster of hidden money” abroad, a prosecutor said on Wednesday, urging a jury to convict U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chief on financial fraud charges based more on a paper trail of evidence than on the testimony of a former protege. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Andres gave his closing statement in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where Manafort is on trial on tax and bank fraud charges, along with failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. The jury is expected to begin deliberating on a verdict on Thursday morning. The trial is the first to come out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The charges involve tax and bank fraud, not possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign for president. A Manafort conviction would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller’s Russia inquiry as a political witch hunt, while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel. The star witness against Manafort was seen as Rick Gates, his former right-hand man, who was indicted along with Manafort but pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government. The defense has portrayed Gates as a lying thief who had his hand in the “cookie jar” and was only trying to reduce his own sentence, noting Gates will be allowed to argue for probation even though he admitted to embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars and being involved in Manafort’s alleged crimes. Andres argued that while Manafort did not “choose a Boy Scout” as his associate, Gates’ testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including nearly 400 exhibits, and a series of financial professionals who took the stand for the prosecution. “The star witness in this case is the documents,” Andres told the jury. “That wasn’t a cookie jar,” he added, referring to the tens of millions of dollars Manafort held overseas. “It was a huge dumpster of hidden money in foreign bank accounts.” DOCTORED STATEMENTS Prosecutors say Manafort, 69, tried to mislead bankers with doctored financial statements in 2015 and 2016 to secure more than $20 million in loans and failed to pay taxes on more than $15 million that he earned as a political consultant in Ukraine. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo Defense lawyers decided not to call any witnesses in the trial, and Manafort, a veteran Republican political operative, did not testify in his own defense. In the defense’s closing argument, Manafort’s lawyers argued that issues with his financial situation were known to the bankers before they extended him the loans. They also sought to emphasize the idea that Manafort did not knowingly break the law - a requirement for conviction - and was rather failed by the bookkeepers, accountants and other professionals in whom he trusted his financial affairs. “Sometimes the people we rely on are trustworthy. Sometimes they are not,” said lawyer Richard Westling. The defense took particular aim at Gates, who admitted in court to an extramarital affair. Gates also said he helped Manafort doctor financial statements, hide foreign income and evade hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. income taxes. Manafort’s attorneys have portrayed Gates as living a secret life of infidelity and embezzlement. Defense lawyer Kevin Downing told the jury that Gates had shown himself to be a liar. “He came in here trying to look all clean shaven,” Downing said. “He came in here and tried to get one over on you.” Manafort made millions of dollars working for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians before taking an unpaid position with Trump’s campaign. He was on the campaign team for five months and led it in mid-2016 when Trump was selected as the Republican presidential nominee. Prosecutors say Manafort hid money in offshore bank accounts and then used it to pay for over $6 million in New York and Virginia real estate, items such as antique rugs and fancy clothes, including a $15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin. If found guilty on all 18 charges by the 12-person jury, he could face eight to 10 years in prison, according to sentencing expert Justin Paperny. Manafort also faces a second trial in September in Washington, where he is accused of failing to disclose lobbying for Ukrainian politicians, among other crimes. After the defense concluded its closing argument, Andres objected to Downing’s suggestions that a civil audit would have been more appropriate for Manafort’s tax issues and that Mueller’s office had unfairly singled him out. Slideshow (8 Images) Judge T.S. Ellis sided with Andres, and when he later gave instructions to jurors, he told them that the government was not required to do a civil tax audit before bringing criminal charges. He also instructed them to ignore any argument about the Department of Justice’s motives in bringing the case. “We don’t want the jury deciding this case on that issue,” Ellis said earlier. Before the jurors left for the day, the judge suggested that they not discuss their deliberations with the media after the verdict, claiming it might have a “chilling effect.”

www.reuters.com

center

eINEuXs0pMTcqJ9W

test

bMD2nbL0YklioaQA

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-news-they-wont-report/

The News They Won’t Report

Robert Stacy Mccain, Paul Kengor, F.H. Buckley, George Neumayr, Daniel J. Flynn, Shmuel Klatzkin, David Catron

Jake Tapper doesn ’ t want you to know the name of the so-called “ whistleblower ” who caused the impeachment drama . Of course , the identity of Eric Ciaramella was never much of a secret — lots of people in D.C. knew that the former National Security Council staffer was the reputed source for California Rep. Adam Schiff ’ s investigation of President Trump ’ s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky . Ciaramella ’ s name has been in many news stories in recent months : “ Report : Anti-Trump Complainant Eric Ciaramella Worked With Brennan , Biden , and DNC Operative Chalupa ” ( American Greatness , Oct. 30 , 2019 ) and “ Open Society Emails Show Anti-Trump CIA ‘ Whistleblower ’ Eric Ciaramella Was Updated on George Soros ’ s Personal Ukraine Activities ” ( Gateway Pundit , Nov. 17 , 2019 ) , to cite just a couple . But CNN viewers have never heard Ciaramella identified , and Jake Tapper evidently wants to prevent anyone else from reporting this fact , either . Wednesday afternoon , Tapper tweeted , “ A Trump campaign official just RTed a tweet containing the name of the alleged whistleblower. ” Tapper ’ s third-grade tattletale behavior was in response to Trump campaign deputy communications director Matt Wolking retweeting investigative journalist Paul Sperry , with a photo showing Ciaramella meeting with Ukrainian officials in 2015 . Why doesn ’ t Tapper want anyone to see that photo ? Perhaps because it shows Ciaramella taking notes while seated between Liz Zentos , who was Eastern Europe director on the National Security Council at the time , and Michael Carpenter , a foreign-policy adviser to then-Vice President Joe Biden . Sperry pointed out that , in January 2018 , Carpenter was seated beside Biden at the Council for Foreign Relations event when Biden notoriously boasted about using U.S. aid as leverage to force Ukraine to fire a prosecutor . In other words , the photo illustrates what Trump ’ s defenders have been saying for months about Schiff ’ s investigation : that it is a partisan witch hunt in which the alleged “ whistleblower ” is part of a cabal of Democrat loyalists with close ties to Biden . This has become an issue in the Senate trial , in which Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul attempted to ask about connections between Eric Ciaramella and his former NSC colleague Sean Misko , who “ joined Schiff ’ s committee staff in August , the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint . ” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to admit Paul ’ s question in the trial , but why was Tapper playing Twitter tattletale against a Trump campaign staffer in an apparent effort to suppress the name Eric Ciaramella ? As Professor Glenn Reynolds has often said , the media in general have become “ Democratic Party operatives with bylines. ” Their coverage is organized on the basis of what will help Democrats win elections and advance the party ’ s agenda , and anything contrary to that organizing principle , they consider not newsworthy . Tapper and his network — now consistently third place in the cable-news ratings — are a perfect example of how this principle operates . The decline of CNN illustrates why this one-sided political bias is bad for the news business and ultimately also bad for Democrats . How did Donald Trump get elected , after all ? During the 2016 presidential campaign , CNN went so all in on its support of Hillary Clinton that its coverage amounted to a massive contribution-in-kind to her campaign . The bias was so obvious during the Democratic primaries that supporters of Hillary ’ s rival Bernie Sanders dubbed CNN the “ Clinton News Network. ” Why did CNN treat Sanders so unfairly ? Wasn ’ t it because they viewed Clinton as the more “ electable ” candidate in the general election ? That confidence in Clinton ’ s electability , widely shared in the so-called “ mainstream ” media , arguably fed into the over-confidence within the Clinton campaign , which clearly underestimated Trump ’ s appeal to blue-collar voters in states like Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin . The media in 2016 conveyed the idea that Trump couldn ’ t possibly be elected , but apparently 62.9 million voters didn ’ t get the memo . The benefit of having a majority of the new media acting as Democratic propaganda operatives is diminished if ( a ) Democrats make the mistake of believing their own publicity , or ( b ) the public becomes aware of the unbalanced nature of what is being presented as “ news. ” In 2016 , biased coverage led Democrats to underestimate the appeal of Trump ’ s populist message , and Trump made it a habit to call attention to how biased the media really is . If Tapper and his CNN colleagues want to treat Eric Ciaramella ’ s identity as a secret , they are free to do so . Others , however , are free not only to name Ciaramella but also to point out that CNN is deliberately refusing to report important information relevant to the impeachment trial . Yet in contradiction to basic First Amendment principles , anti-Trump media types like Tapper evidently wish to silence their critics . What did Tapper imagine would be the effect of his tattling on Matt Wolking ? Did he suppose the Trump campaign would fire Wolking ? Or did he hope that perhaps Twitter ’ s own censorship squads ( the Orwellian “ Trust and Safety Council ” ) would suppress Wolking ’ s Twitter account ? This attitude — an apparent desire to silence anyone who doesn ’ t share their political agenda — is what makes the anti-Trump media not only “ the enemy of the people , ” as Trump has called them , but also their own worst enemy . By the blatant obviousness of their bias , journalists like Tapper undermine their own credibility and inspire a sense of public paranoia . If Americans can ’ t trust “ the most trusted name in news ” ( which CNN claims to be ) , doesn ’ t this feed into the belief that elite insiders exercise nefarious influence in our national affairs ? Such distrust of elites explains not only right-wing populist support for Trump but also left-wing populist support for Bernie Sanders . The truth that CNN is trying to suppress , after all , involves Hunter Biden ’ s $ 83,000 a month job with the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma — and Trump ’ s effort to convince Ukraine to investigate that deal is exactly why there is an impeachment trial going on in the Senate . It is entirely legal to publish the name Eric Ciaramella as a crucial link in the chain of events that led us to this point . After Tapper tried to scold Wolking on Twitter , Wolking fired right back , and soon Twitter was filled with mentions of Ciaramella ’ s name ( see , for example , Juanita Broaddrick ’ s tweet , which got more than 6,000 retweets in 24 hours ) . Wolking went on to explain that the belief that it is illegal to name Ciaramella is a “ myth created by Adam Schiff and his allies in the media to prevent the American people from learning about the origins of the Democrats ’ totally partisan impeachment sham . ” Reports indicate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes he has the votes to bring this impeachment to a swift conclusion . But the problems caused by bias in the media will continue , and Democrats will suffer most of anyone because of those problems . Simple question : Why did Nancy Pelosi believe this impeachment would succeed ? Isn ’ t it because she believed the media would help her drive Trump from office ? But she couldn ’ t get a single House Republican to vote for impeachment , and the Senate trial has been a debacle for Democrats . Headlines like “ Schiff Throws Temper Tantrum About His Staff Getting ‘ Smeared ’ by Reports on the ‘ Whistleblower ’ ” ( PJ Media ) and “ Top 8 Reasons Trump Already Won Impeachment ” ( The Federalist ) suggest what a disaster Pelosi led her party into . But CNN ’ s dwindling audience has no idea , because Jake Tapper won ’ t tell them . Who will tell them ? The president of the United States , that ’ s who . The massive crowds turn out for Trump ’ s rallies cheer when he criticizes the “ fake news ” media . Impeachment actually appears to have made Trump more popular . Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics noted this week , “ Trump ’ s job approval is now the highest it has been in our average since Feb. 5 , 2017. ” Does anyone think this trend will be reversed if , somehow , Democrats can get enough GOP senators to cross the aisle and vote to drag out the impeachment trial beyond this weekend ? Maybe Jake Tapper thinks so , but he seems to believe his job is to report only what Democrats want to hear — and the most important news , he never reports at all . Keep it up , Jake , and you ’ ll get lots of credit when Trump gets reelected in November .

Jake Tapper doesn’t want you to know the name of the so-called “whistleblower” who caused the impeachment drama. Of course, the identity of Eric Ciaramella was never much of a secret — lots of people in D.C. knew that the former National Security Council staffer was the reputed source for California Rep. Adam Schiff’s investigation of President Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Ciaramella’s name has been in many news stories in recent months: “Report: Anti-Trump Complainant Eric Ciaramella Worked With Brennan, Biden, and DNC Operative Chalupa” (American Greatness, Oct. 30, 2019) and “Open Society Emails Show Anti-Trump CIA ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Was Updated on George Soros’s Personal Ukraine Activities” (Gateway Pundit, Nov. 17, 2019), to cite just a couple. But CNN viewers have never heard Ciaramella identified, and Jake Tapper evidently wants to prevent anyone else from reporting this fact, either. Wednesday afternoon, Tapper tweeted, “A Trump campaign official just RTed a tweet containing the name of the alleged whistleblower.” Tapper’s third-grade tattletale behavior was in response to Trump campaign deputy communications director Matt Wolking retweeting investigative journalist Paul Sperry, with a photo showing Ciaramella meeting with Ukrainian officials in 2015. Why doesn’t Tapper want anyone to see that photo? Perhaps because it shows Ciaramella taking notes while seated between Liz Zentos, who was Eastern Europe director on the National Security Council at the time, and Michael Carpenter, a foreign-policy adviser to then-Vice President Joe Biden. Sperry pointed out that, in January 2018, Carpenter was seated beside Biden at the Council for Foreign Relations event when Biden notoriously boasted about using U.S. aid as leverage to force Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. In other words, the photo illustrates what Trump’s defenders have been saying for months about Schiff’s investigation: that it is a partisan witch hunt in which the alleged “whistleblower” is part of a cabal of Democrat loyalists with close ties to Biden. This has become an issue in the Senate trial, in which Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul attempted to ask about connections between Eric Ciaramella and his former NSC colleague Sean Misko, who “joined Schiff’s committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint.” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to admit Paul’s question in the trial, but why was Tapper playing Twitter tattletale against a Trump campaign staffer in an apparent effort to suppress the name Eric Ciaramella? As Professor Glenn Reynolds has often said, the media in general have become “Democratic Party operatives with bylines.” Their coverage is organized on the basis of what will help Democrats win elections and advance the party’s agenda, and anything contrary to that organizing principle, they consider not newsworthy. Tapper and his network — now consistently third place in the cable-news ratings — are a perfect example of how this principle operates. The decline of CNN illustrates why this one-sided political bias is bad for the news business and ultimately also bad for Democrats. How did Donald Trump get elected, after all? During the 2016 presidential campaign, CNN went so all in on its support of Hillary Clinton that its coverage amounted to a massive contribution-in-kind to her campaign. The bias was so obvious during the Democratic primaries that supporters of Hillary’s rival Bernie Sanders dubbed CNN the “Clinton News Network.” Why did CNN treat Sanders so unfairly? Wasn’t it because they viewed Clinton as the more “electable” candidate in the general election? That confidence in Clinton’s electability, widely shared in the so-called “mainstream” media, arguably fed into the over-confidence within the Clinton campaign, which clearly underestimated Trump’s appeal to blue-collar voters in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The media in 2016 conveyed the idea that Trump couldn’t possibly be elected, but apparently 62.9 million voters didn’t get the memo. The benefit of having a majority of the new media acting as Democratic propaganda operatives is diminished if (a) Democrats make the mistake of believing their own publicity, or (b) the public becomes aware of the unbalanced nature of what is being presented as “news.” In 2016, biased coverage led Democrats to underestimate the appeal of Trump’s populist message, and Trump made it a habit to call attention to how biased the media really is. If Tapper and his CNN colleagues want to treat Eric Ciaramella’s identity as a secret, they are free to do so. Others, however, are free not only to name Ciaramella but also to point out that CNN is deliberately refusing to report important information relevant to the impeachment trial. Yet in contradiction to basic First Amendment principles, anti-Trump media types like Tapper evidently wish to silence their critics. What did Tapper imagine would be the effect of his tattling on Matt Wolking? Did he suppose the Trump campaign would fire Wolking? Or did he hope that perhaps Twitter’s own censorship squads (the Orwellian “Trust and Safety Council”) would suppress Wolking’s Twitter account? This attitude — an apparent desire to silence anyone who doesn’t share their political agenda — is what makes the anti-Trump media not only “the enemy of the people,” as Trump has called them, but also their own worst enemy. By the blatant obviousness of their bias, journalists like Tapper undermine their own credibility and inspire a sense of public paranoia. If Americans can’t trust “the most trusted name in news” (which CNN claims to be), doesn’t this feed into the belief that elite insiders exercise nefarious influence in our national affairs? Such distrust of elites explains not only right-wing populist support for Trump but also left-wing populist support for Bernie Sanders. The truth that CNN is trying to suppress, after all, involves Hunter Biden’s $83,000 a month job with the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma — and Trump’s effort to convince Ukraine to investigate that deal is exactly why there is an impeachment trial going on in the Senate. It is entirely legal to publish the name Eric Ciaramella as a crucial link in the chain of events that led us to this point. After Tapper tried to scold Wolking on Twitter, Wolking fired right back, and soon Twitter was filled with mentions of Ciaramella’s name (see, for example, Juanita Broaddrick’s tweet, which got more than 6,000 retweets in 24 hours). Wolking went on to explain that the belief that it is illegal to name Ciaramella is a “myth created by Adam Schiff and his allies in the media to prevent the American people from learning about the origins of the Democrats’ totally partisan impeachment sham.” Reports indicate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes he has the votes to bring this impeachment to a swift conclusion. But the problems caused by bias in the media will continue, and Democrats will suffer most of anyone because of those problems. Simple question: Why did Nancy Pelosi believe this impeachment would succeed? Isn’t it because she believed the media would help her drive Trump from office? But she couldn’t get a single House Republican to vote for impeachment, and the Senate trial has been a debacle for Democrats. Headlines like “Schiff Throws Temper Tantrum About His Staff Getting ‘Smeared’ by Reports on the ‘Whistleblower’ ” (PJ Media) and “Top 8 Reasons Trump Already Won Impeachment” (The Federalist) suggest what a disaster Pelosi led her party into. But CNN’s dwindling audience has no idea, because Jake Tapper won’t tell them. Who will tell them? The president of the United States, that’s who. The massive crowds turn out for Trump’s rallies cheer when he criticizes the “fake news” media. Impeachment actually appears to have made Trump more popular. Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics noted this week, “Trump’s job approval is now the highest it has been in our average since Feb. 5, 2017.” Does anyone think this trend will be reversed if, somehow, Democrats can get enough GOP senators to cross the aisle and vote to drag out the impeachment trial beyond this weekend? Maybe Jake Tapper thinks so, but he seems to believe his job is to report only what Democrats want to hear — and the most important news, he never reports at all. Keep it up, Jake, and you’ll get lots of credit when Trump gets reelected in November.

www.spectator.org

right

bMD2nbL0YklioaQA

test

ukLeaOrNsW5W0Oh4

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/in-defense-of-hillary-comey-schumer-and-pelosi/

In Defense of Hillary, Comey, Schumer, and Pelosi

Dov Fischer, E. Donald Elliott, Geoff Shepard, David Catron, Ben Stein, J.T. Young

A great many Americans know the compelling story of Joseph and his brothers . Some know it well from their childhood Bible studies in synagogue , yeshiva , church , religious school — or even having had parents read Bible passages to them every night or weekend when they were growing up . Even more know the story presumably from an Andrew Lloyd Weber Broadway musical . And even more Americans than those in the above groups probably would ask Jesse Watters , “ Isn ’ t that the guy who got the raincoat ? ” Regardless… There is a powerful underlying theme in that Torah narrative . Joseph ’ s brothers fear that he is a false prophet , and they sell him into slavery . In short order , he ends up incarcerated in an Egyptian prison with perhaps no hope left for freedom . While locked up , he meets two artisans who have dreamt the identical dream , interprets the imagery they describe , and predicts what will unfold . His prophecies rapidly come true : The wine steward , as predicted , is restored to the Pharaoh ’ s service , and the baker is hanged . Two years later , the Pharaoh ( whom most Americans associate with Elvis , thanks to the musical ) himself dreams two disturbing visions , and no one can interpret the dreams convincingly . At Pharaoh ’ s side , his now-trusted wine steward tells him that there is some Jew in the lock-up who is the greatest expert dream interpreter , and Pharaoh has Joseph cleaned up and brought out . Joseph predicts that a terrible famine will be coming after the immediately forthcoming seven years of plenty , and the Pharaoh is so impressed by how the prognostication fits the dreams that he elevates Joseph to Viceroy , the second highest government position in the empire . By nine years later , with the second year of famine now devastating the region and people dying of hunger , people all over the Middle East flock to Egypt , desperately begging Joseph for food . Among the supplicants , Joseph ’ s brothers come down to Egypt to beg . After a few songs in the style of Maurice Chevalier and Reggae , Joseph saves their lives by personally ordering that they be supplied with an abundance of life-saving food . Years later , when the patriarch Jacob passes away , the brothers fear that , now that Dad is gone , the all-powerful Viceroy Joseph will take revenge on them for selling him into slavery four decades earlier . Dad will not be there to protect them . But Joseph reassures them in approximately these words : “ Fear not . I am not G-d Who judges . And , besides , you sold me into slavery because you wanted to harm me . You meant it for evil . But G-d meant it all for the good , so that I miraculously would be positioned uniquely to save a whole bunch of people — including our entire family. ” ( Gen. 50:19-20 ) You meant it for evil , but G-d meant it for good . I come not to bury Hillary Clinton , James Comey , Chuck Schumer , and Nancy Pelosi but to praise them . Every established pundit predicted that Donald Trump never would win the Republican nomination for President in 2016 — and , if he somehow would win the nomination by miracle , he would get clobbered in the general election . The Year 2016 was Hillary ’ s turn . She had waited in Arkansas , watching her huckster husband serve as governor , even as he serviced some of the locals . That made her the state ’ s First Lady . She practiced law at a firm where billing records got lost conveniently during criminal investigations into defalcations . With her husband earning less than any other American governor ( $ 35,000 a year ) , she invested $ 1,000 in cattle futures and made $ 100,000 — a return whose odds , if her trading instead had been honest , would be one in 31 trillion . In time , the Comeback Kid got elected President , and she moved with him to the White House , kind-of like the Clampetts . She then finagled throughout the ensuing eight years , messed up healthcare legislation so badly that the 1994 Republicans recaptured Congress for the first time in forty years , and she even took the American people ’ s furniture with her to New York when her two terms were up . Having moved to liberal Democrat New York , she easily got elected United States Senator based on the above résumé — plus other extras in her curriculum vitae : Travelgate , having arrived in Bosnia under gunfire , having been named for Sir Edmund Hillary , and so many other falsifications that she burned out the batteries on the lie detectors . In other words , she had no qualifications other than having been married to a President . Truly the personification of a woman achieving equal status based on her own merits . Next it was her time to be President in 2008 , so she and the Comeback Kid changed Democrat primary rules to give enhanced influence to “ caucuses ” over straight-out fair voting . In a caucus , people have to hang around for hours to be counted , and that process always gives a disproportionate advantage to the candidate whose supporters are most passionate and energized . Because we never before had a woman President , the Clintons expected that the new caucuses would play to her advantage , revving up excitement — Wow , a Woman President ! Alas , she did not anticipate Barack Obama — Wow , a Black President ! — and she lost . Obama made her his Secretary of State not because she had any particular foreign-affairs experience . Indeed , she and her husband had been focused mostly on his domestic affairs — Gennifer Flowers , Paula Corbin Jones , Kathleen Willey , Juanita Broaddrick , Monica Lewinsky . But Obama had a greater purpose , actually quite clever : By making her Secretary of State , he basically got her out of the country for several years . Her service in State was utterly undistinguished . The reset with Russia was a joke . She messed up Middle East talks and screamed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the phone for half an hour . As we look back , there is no Clinton Doctrine to remember , no accomplishments — not even too many bad ones . It would seem that most of her time was spent learning how to text and planning for a wedding that required 33,000 emails . And of course she oversaw our relations with Libya and Benghazi . Finally , 2016 finally , finally was her time to be President . It finally was her turn . But even more than her email scandal , more than her “ Weekend at Bernie ’ s ” collapse at that curb and being stuffed into that car on 9/11 , her forgetting to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin , and her remarkable gaffe calling half the country she would lead “ a basketful of Deplorables , ” there was one overriding reason she lost : By and large , objectively , Hillary Clinton is despised . People just do not like her . She is phony . Her laugh is phony . Her pledges are phony . Her assertion that she stands for women ’ s rights is most phony : As an attorney , she helped a child molester and rapist get off light and then giggled about it as she remembered it years later . Her “ Faith Advisor ” ( nice job if you can get it ! ) sent her two or three Biblical passages a day ( “ And the L-rd spoke to Moses , saying ” ) , and otherwise harassed women — and she dealt with his physical batteries against women by reassigning the woman who complained . And what verses did the Faith Advisor send her as she infamously coordinated character assassinations of the women whom her husband sexually abused ? “ And the L-rd spoke to Moses , saying ” ? It is more than a year since the election of Donald Trump . Do not underestimate all the pundits who said that a seasoned Democrat would have defeated Donald Trump . Looking back , one of the greatest blessings , even a miracle , that ever unfolded for American conservatives — who desperately needed to recapture the White House , drain the swamp , and reverse Obama ’ s eight years of tyrannical executive orders and the corruption in his “ Justice ” Department and Eric Holder ( “ Fast and Furious ” ) and Loretta Lynch ( tarmac discussions about the grandchildren ) and Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr , Obama ’ s FBI ( Strzok and Page and McCabe and all the others ) , their abuse of the FISA court , his IRS and Lois Lerner , his Department of Energy , his Department of Education , his immigration mess — was the miracle that Hillary was the Democrats ’ candidate against Trump . She was that hated . Be grateful every day that Hillary Clinton , in service to her country , ran as the Democrats ’ standard bearer in 2016 . Hillary Clinton perpetrated federal crimes by removing top secret Government documents and records from secure sites . Although most bathrooms in most homes are private , her server in her bathroom did not meet the federal standard . At the very least , her gross negligence in handling the 33,000 yoga and wedding dress emails should have prompted FBI Director James Comey to urge the convening of a grand jury . If the “ fix ” had not been in for Clinton even months before Comey ’ s “ investigation ” had begun , the FBI would not have given her associates promises of immunity without something in return , and she would have been compelled to speak to the FBI under oath , exposing her to further prosecution for perjury , exactly as the FBI later did to Michael Flynn . But pause a moment and think : What if Comey had been honest ? If Comey had been honest , Clinton would have been tied up with a grand jury , probably indicted , and would have been making inquiries of Obama whether any remaining White House furniture would fit in a prison cell . With Hillary then being removed from the Presidential campaign midway through the election cycle , Vice President Joe Biden ultimately would have been drafted to run against Donald Trump . Conservatives do not like Joe Biden ’ s politics and mock his gaffes , but Joe Biden very possibly would have won the election . Biden is one of the nicest , most lovable public figures around . Again , go and hate his politics , his meandering lies about Republicans wanting blacks to be back in chains , his declaration at the Democrat convention that ISIS had been destroyed , but the man , as a person , is a very likable guy . He really is a nice guy , one of the nicest public figures in Washington . Moreover , he has a compelling story about personal tragedy he has faced and overcome , and that story had just been amplified when his beloved and gifted son passed away . If Comey had been honest , Hillary now would be in a striped orange pantsuit , bleaching emails and planning weddings , and Joe Biden would be President of the United States . Be grateful every day that James Comey , in service to his country , manipulated justice so that Hillary would remain the Democrats ’ candidate against Donald Trump . With President Trump elected , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , supposedly a moderate , allowed himself to get pulled into leading “ The Resistance. ” In his role , he effectively has forced Democrats in the Senate to oppose everything President Trump has initiated . He has pursued the cynical defamation that Donald Trump colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election . Had Schumer not done so , the American people never would have discovered Obamagate — the extent of corruption existing at the highest echelons of the Obama “ Justice ” Department and the FBI . Had Schumer not been so determined to resist any reasonable deal-making with the President , he never would have forced each and every Democrat United States Senator to vote against the Trump tax cuts and tax-reform package . But Schumer whipped his senators into line and forced them to resist . Now Claire McCaskill ( Missouri ) , Heidi Heitkamp ( North Dakota ) , Joe Manchin ( West Virginia ) , Jon Tester ( Montana ) , Bill Nelson ( Florida ) , Sherrod Brown ( Ohio ) , Joe Donnelly ( Indiana ) , and other Democrats up for reelection in pro-Trump conservative states have to explain why they voted against the tax cuts that have put substantial bonuses , wage increases , enhanced benefits packages , and reduced federal withholding into the pockets of tens of millions of Americans , even as billions are being repatriated to the United States , new investment is booming , and the economy is defying the usual cyclical expectation that a recovery has run its course . If Schumer had been just a bit more reasonable , Democrats seeking reelection this November would be much more competitively positioned . Be grateful every day that Chuck Schumer , in service to his country , has led the Senate Democrats in a Resistance that will topple Democrat incumbents who otherwise would have been better situated to win . Pray for her every day . Pray for her health , her sustenance , her strength . Pray that her voice remains strong so that she can speak into microphones daily . Pray that her hands remain steady so that she can sit on them for ninety minutes while a President reports to the nation that the economy is robust , that black unemployment is at its lowest level ever recorded , that the flag waves majestically , that criminal gangs comprised of Illegal Immigrants are being thrown out of the country . Pray that she continues that thing where she seems to suck her own face . And pray that she continues telling Americans that the thousand-dollar bonuses they have been given by their employers are “ crumbs , ” that their wage hikes are crumbs , that their increased take-home pay is crumbs . Nearly 70 percent of all American households have less than $ 1,000 in life savings . Pelosi ’ s net worth is between $ 20 million and $ 120 million . As roles have reversed and the Republicans have become the party of common hard-working families while Democrats have become the party of the billionaires — the likes of Buffett , Bezos , Soros , and the billionaires in Silicon Valley and Wall Street — pray daily that Nancy Pelosi remains strong and at least semi-coherent . As the Obamagate Scandal now exposes truth and light on sordid corruption at the highest echelons of America ’ s law-enforcement apparatus , a corruption that is reminiscent of how Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler both manipulated their respective secret police services to spy on and destroy their political opponents , I am grateful for the four unsung heroes in this musical : Crooked Hillary , James Comey , Schumer , and Pelosi . Each of them has acted with the secret intent to do evil , and machinations of each have proven instead to be the blessings that give us a chance to recover our country , our national culture , and restore an America that we came very close to losing on the eve of 2016 .

Joseph A great many Americans know the compelling story of Joseph and his brothers. Some know it well from their childhood Bible studies in synagogue, yeshiva, church, religious school — or even having had parents read Bible passages to them every night or weekend when they were growing up. Even more know the story presumably from an Andrew Lloyd Weber Broadway musical. And even more Americans than those in the above groups probably would ask Jesse Watters, “Isn’t that the guy who got the raincoat?” Regardless… There is a powerful underlying theme in that Torah narrative. Joseph’s brothers fear that he is a false prophet, and they sell him into slavery. In short order, he ends up incarcerated in an Egyptian prison with perhaps no hope left for freedom. While locked up, he meets two artisans who have dreamt the identical dream, interprets the imagery they describe, and predicts what will unfold. His prophecies rapidly come true: The wine steward, as predicted, is restored to the Pharaoh’s service, and the baker is hanged. Two years later, the Pharaoh (whom most Americans associate with Elvis, thanks to the musical) himself dreams two disturbing visions, and no one can interpret the dreams convincingly. At Pharaoh’s side, his now-trusted wine steward tells him that there is some Jew in the lock-up who is the greatest expert dream interpreter, and Pharaoh has Joseph cleaned up and brought out. Joseph predicts that a terrible famine will be coming after the immediately forthcoming seven years of plenty, and the Pharaoh is so impressed by how the prognostication fits the dreams that he elevates Joseph to Viceroy, the second highest government position in the empire. By nine years later, with the second year of famine now devastating the region and people dying of hunger, people all over the Middle East flock to Egypt, desperately begging Joseph for food. Among the supplicants, Joseph’s brothers come down to Egypt to beg. After a few songs in the style of Maurice Chevalier and Reggae, Joseph saves their lives by personally ordering that they be supplied with an abundance of life-saving food. Years later, when the patriarch Jacob passes away, the brothers fear that, now that Dad is gone, the all-powerful Viceroy Joseph will take revenge on them for selling him into slavery four decades earlier. Dad will not be there to protect them. But Joseph reassures them in approximately these words: “Fear not. I am not G-d Who judges. And, besides, you sold me into slavery because you wanted to harm me. You meant it for evil. But G-d meant it all for the good, so that I miraculously would be positioned uniquely to save a whole bunch of people — including our entire family.” (Gen. 50:19-20) You meant it for evil, but G-d meant it for good. I come not to bury Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi but to praise them. Hillary Every established pundit predicted that Donald Trump never would win the Republican nomination for President in 2016 — and, if he somehow would win the nomination by miracle, he would get clobbered in the general election. The Year 2016 was Hillary’s turn. She had waited in Arkansas, watching her huckster husband serve as governor, even as he serviced some of the locals. That made her the state’s First Lady. She practiced law at a firm where billing records got lost conveniently during criminal investigations into defalcations. With her husband earning less than any other American governor ($35,000 a year), she invested $1,000 in cattle futures and made $100,000 — a return whose odds, if her trading instead had been honest, would be one in 31 trillion. In time, the Comeback Kid got elected President, and she moved with him to the White House, kind-of like the Clampetts. She then finagled throughout the ensuing eight years, messed up healthcare legislation so badly that the 1994 Republicans recaptured Congress for the first time in forty years, and she even took the American people’s furniture with her to New York when her two terms were up. Having moved to liberal Democrat New York, she easily got elected United States Senator based on the above résumé — plus other extras in her curriculum vitae: Travelgate, having arrived in Bosnia under gunfire, having been named for Sir Edmund Hillary, and so many other falsifications that she burned out the batteries on the lie detectors. In other words, she had no qualifications other than having been married to a President. Truly the personification of a woman achieving equal status based on her own merits. Next it was her time to be President in 2008, so she and the Comeback Kid changed Democrat primary rules to give enhanced influence to “caucuses” over straight-out fair voting. In a caucus, people have to hang around for hours to be counted, and that process always gives a disproportionate advantage to the candidate whose supporters are most passionate and energized. Because we never before had a woman President, the Clintons expected that the new caucuses would play to her advantage, revving up excitement — Wow, a Woman President! Alas, she did not anticipate Barack Obama — Wow, a Black President! — and she lost. Obama made her his Secretary of State not because she had any particular foreign-affairs experience. Indeed, she and her husband had been focused mostly on his domestic affairs — Gennifer Flowers, Paula Corbin Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinsky. But Obama had a greater purpose, actually quite clever: By making her Secretary of State, he basically got her out of the country for several years. Her service in State was utterly undistinguished. The reset with Russia was a joke. She messed up Middle East talks and screamed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the phone for half an hour. As we look back, there is no Clinton Doctrine to remember, no accomplishments — not even too many bad ones. It would seem that most of her time was spent learning how to text and planning for a wedding that required 33,000 emails. And of course she oversaw our relations with Libya and Benghazi. Finally, 2016 finally, finally was her time to be President. It finally was her turn. But even more than her email scandal, more than her “Weekend at Bernie’s” collapse at that curb and being stuffed into that car on 9/11, her forgetting to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin, and her remarkable gaffe calling half the country she would lead “a basketful of Deplorables,” there was one overriding reason she lost: By and large, objectively, Hillary Clinton is despised. People just do not like her. She is phony. Her laugh is phony. Her pledges are phony. Her assertion that she stands for women’s rights is most phony: As an attorney, she helped a child molester and rapist get off light and then giggled about it as she remembered it years later. Her “Faith Advisor” (nice job if you can get it!) sent her two or three Biblical passages a day (“And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying”), and otherwise harassed women — and she dealt with his physical batteries against women by reassigning the woman who complained. And what verses did the Faith Advisor send her as she infamously coordinated character assassinations of the women whom her husband sexually abused? “And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying”? It is more than a year since the election of Donald Trump. Do not underestimate all the pundits who said that a seasoned Democrat would have defeated Donald Trump. Looking back, one of the greatest blessings, even a miracle, that ever unfolded for American conservatives — who desperately needed to recapture the White House, drain the swamp, and reverse Obama’s eight years of tyrannical executive orders and the corruption in his “Justice” Department and Eric Holder (“Fast and Furious”) and Loretta Lynch (tarmac discussions about the grandchildren) and Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr, Obama’s FBI (Strzok and Page and McCabe and all the others), their abuse of the FISA court, his IRS and Lois Lerner, his Department of Energy, his Department of Education, his immigration mess — was the miracle that Hillary was the Democrats’ candidate against Trump. She was that hated. Be grateful every day that Hillary Clinton, in service to her country, ran as the Democrats’ standard bearer in 2016. Comey Hillary Clinton perpetrated federal crimes by removing top secret Government documents and records from secure sites. Although most bathrooms in most homes are private, her server in her bathroom did not meet the federal standard. At the very least, her gross negligence in handling the 33,000 yoga and wedding dress emails should have prompted FBI Director James Comey to urge the convening of a grand jury. If the “fix” had not been in for Clinton even months before Comey’s “investigation” had begun, the FBI would not have given her associates promises of immunity without something in return, and she would have been compelled to speak to the FBI under oath, exposing her to further prosecution for perjury, exactly as the FBI later did to Michael Flynn. But pause a moment and think: What if Comey had been honest? If Comey had been honest, Clinton would have been tied up with a grand jury, probably indicted, and would have been making inquiries of Obama whether any remaining White House furniture would fit in a prison cell. With Hillary then being removed from the Presidential campaign midway through the election cycle, Vice President Joe Biden ultimately would have been drafted to run against Donald Trump. Conservatives do not like Joe Biden’s politics and mock his gaffes, but Joe Biden very possibly would have won the election. Biden is one of the nicest, most lovable public figures around. Again, go and hate his politics, his meandering lies about Republicans wanting blacks to be back in chains, his declaration at the Democrat convention that ISIS had been destroyed, but the man, as a person, is a very likable guy. He really is a nice guy, one of the nicest public figures in Washington. Moreover, he has a compelling story about personal tragedy he has faced and overcome, and that story had just been amplified when his beloved and gifted son passed away. If Comey had been honest, Hillary now would be in a striped orange pantsuit, bleaching emails and planning weddings, and Joe Biden would be President of the United States. Be grateful every day that James Comey, in service to his country, manipulated justice so that Hillary would remain the Democrats’ candidate against Donald Trump. Schumer With President Trump elected, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, supposedly a moderate, allowed himself to get pulled into leading “The Resistance.” In his role, he effectively has forced Democrats in the Senate to oppose everything President Trump has initiated. He has pursued the cynical defamation that Donald Trump colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election. Had Schumer not done so, the American people never would have discovered Obamagate — the extent of corruption existing at the highest echelons of the Obama “Justice” Department and the FBI. Had Schumer not been so determined to resist any reasonable deal-making with the President, he never would have forced each and every Democrat United States Senator to vote against the Trump tax cuts and tax-reform package. But Schumer whipped his senators into line and forced them to resist. Now Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Jon Tester (Montana), Bill Nelson (Florida), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Joe Donnelly (Indiana), and other Democrats up for reelection in pro-Trump conservative states have to explain why they voted against the tax cuts that have put substantial bonuses, wage increases, enhanced benefits packages, and reduced federal withholding into the pockets of tens of millions of Americans, even as billions are being repatriated to the United States, new investment is booming, and the economy is defying the usual cyclical expectation that a recovery has run its course. If Schumer had been just a bit more reasonable, Democrats seeking reelection this November would be much more competitively positioned. Be grateful every day that Chuck Schumer, in service to his country, has led the Senate Democrats in a Resistance that will topple Democrat incumbents who otherwise would have been better situated to win. Pelosi Pray for her every day. Pray for her health, her sustenance, her strength. Pray that her voice remains strong so that she can speak into microphones daily. Pray that her hands remain steady so that she can sit on them for ninety minutes while a President reports to the nation that the economy is robust, that black unemployment is at its lowest level ever recorded, that the flag waves majestically, that criminal gangs comprised of Illegal Immigrants are being thrown out of the country. Pray that she continues that thing where she seems to suck her own face. And pray that she continues telling Americans that the thousand-dollar bonuses they have been given by their employers are “crumbs,” that their wage hikes are crumbs, that their increased take-home pay is crumbs. Nearly 70 percent of all American households have less than $1,000 in life savings. Pelosi’s net worth is between $20 million and $120 million. As roles have reversed and the Republicans have become the party of common hard-working families while Democrats have become the party of the billionaires — the likes of Buffett, Bezos, Soros, and the billionaires in Silicon Valley and Wall Street — pray daily that Nancy Pelosi remains strong and at least semi-coherent. As the Obamagate Scandal now exposes truth and light on sordid corruption at the highest echelons of America’s law-enforcement apparatus, a corruption that is reminiscent of how Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler both manipulated their respective secret police services to spy on and destroy their political opponents, I am grateful for the four unsung heroes in this musical: Crooked Hillary, James Comey, Schumer, and Pelosi. Each of them has acted with the secret intent to do evil, and machinations of each have proven instead to be the blessings that give us a chance to recover our country, our national culture, and restore an America that we came very close to losing on the eve of 2016.

www.spectator.org

right

ukLeaOrNsW5W0Oh4

test

xh6BqnjGwzcgoCXq

justice

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-flynn-charged-making-false-statements-fbi-documents/story?id=50849354

Flynn has promised special counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probe: Source

Brian Ross, Matthew Mosk, Josh Margolin

Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “ full cooperation ” in the special counsel ’ s Russia investigation and , according to a confidant , is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians , initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria . Interested in Russia Investigation ? Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The stunning turn comes as Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his back-channel negotiations with the Russian ambassador – talks that occurred before Trump took office . The special counsel made the plea agreement public Friday morning . The confidant provided ███ with new details on Friday about Trump ’ s instructions to Flynn . During the campaign , Trump asked Flynn to be one of a small group of close advisors charged with improving relations in Russia and other hot spots . The source said Trump phoned Flynn shortly after the election to explicitly ask him to “ serve as point person on Russia , ” and to reach out personally to Russian officials to develop strategies to jointly combat ISIS . The confidant told ███ that Flynn felt abandoned by Trump in recent weeks , and told friends about the decision to make the plea deal within the last 24 hours as he grew increasingly concerned about crippling legal costs he would face if he continued to contest the charges . “ Flynn is very angry , ” the confidant told ███ Friday . “ He will cooperate truthfully on any question they ask him . ” In a prepared statement , Flynn expressed regret , but also stood defiant against the more scurrilous allegations that circulated about his work with Russia . “ It has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of ‘ treason ’ and other outrageous acts , ” Flynn said in a statement . “ Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for . But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong , and , through my faith in God , I am working to set things right . ” Richard Frankel , a former senior aide to Flynn and an ███ contributor , said Flynn made his decision to cooperate under immense pressure , but he believes it is the right move for the country . “ I do n't know how much General Flynn knows about any criminal activity that took place during the campaign or in the White House , ” said Frankel , who also served in a senior role at the FBI . “ However , General Flynn was a top adviser to President Trump in the campaign and a top adviser to him when he entered into the WH so if there are bodies buried so to speak , General Flynn would know about them in my opinion . ” Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition . Those conversations led Russian officials to temper their response to increased U.S. sanctions , according to the charging documents . The charge carries a penalty of up to five years in prison , but according to court documents , Flynn likely faces a sentence of zero to six months . The White House had claimed it was unaware of the substance of those conversations , but today ’ s court documents show Flynn was acting specifically at the direction of senior transition team officials . On the same day President Obama imposed tough sanctions on Russian facilities in the U.S. for meddling in the election , the Russian ambassador called Flynn to talk about them . After that conversation , Flynn consulted with a senior transition team official who said the Trump “ did not want Russia to escalate the situation , ” so Flynn relayed the request directly to Kislyak . Russian officials tempered their response to increased U.S. sanctions , and President-elect Trump then tweeted : “ Great move on delay ( by V.Putin ) —I always knew he was very smart ! ” The documents also show that “ a very senior member ” of the transition team , which ███ has learned was Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner , told Flynn to contact Russia about a United Nations resolution involving Israel . The President has denied directing Flynn to make the contacts . “ No , I didn ’ t direct him , ” Trump said in February , “ but I would have directed him if he didn ’ t do it , okay ? ” Flynn became the latest and most-senior Trump associate to face charges in Mueller 's probe and arrived at the U.S. District courthouse accompanied by his wife and attorney Robert Kelner after having been processed at the FBI Washington Field Office , where he was fingerprinted and photographed , according to FBI officials . In court , the retired lieutenant general was asked by Federal Judge Rudolph Contreras if he had ever been a part of similar proceedings , to which Flynn replied that he had not . Contreras then asked Kelner whether he was correct in assuming that Flynn was pleading guilty . After the hearing , Flynn was free to go , but has to check in with authorities each week . Sentencing has been put off for now — and the judge noted that Flynn is agreeing to cooperate with authorities in other matters . Flynn had initially resisted cooperating with the investigation , according to people close to the retired general , but he has been facing mounting legal debts and plans to sell his house to help defray costs . He only recently learned the full scope of the charges he could potentially face . Last week , Trump lawyers received calls from Kelner , alerting them that he could no longer participate in information exchanges with other possible Mueller targets , the first public indication that a plea deal was in the works . “ My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel 's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country , ” Flynn said . “ I accept full responsibility for my actions . ” Trump and his legal team have learned of Flynn 's decision via news reports Friday morning , according to sources with knowledge of the situation . On Monday , Kelner was spotted exiting a meeting at Mueller ’ s offices in Washington , ███ reported . Flynn is a decorated military officer who once headed the Defense Intelligence Agency and , after leaving government , spoke frequently at Trump campaign rallies . He began facing scrutiny after it was learned he took payment to attend a Russian television event , at which he appeared seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin . That scrutiny only increased after he took over as Trump ’ s national security adviser . He was ultimately forced to resign after just a few weeks on the job after it was revealed that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about his meeting with the Russian ambassador . Flynn initially denied that he discussed U.S. sanctions placed on Russia with Kislyak , but transcripts of Flynn and Kislyak ’ s phone calls reviewed by Justice Department lawyers showed otherwise . Flynn was paid over $ 500,000 by foreign clients for consulting work and speaking fees – including contracts he allegedly failed to list on applications for security clearances and financial disclosure forms . He also only belatedly disclosed lobbying work his firm engaged in on behalf of the Turkish government . Trump reportedly attempted to persuade the FBI to drop its investigation into Flynn ’ s conduct . In a Feb. 14 meeting at the White House , Trump reportedly told then-FBI Director James Comey to “ let this go . ” “ I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go , to letting Flynn go , ” Trump told Comey , according to a memo Comey wrote afterwards , which was later described by the New York Times . “ He is a good guy . I hope you can let this go . ” On Oct. 30 , two members of Trump 's campaign staff , former campaign chair Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates , were indicted on 12 counts brought by Mueller 's team related to work done prior to joining the Trump campaign , including conspiracy against the U.S. , conspiracy to launder money and serving as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal . That same day , it was also revealed that a third Trump campaign adviser , George Papadopoulos , pleaded guilty earlier in the month to making false statements to FBI agents probing his attempts to arrange a meeting between Russian officials and the campaign . Correction : During a live Special Report , ███ reported that a confidant of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the campaign . That source later clarified that during the campaign , Trump assigned Flynn and a small circle of other senior advisers to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots . It was shortly after the election , that President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact Russian officials on topics that included working jointly against ISIS .

Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria. Interested in Russia Investigation? Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The stunning turn comes as Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his back-channel negotiations with the Russian ambassador – talks that occurred before Trump took office. The special counsel made the plea agreement public Friday morning. The confidant provided ABC News with new details on Friday about Trump’s instructions to Flynn. During the campaign, Trump asked Flynn to be one of a small group of close advisors charged with improving relations in Russia and other hot spots. The source said Trump phoned Flynn shortly after the election to explicitly ask him to “serve as point person on Russia,” and to reach out personally to Russian officials to develop strategies to jointly combat ISIS. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters The confidant told ABC News that Flynn felt abandoned by Trump in recent weeks, and told friends about the decision to make the plea deal within the last 24 hours as he grew increasingly concerned about crippling legal costs he would face if he continued to contest the charges. “Flynn is very angry,” the confidant told ABC News Friday. “He will cooperate truthfully on any question they ask him.” In a prepared statement, Flynn expressed regret, but also stood defiant against the more scurrilous allegations that circulated about his work with Russia. “It has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of ‘treason’ and other outrageous acts,” Flynn said in a statement. “Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for. But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.” Richard Frankel, a former senior aide to Flynn and an ABC News contributor, said Flynn made his decision to cooperate under immense pressure, but he believes it is the right move for the country. “I don't know how much General Flynn knows about any criminal activity that took place during the campaign or in the White House,” said Frankel, who also served in a senior role at the FBI. “However, General Flynn was a top adviser to President Trump in the campaign and a top adviser to him when he entered into the WH so if there are bodies buried so to speak, General Flynn would know about them in my opinion.” Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Those conversations led Russian officials to temper their response to increased U.S. sanctions, according to the charging documents. The charge carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, but according to court documents, Flynn likely faces a sentence of zero to six months. The White House had claimed it was unaware of the substance of those conversations, but today’s court documents show Flynn was acting specifically at the direction of senior transition team officials. On the same day President Obama imposed tough sanctions on Russian facilities in the U.S. for meddling in the election, the Russian ambassador called Flynn to talk about them. After that conversation, Flynn consulted with a senior transition team official who said the Trump “did not want Russia to escalate the situation,” so Flynn relayed the request directly to Kislyak. Russian officials tempered their response to increased U.S. sanctions, and President-elect Trump then tweeted: “Great move on delay (by V.Putin)—I always knew he was very smart!” The documents also show that “a very senior member” of the transition team, which ABC News has learned was Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, told Flynn to contact Russia about a United Nations resolution involving Israel. The President has denied directing Flynn to make the contacts. “No, I didn’t direct him,” Trump said in February, “but I would have directed him if he didn’t do it, okay?” Flynn became the latest and most-senior Trump associate to face charges in Mueller's probe and arrived at the U.S. District courthouse accompanied by his wife and attorney Robert Kelner after having been processed at the FBI Washington Field Office, where he was fingerprinted and photographed, according to FBI officials. William Hennessy Jr In court, the retired lieutenant general was asked by Federal Judge Rudolph Contreras if he had ever been a part of similar proceedings, to which Flynn replied that he had not. Contreras then asked Kelner whether he was correct in assuming that Flynn was pleading guilty. "Yes, your honor," said Kelner. After the hearing, Flynn was free to go, but has to check in with authorities each week. Sentencing has been put off for now — and the judge noted that Flynn is agreeing to cooperate with authorities in other matters. Flynn had initially resisted cooperating with the investigation, according to people close to the retired general, but he has been facing mounting legal debts and plans to sell his house to help defray costs. He only recently learned the full scope of the charges he could potentially face. Last week, Trump lawyers received calls from Kelner, alerting them that he could no longer participate in information exchanges with other possible Mueller targets, the first public indication that a plea deal was in the works. “My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country,” Flynn said. “I accept full responsibility for my actions.” Trump and his legal team have learned of Flynn's decision via news reports Friday morning, according to sources with knowledge of the situation. On Monday, Kelner was spotted exiting a meeting at Mueller’s offices in Washington, ABC News reported. Flynn is a decorated military officer who once headed the Defense Intelligence Agency and, after leaving government, spoke frequently at Trump campaign rallies. He began facing scrutiny after it was learned he took payment to attend a Russian television event, at which he appeared seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Susan Walsh/AP Photo That scrutiny only increased after he took over as Trump’s national security adviser. He was ultimately forced to resign after just a few weeks on the job after it was revealed that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about his meeting with the Russian ambassador. Flynn initially denied that he discussed U.S. sanctions placed on Russia with Kislyak, but transcripts of Flynn and Kislyak’s phone calls reviewed by Justice Department lawyers showed otherwise. Flynn was paid over $500,000 by foreign clients for consulting work and speaking fees – including contracts he allegedly failed to list on applications for security clearances and financial disclosure forms. He also only belatedly disclosed lobbying work his firm engaged in on behalf of the Turkish government. Trump reportedly attempted to persuade the FBI to drop its investigation into Flynn’s conduct. In a Feb. 14 meeting at the White House, Trump reportedly told then-FBI Director James Comey to “let this go.” “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Trump told Comey, according to a memo Comey wrote afterwards, which was later described by the New York Times. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images On Oct. 30, two members of Trump's campaign staff, former campaign chair Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates, were indicted on 12 counts brought by Mueller's team related to work done prior to joining the Trump campaign, including conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money and serving as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal. That same day, it was also revealed that a third Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty earlier in the month to making false statements to FBI agents probing his attempts to arrange a meeting between Russian officials and the campaign. Correction: During a live Special Report, ABC News reported that a confidant of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the campaign. That source later clarified that during the campaign, Trump assigned Flynn and a small circle of other senior advisers to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots. It was shortly after the election, that President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact Russian officials on topics that included working jointly against ISIS. ABC News' Adam Kelsey, Veronica Stacqualursi, Jack Date, Geneva Sands, Mike Levine, Trish Turner and John Santucci contributed to this report. Criminal Information Plea Agreement Statement of the Offense

www.abcnews.go.com

left

xh6BqnjGwzcgoCXq

test

Hvk6CdRhR22gjYHe

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/ignore-the-noise-mueller-still-has-nothing/

OPINION: Ignore the Noise, Mueller Still Has Nothing

George Neumayr, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

For all of the media ’ s oohing and ahhing over Robert Mueller ’ s legal victories on Tuesday , his impeachment case remains hopelessly threadbare . In terms of his Department of Justice mandate , he has made no progress whatsoever . He is presiding over a “ collusion ” probe that has absolutely nothing to do with collusion . Let him keep indicting and convicting ham sandwiches . Most Americans won ’ t care . It just underscores the superfluous and abusive character of his probe . He is not compiling an air-tight legal case for impeachment ; he is simply using abusive prosecutorial tactics to foment an anti-Trump political firestorm . Rod Rosenstein is the Dr. Frankenstein in this political horror show . He birthed a monster in Mueller , who is now rampaging through the streets of Manhattan in search of pre-presidential dirt . Let ’ s , for the sake of argument , say that all of his claims about Trump-Cohen corruption are true . Is that impeachable material ? No , it is not . The American people voted for Trump knowing full well that his pre-presidential record was checkered . Does anybody really think the American people are going to rise up and demand that not only the House but most of the Senate expel Trump from the presidency over an alleged campaign finance violation that doesn ’ t bear in the slightest upon the collusion question ? Mueller is expert at finding flaky witnesses . Cohen is his latest . His memories of conversations and meetings with Trump are no more reliable than Jim Comey ’ s . Cohen has given baldly contradictory accounts of his payments to Stormy Daniels . The notion that Trump could lose the presidency owing to the testimony of a sleazy casino lawyer strains all plausibility . Mueller ’ s report will culminate in nothing more than an epic political food fight — a mode of combat Trump has perfected . Through his relentless tweeting , Trump has thoroughly educated the American people on the raw politics of Mueller ’ s probe — that he inherited a hopelessly tainted investigation from Trump haters ensconced in the Obama administration , that Mueller assembled a team of Hillary supporters to continue the probe , and that he has abandoned his DOJ mandate for a partisan fishing expedition of staggering proportions . The unfairness of it all has not been lost on the American people . The media routinely calls Trump a “ bully ” even as it forms a mob encircling him , bellowing about this or that utterly trivial offense . None of it adds up to anything even close to impeachable material . From the fulminating , one would think that a foreign occupier had invaded Washington . Trump ’ s great crime was colluding not with Russians but with neglected American voters , with whom he ended the Clinton dynasty . While Hillary was waiting with bated breath for dirt from Russians conveyed to her British spy , Trump plunged into the American heartland , winning the election the old-fashioned way , by simply outhustling Hillary in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania . I just got back from the latter state . Not a single mechanic , trucker , or waitress I met in Pennsylvania ever showed the slightest bit of interest in Mueller ’ s probe . Most of them probably don ’ t even know who Mueller is . That the media is staking its demolition of Trump on this gray , little-known ruling-class darling is a measure of its alienation from the American people . They simply don ’ t care about Trump ’ s pre-presidential sins , political screw-ups , and minor law-bending , if that even occurred . Mueller is desperately trying to stitch together an impeachment case based on these thin threads . He struck out on collusion , then turned to obstruction of justice , only to realize that his star witness , Comey , is himself under investigation . So he resorted to a search for pre-presidential dirt and papered over the nothingness of his probe with indictments and convictions on matters far afield . Only members of the ruling class and media , who devote every waking moment to studying all things Trump at the granular level , could portray this probe as “ momentous. ” To most Americans , it remains a giant bore — an inside-the-Beltway parlor game of no particular interest to them or relevance to their lives . Trump on Tuesday night resumed his mockery of the probe , asking at a rally in West Virginia , “ Where is the collusion ? You know , they ’ re still looking for collusion ! Where is the collusion ? Find some collusion . We want to find the collusion. ” Mueller called off that search a long time ago , shifting to a Cohen , rather than collusion , probe , to which the America people will ask upon the release of his report : Why are we supposed to care ?

For all of the media’s oohing and ahhing over Robert Mueller’s legal victories on Tuesday, his impeachment case remains hopelessly threadbare. In terms of his Department of Justice mandate, he has made no progress whatsoever. He is presiding over a “collusion” probe that has absolutely nothing to do with collusion. Let him keep indicting and convicting ham sandwiches. Most Americans won’t care. It just underscores the superfluous and abusive character of his probe. He is not compiling an air-tight legal case for impeachment; he is simply using abusive prosecutorial tactics to foment an anti-Trump political firestorm. Rod Rosenstein is the Dr. Frankenstein in this political horror show. He birthed a monster in Mueller, who is now rampaging through the streets of Manhattan in search of pre-presidential dirt. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that all of his claims about Trump-Cohen corruption are true. Is that impeachable material? No, it is not. The American people voted for Trump knowing full well that his pre-presidential record was checkered. Does anybody really think the American people are going to rise up and demand that not only the House but most of the Senate expel Trump from the presidency over an alleged campaign finance violation that doesn’t bear in the slightest upon the collusion question? Mueller is expert at finding flaky witnesses. Cohen is his latest. His memories of conversations and meetings with Trump are no more reliable than Jim Comey’s. Cohen has given baldly contradictory accounts of his payments to Stormy Daniels. The notion that Trump could lose the presidency owing to the testimony of a sleazy casino lawyer strains all plausibility. Mueller’s report will culminate in nothing more than an epic political food fight — a mode of combat Trump has perfected. Through his relentless tweeting, Trump has thoroughly educated the American people on the raw politics of Mueller’s probe — that he inherited a hopelessly tainted investigation from Trump haters ensconced in the Obama administration, that Mueller assembled a team of Hillary supporters to continue the probe, and that he has abandoned his DOJ mandate for a partisan fishing expedition of staggering proportions. The unfairness of it all has not been lost on the American people. The media routinely calls Trump a “bully” even as it forms a mob encircling him, bellowing about this or that utterly trivial offense. None of it adds up to anything even close to impeachable material. From the fulminating, one would think that a foreign occupier had invaded Washington. Trump’s great crime was colluding not with Russians but with neglected American voters, with whom he ended the Clinton dynasty. While Hillary was waiting with bated breath for dirt from Russians conveyed to her British spy, Trump plunged into the American heartland, winning the election the old-fashioned way, by simply outhustling Hillary in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I just got back from the latter state. Not a single mechanic, trucker, or waitress I met in Pennsylvania ever showed the slightest bit of interest in Mueller’s probe. Most of them probably don’t even know who Mueller is. That the media is staking its demolition of Trump on this gray, little-known ruling-class darling is a measure of its alienation from the American people. They simply don’t care about Trump’s pre-presidential sins, political screw-ups, and minor law-bending, if that even occurred. Mueller is desperately trying to stitch together an impeachment case based on these thin threads. He struck out on collusion, then turned to obstruction of justice, only to realize that his star witness, Comey, is himself under investigation. So he resorted to a search for pre-presidential dirt and papered over the nothingness of his probe with indictments and convictions on matters far afield. Only members of the ruling class and media, who devote every waking moment to studying all things Trump at the granular level, could portray this probe as “momentous.” To most Americans, it remains a giant bore — an inside-the-Beltway parlor game of no particular interest to them or relevance to their lives. Trump on Tuesday night resumed his mockery of the probe, asking at a rally in West Virginia, “Where is the collusion? You know, they’re still looking for collusion! Where is the collusion? Find some collusion. We want to find the collusion.” Mueller called off that search a long time ago, shifting to a Cohen, rather than collusion, probe, to which the America people will ask upon the release of his report: Why are we supposed to care?

www.spectator.org

right

Hvk6CdRhR22gjYHe

test

uXNyDaauEcmCoARC

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/11/12/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-libe

What Does It Mean To Be a Libertarian?

2018-11-12

Matt Kibbe, David Friedman, Deirdre Mccloskey, John Allison, Nadine Strossen, David Boaz, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman

We libertarians have always preferred to use esoteric arguments , specialized language , and other secret handshakes usually invoking the furthest reaches of Austrian praxeology . Like exclusive membership in any tribe , this can all be great fun . But it can also be politically debilitating in an era where one tweet from the president is capable of changing the course of international relations . With all due respect to Adam Smith and Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises , why not make it simple ? Do n't hurt people and do n't take their stuff—that 's libertarianism in a nutshell . It 's even short enough to work on old 140-character Twitter , before founder Jack Dorsey ruined it . If this sounds like what your mom taught you when she caught you whaling on your little brother , that 's because I stole it from her . But she stole it from her mom , as have many generations of moms before . Everyone seems to agree on these rules , save homicidal psychos and politicians . It 's particularly important that we make this commonsense case for libertarianism today , because so much of our public debate has devolved into tribal identitarianism—conservative vs. liberal , red vs. blue , us vs. them . But these tribes , mostly motivated by what they do n't like about the other side 's personal choices , are getting smaller and smaller . The rest of the population is left feeling alienated by the fighting . Ca n't we all just get along ? Most folks want to be left alone to live their lives , raise their families , make a living , maybe take a few risks or practice their faith , and simply pursue happiness as they see fit . They are good people , meaning that they 'll do good by you , as long as you do n't hurt them or take their stuff . The nice thing about libertarianism is that you do n't really need permission from someone else 's cultural or political tribe to adopt it . Of course , the mutual respect , or at least tolerance , that comes with not hurting people and not taking their stuff is the basis for all sorts of prosocial behavior . Binding institutions , accepted rules of conduct , peaceful cooperation , mutually beneficial economic transactions , and yes , helping a neighbor in trouble are all the unplanned results of our time-tested , mom-approved rules . At lightning speed , technology has allowed us to abandon many of the top-down institutions that used to tell us what to think and know and do . We crowdsource all of these answers for our own selves now . The result is mostly beautiful chaos . But political powerbrokers are doing what they have always done in order to cling to power : They gain by dividing us by our class , or color , or income , or sexual identity , or religion , or which side of the border our parents were born on . It may feel like it 's working , but I think this is just a passing phase , a transition to something more democratized and wonderful . If we libertarians could reach that massive searching middle with a simple story—a prospect that gets ever easier in the new world of democratized storytelling—the good folks who just want to get on with their lives might just join up with us . We can help rebuild an awesomely messy community of people , the crazy quilt we call America . As long as we do n't hurt people or take their stuff . A libertarian is someone who has concluded , for whatever ███ , that he prefers a society with a high level of individual freedom and little interference with individual rights . That leaves open the question of what those rights are . Simply put , we believe in negative rights , not positive rights ; the right not to be killed , not the right to live ; the right of each person to control his own life , but not at the expense of unwilling others . `` Libertarian '' is not a binary variable—there is no bright line separating those just libertarian enough to qualify from those not quite libertarian enough . A socialist who believes in government control of heavy industry but private markets for everything else or one who supports a Yugoslavian-style system where workers ' co-ops interact with each other through the market may not be very libertarian , but he is more libertarian than a socialist who believes in running everything from the center . Someone who wants to replace the public-school system with education vouchers is probably more libertarian than the vast majority of the population—but less libertarian than someone willing to go all the way to a completely private system . Not all disagreements can be ordered that neatly . A person who believes in a woman 's right to have an abortion is not clearly more or less libertarian than one who believes in the right of a fetus not to be killed . Likewise for the disagreement between those who see copyrights as the least justifiable form of private property and those who see it as the most justifiable . Going further afield , it is possible to construct a libertarian argument along Georgist lines for a government funded by taxes on the site value of land , on the theory that the holder owes compensation to all those deprived of access to his parcel , which , not having been produced by human effort , ought properly to be a commons . It is equally possible to construct a libertarian case in opposition , based either on a Lockean claim of just ownership or on the consequentialist argument—which goes all the way back to economist David Ricardo 's rejection of Adam Smith 's case for land taxes—about how a real-world government can be expected , in practice , to implement such a tax . `` Most folks want to be left alone to live their lives , raise their families , make a living , maybe take a few risks or practice their faith . They are good people , meaning that they 'll do good by you , as long as you do n't hurt them or take their stuff . '' As the final point suggests , many of the disagreements among libertarians depend on the practical implications of alternative institutions . Those who believe , as I do , that private institutions in a stateless society can be expected to do a better job of rights enforcement than a minimal state will conclude that the shift to anarchy would reduce total rights violation . Hence , we see anarchism as more libertarian than minarchism . Those who believe a minimal state provides a large reduction in rights violation by private individuals at the cost of a small amount of rights violation by public actors will reach the opposite conclusion . Both are libertarians . I 've been a libertarian since about age 25 , just barely satisfying the old formula that someone who is not a socialist by age 16 has no heart but that someone who is still a socialist at age 25 has no brain . ( Listen up , Bernie . ) Reading Robert Nozick 's Anarchy , State , and Utopia when it came out in 1974 eradicated the last remnants of my youthful Marxism . What remains is that these days I 'm a `` bleeding-heart libertarian '' —or perhaps a `` humane liberal , '' as I am always on the quest to reclaim the less geeky L word . I also call myself a Christian liberal/libertarian , which gets nearly everyone angry . I must be doing something right . I 've only been a Christian since age 56 . Religion is not the Baltimore catechism with the nuns to enforce it . It 's not a series of propositions . The former nun and religious writer Karen Armstrong points out in her many excellent books about religious history that until the unhappy attachment of faith to physics , with the development of `` natural religion '' circa 1700 , religion was a practice , not a set of dogmas . Judaism has it right . The word belief comes from the Germanic love or loyalty , while religion comes from the Latin for connect . It 's not a list of commandments ( even the pesky seventh ) but a loving commitment to a path . Maybe someday I will discover some terrible inconsistency between libertarianism and progressive Episcopalianism . If so , I will have to abandon one of them . But I doubt it . The core of Christian theology is free will . God does not want us to be pets but autonomous individuals , able to choose evil as well as good . We must live , therefore , in a real world in which the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 can happen . If we lived in Eden , we would not suffer such calamities . But we would not be free . Libertarians are commonly atheists . Probably that is because the independent-minded teenager who denies both left and right politically is also likely to have rebelled against all the silly stuff his parents told him about God at an even younger age . My preachment to my libertarian friends is not to rest at any arguments , commitments , or ways of life just because they seemed cool to a 14-year-old boy . ( The girls , I find , are less dogmatic . ) When I beg them to read a serious book about religion at age 30 or 50 they echo the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins , Daniel Dennett , Christopher Hitchens , and Sam Harris : `` No , why would I do that ? I already know it 's rubbish . I decided it was at 14 . '' Please , read and reflect as grown-ups . Libertarians are a big umbrella group whose primary agreement is that the state should interfere minimally in the lives of individuals . During my time as head of the Cato Institute , I would tell people that our mission is to create a free and prosperous society based on the principles of individual liberty , free markets , limited government , and peace . Unlike many on both left and right , we think the state should stay out of your pocketbook and we also think the state should stay out of your bedroom . Libertarians believe government has one important , but limited , purpose : to protect individual rights . Its job is to keep me from using force or fraud to take what you have earned and to keep you from using force or fraud to take what I have earned . In this context , it has three legitimate practical functions : national defense to protect us from foreign invasions , police to protect us from criminals , and an effective court system so that when you and I have a dispute , we can resolve it without recourse to force . The ███ government power must be limited is that governments have a unique authority to initiate the use of force . Walmart can offer you low prices and special deals ; it can beg you to buy its products , but it can not make you . The state can make you . It can take your property , lock you up , or kill you . And in fact , governments have killed hundreds of millions of people throughout history . Our life experiences tell us that agreements based on mutual consent are more effective than those based on force . Yet government is only necessary if force is necessary . When thinking about a proposed piece of legislation , even if you agree with its goal , ask yourself whether you would personally be willing to use a gun to make someone who disagrees with the legislation obey it . If not , you should oppose turning it into a law . I 'm also an Objectivist , so I strongly believe that politics must be rooted in a proper understanding of metaphysics and epistemology . In other words , I think the contours of a good political system are derived from the laws of nature and human nature . Nature—the reality of the world around us—is a given . But so is human nature . Everything that is alive has a means of survival . A lion has claws to hunt . Deer have speed to avoid predators . Our means of survival is the capacity to think—to ███ objectively from facts . `` In the libertarian view , the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force—actions such as murder , rape , robbery , kidnapping , and fraud . '' Because of Mother Nature and our nature , certain principles are necessary for us to survive and prosper qua mankind . In order to achieve happiness , in the Aristotelian context of a life well lived , one must have a sense of purpose and exhibit certain virtues—rationality , independent thinking , productivity , honesty , integrity , pride , justice—in the pursuit of one 's long-term self-interest . The only political system that allows individuals to live out these virtues is a system based on liberty . Different libertarians defend limited government from different perspectives . Unfortunately , we sometimes lose arguments because we are not clear on the above premises , which form the foundation for defending liberty . Still , since we are so outnumbered , whatever our disagreements , it is critically important for those of us who are rational defenders of a free society to work together to protect our freedom . The core principle of civil libertarianism is that all human beings are equally entitled to fundamental freedoms . We all have inherent human rights , and it is government 's responsibility to protect those rights . Moreover , all of our rights are indivisible , so civil libertarians must neutrally resist any rights violation . To cite some current examples , we must secure fundamental due process rights for both those who are gunned down by police officers and the police officers , and for both sexual assault victims and those they accuse . As Martin Luther King Jr. famously phrased it , `` injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere . We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality . '' To be sure , we civil libertarians recognize that no right ( beyond the purely internal freedom of thought ) is absolute . However , we insist that government not restrict any right unless it can show that the restriction is necessary to promote a countervailing goal of great importance , such as public safety . While authorities can easily assert that rights-restricting measures are designed to promote such important goals , it is much harder to show that a measure is necessary . If the state could promote its goal through an alternative measure—one that 's less restrictive of individual freedom—it must do so . These core civil liberties principles are well illustrated by the First Amendment cases that bar government from shutting down speech solely because its message is hated , feared , or distressing . Censorship efforts are often struck down because the potential adverse impact of such speech can be countered in other ways , such as through protests and editorials denouncing the problematic view . Yes , government may regulate speech when necessary to avert certain specific , immediate , serious harms , for example when the speech constitutes a genuine threat or intentional incitement of imminent violence . Short of such an emergency , though—when speech poses only an indirect , speculative danger of potential harm—then the remedy is more speech , `` counterspeech , '' not enforced silence . Much evidence demonstrates that `` hate speech , '' which conveys discriminatory ideas , can be countered more effectively through education and persuasion than through suppression . Indeed , censoring such speech can well be counterproductive for many reasons , including by increasing attention and sympathy for the hatemongers . While it has been fashionable in recent decades to distinguish civil liberties from civil rights and freedom from equality , in fact these are all mutually reinforcing concepts . It is difficult even to draw a meaningful distinction between liberty and equality , let alone to regard them as inalterably oppositional . How could we possibly claim to have secured individual liberty if some individuals are denied their rights for discriminatory reasons ? Conversely , how could we possibly claim to have secured meaningful equality if it does not encompass the exercise of individual freedom ? As the University of California , Los Angeles constitutional law professor Kenneth Karst has noted , egalitarian movements have long recognized the symbiotic relationship between liberty and equality . Accordingly , the 1960s civil rights movement `` marched under the banner of 'Freedom , ' even though its chief objective was equal access— [ including ] to the vote [ and ] to education , '' he wrote . Likewise , `` liberation '' has been the watchword for movements for equal rights for both women and LGBT people . The Declaration of Independence 's famous proclamation that we 're all created equal aspired to equality in terms of our `` unalienable rights . '' Abraham Lincoln rightly exhorted us to strive ceaselessly to bridge the gap between this civil libertarian ideal and the actual lived reality of everyone in the U.S. , stating that the goal `` should be…constantly labored for…thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence…augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere . '' Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom . More specifically , it 's the political philosophy that rests on the presumption of liberty : Like the presumption of innocence , this places the burden of proof on those who would restrict liberty , not those who would exercise it . Alternatively , it can be understood as the philosophy that seeks to minimize the use of coercion in ordering social relations , with the burden of proof resting on those who would exercise coercion , not on those on whom it is exercised . Liberty is realized through well-defined and legally secure equal rights , on the basis of which people can create voluntary associations and engage in mutually beneficial exchanges . We believe each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others . Accordingly , no one may initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else . Libertarians defend each person 's right to life , liberty , and property—rights that people possess naturally , before governments are instituted , as laid out in the Declaration of Independence . In the libertarian view , all human relationships should be voluntary ; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force—actions such as murder , rape , robbery , kidnapping , and fraud . Most people believe in and live by that code of ethics . We do n't hit people , break down their doors , take their money by force , or imprison them if they live peacefully in ways that we do n't like . Libertarians believe this code should be applied consistently—and specifically , that it should be applied to actions by governments as well as by individuals . Governments should exist to safeguard rights—to protect us from others who might use force against us . That generally means police to prevent crime and arrest criminals , courts to settle disputes and punish wrongdoers , and national defense against external threats . Few people , of course , think in terms of such strict and abstract definitions . When I talk to popular audiences , I say that libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their own lives . Many people share the broad libertarian principles of personal and economic freedom , which in U.S. politics are sometimes described as `` fiscally conservative and socially liberal . '' When the political researcher David Kirby and I study the `` libertarian vote , '' we find that about 15 percent of Americans answer survey questions in a way that cuts across contemporary liberal and conservative axes in a libertarian direction . In the past few decades , as the word liberal has come ( at least in the United States ) to mean an advocate of expansive government power , libertarian has increasingly been applied to scholars and political leaders who share `` classical liberal '' values such as support for individual rights , freer markets , and peace . Thus , Ludwig von Mises , F.A . Hayek , Milton Friedman , and the editors of The Economist are libertarians in contemporary American parlance . Around the globe—in China , South Africa , the Muslim world , South America , and more—people with those ideas are still generally called liberals , although the more ideologically committed sometimes describe themselves as libertarians .

Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff Matt Kibbe We libertarians have always preferred to use esoteric arguments, specialized language, and other secret handshakes usually invoking the furthest reaches of Austrian praxeology. Like exclusive membership in any tribe, this can all be great fun. But it can also be politically debilitating in an era where one tweet from the president is capable of changing the course of international relations. With all due respect to Adam Smith and Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, why not make it simple? Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff—that's libertarianism in a nutshell. It's even short enough to work on old 140-character Twitter, before founder Jack Dorsey ruined it. If this sounds like what your mom taught you when she caught you whaling on your little brother, that's because I stole it from her. But she stole it from her mom, as have many generations of moms before. Everyone seems to agree on these rules, save homicidal psychos and politicians. It's particularly important that we make this commonsense case for libertarianism today, because so much of our public debate has devolved into tribal identitarianism—conservative vs. liberal, red vs. blue, us vs. them. But these tribes, mostly motivated by what they don't like about the other side's personal choices, are getting smaller and smaller. The rest of the population is left feeling alienated by the fighting. Can't we all just get along? Most folks want to be left alone to live their lives, raise their families, make a living, maybe take a few risks or practice their faith, and simply pursue happiness as they see fit. They are good people, meaning that they'll do good by you, as long as you don't hurt them or take their stuff. The nice thing about libertarianism is that you don't really need permission from someone else's cultural or political tribe to adopt it. Of course, the mutual respect, or at least tolerance, that comes with not hurting people and not taking their stuff is the basis for all sorts of prosocial behavior. Binding institutions, accepted rules of conduct, peaceful cooperation, mutually beneficial economic transactions, and yes, helping a neighbor in trouble are all the unplanned results of our time-tested, mom-approved rules. At lightning speed, technology has allowed us to abandon many of the top-down institutions that used to tell us what to think and know and do. We crowdsource all of these answers for our own selves now. The result is mostly beautiful chaos. But political powerbrokers are doing what they have always done in order to cling to power: They gain by dividing us by our class, or color, or income, or sexual identity, or religion, or which side of the border our parents were born on. It may feel like it's working, but I think this is just a passing phase, a transition to something more democratized and wonderful. If we libertarians could reach that massive searching middle with a simple story—a prospect that gets ever easier in the new world of democratized storytelling—the good folks who just want to get on with their lives might just join up with us. We can help rebuild an awesomely messy community of people, the crazy quilt we call America. As long as we don't hurt people or take their stuff. Libertarianism: Defined by Ends, Not Means David Friedman A libertarian is someone who has concluded, for whatever reason, that he prefers a society with a high level of individual freedom and little interference with individual rights. That leaves open the question of what those rights are. Simply put, we believe in negative rights, not positive rights; the right not to be killed, not the right to live; the right of each person to control his own life, but not at the expense of unwilling others. "Libertarian" is not a binary variable—there is no bright line separating those just libertarian enough to qualify from those not quite libertarian enough. A socialist who believes in government control of heavy industry but private markets for everything else or one who supports a Yugoslavian-style system where workers' co-ops interact with each other through the market may not be very libertarian, but he is more libertarian than a socialist who believes in running everything from the center. Someone who wants to replace the public-school system with education vouchers is probably more libertarian than the vast majority of the population—but less libertarian than someone willing to go all the way to a completely private system. Not all disagreements can be ordered that neatly. A person who believes in a woman's right to have an abortion is not clearly more or less libertarian than one who believes in the right of a fetus not to be killed. Likewise for the disagreement between those who see copyrights as the least justifiable form of private property and those who see it as the most justifiable. Going further afield, it is possible to construct a libertarian argument along Georgist lines for a government funded by taxes on the site value of land, on the theory that the holder owes compensation to all those deprived of access to his parcel, which, not having been produced by human effort, ought properly to be a commons. It is equally possible to construct a libertarian case in opposition, based either on a Lockean claim of just ownership or on the consequentialist argument—which goes all the way back to economist David Ricardo's rejection of Adam Smith's case for land taxes—about how a real-world government can be expected, in practice, to implement such a tax. "Most folks want to be left alone to live their lives, raise their families, make a living, maybe take a few risks or practice their faith. They are good people, meaning that they'll do good by you, as long as you don't hurt them or take their stuff." As the final point suggests, many of the disagreements among libertarians depend on the practical implications of alternative institutions. Those who believe, as I do, that private institutions in a stateless society can be expected to do a better job of rights enforcement than a minimal state will conclude that the shift to anarchy would reduce total rights violation. Hence, we see anarchism as more libertarian than minarchism. Those who believe a minimal state provides a large reduction in rights violation by private individuals at the cost of a small amount of rights violation by public actors will reach the opposite conclusion. Both are libertarians. Love Liberty? Love God. Deirdre Nansen McCloskey I've been a libertarian since about age 25, just barely satisfying the old formula that someone who is not a socialist by age 16 has no heart but that someone who is still a socialist at age 25 has no brain. (Listen up, Bernie.) Reading Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia when it came out in 1974 eradicated the last remnants of my youthful Marxism. What remains is that these days I'm a "bleeding-heart libertarian"—or perhaps a "humane liberal," as I am always on the quest to reclaim the less geeky L word. I also call myself a Christian liberal/libertarian, which gets nearly everyone angry. I must be doing something right. I've only been a Christian since age 56. Religion is not the Baltimore catechism with the nuns to enforce it. It's not a series of propositions. The former nun and religious writer Karen Armstrong points out in her many excellent books about religious history that until the unhappy attachment of faith to physics, with the development of "natural religion" circa 1700, religion was a practice, not a set of dogmas. Judaism has it right. The word belief comes from the Germanic love or loyalty, while religion comes from the Latin for connect. It's not a list of commandments (even the pesky seventh) but a loving commitment to a path. Maybe someday I will discover some terrible inconsistency between libertarianism and progressive Episcopalianism. If so, I will have to abandon one of them. But I doubt it. The core of Christian theology is free will. God does not want us to be pets but autonomous individuals, able to choose evil as well as good. We must live, therefore, in a real world in which the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 can happen. If we lived in Eden, we would not suffer such calamities. But we would not be free. The central notion in Austrian School economics—"human action"—entails precisely the same point. As against the Marxism I espoused at 16, or the Chicago School economics I taught 10 years later, an active choice is involved both in a Christian life and in the markets. By contrast, orthodox economics nowadays views people as entirely reactive, like grass seeking optimal light and water. No. God made us in Her image. (A side note: My Anglican God is a black lesbian middle-aged overweight single mother with three children who lives in Leeds and works at the Tesco. Get ready.) Libertarians are commonly atheists. Probably that is because the independent-minded teenager who denies both left and right politically is also likely to have rebelled against all the silly stuff his parents told him about God at an even younger age. My preachment to my libertarian friends is not to rest at any arguments, commitments, or ways of life just because they seemed cool to a 14-year-old boy. (The girls, I find, are less dogmatic.) When I beg them to read a serious book about religion at age 30 or 50 they echo the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris: "No, why would I do that? I already know it's rubbish. I decided it was at 14." Please, read and reflect as grown-ups. A Political System Rooted in Truths About Human Nature John Allison Libertarians are a big umbrella group whose primary agreement is that the state should interfere minimally in the lives of individuals. During my time as head of the Cato Institute, I would tell people that our mission is to create a free and prosperous society based on the principles of individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace. Unlike many on both left and right, we think the state should stay out of your pocketbook and we also think the state should stay out of your bedroom. Libertarians believe government has one important, but limited, purpose: to protect individual rights. Its job is to keep me from using force or fraud to take what you have earned and to keep you from using force or fraud to take what I have earned. In this context, it has three legitimate practical functions: national defense to protect us from foreign invasions, police to protect us from criminals, and an effective court system so that when you and I have a dispute, we can resolve it without recourse to force. The reason government power must be limited is that governments have a unique authority to initiate the use of force. Walmart can offer you low prices and special deals; it can beg you to buy its products, but it cannot make you. The state can make you. It can take your property, lock you up, or kill you. And in fact, governments have killed hundreds of millions of people throughout history. Our life experiences tell us that agreements based on mutual consent are more effective than those based on force. Yet government is only necessary if force is necessary. When thinking about a proposed piece of legislation, even if you agree with its goal, ask yourself whether you would personally be willing to use a gun to make someone who disagrees with the legislation obey it. If not, you should oppose turning it into a law. I'm also an Objectivist, so I strongly believe that politics must be rooted in a proper understanding of metaphysics and epistemology. In other words, I think the contours of a good political system are derived from the laws of nature and human nature. Nature—the reality of the world around us—is a given. But so is human nature. Everything that is alive has a means of survival. A lion has claws to hunt. Deer have speed to avoid predators. Our means of survival is the capacity to think—to reason objectively from facts. "In the libertarian view, the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force—actions such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud." Because of Mother Nature and our nature, certain principles are necessary for us to survive and prosper qua mankind. In order to achieve happiness, in the Aristotelian context of a life well lived, one must have a sense of purpose and exhibit certain virtues—rationality, independent thinking, productivity, honesty, integrity, pride, justice—in the pursuit of one's long-term self-interest. The only political system that allows individuals to live out these virtues is a system based on liberty. Different libertarians defend limited government from different perspectives. Unfortunately, we sometimes lose arguments because we are not clear on the above premises, which form the foundation for defending liberty. Still, since we are so outnumbered, whatever our disagreements, it is critically important for those of us who are rational defenders of a free society to work together to protect our freedom. Civil Libertarianism and the Commitment to Equal Justice Nadine Strossen The core principle of civil libertarianism is that all human beings are equally entitled to fundamental freedoms. We all have inherent human rights, and it is government's responsibility to protect those rights. Moreover, all of our rights are indivisible, so civil libertarians must neutrally resist any rights violation. To cite some current examples, we must secure fundamental due process rights for both those who are gunned down by police officers and the police officers, and for both sexual assault victims and those they accuse. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously phrased it, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality." To be sure, we civil libertarians recognize that no right (beyond the purely internal freedom of thought) is absolute. However, we insist that government not restrict any right unless it can show that the restriction is necessary to promote a countervailing goal of great importance, such as public safety. While authorities can easily assert that rights-restricting measures are designed to promote such important goals, it is much harder to show that a measure is necessary. If the state could promote its goal through an alternative measure—one that's less restrictive of individual freedom—it must do so. These core civil liberties principles are well illustrated by the First Amendment cases that bar government from shutting down speech solely because its message is hated, feared, or distressing. Censorship efforts are often struck down because the potential adverse impact of such speech can be countered in other ways, such as through protests and editorials denouncing the problematic view. Yes, government may regulate speech when necessary to avert certain specific, immediate, serious harms, for example when the speech constitutes a genuine threat or intentional incitement of imminent violence. Short of such an emergency, though—when speech poses only an indirect, speculative danger of potential harm—then the remedy is more speech, "counterspeech," not enforced silence. Much evidence demonstrates that "hate speech," which conveys discriminatory ideas, can be countered more effectively through education and persuasion than through suppression. Indeed, censoring such speech can well be counterproductive for many reasons, including by increasing attention and sympathy for the hatemongers. While it has been fashionable in recent decades to distinguish civil liberties from civil rights and freedom from equality, in fact these are all mutually reinforcing concepts. It is difficult even to draw a meaningful distinction between liberty and equality, let alone to regard them as inalterably oppositional. How could we possibly claim to have secured individual liberty if some individuals are denied their rights for discriminatory reasons? Conversely, how could we possibly claim to have secured meaningful equality if it does not encompass the exercise of individual freedom? As the University of California, Los Angeles constitutional law professor Kenneth Karst has noted, egalitarian movements have long recognized the symbiotic relationship between liberty and equality. Accordingly, the 1960s civil rights movement "marched under the banner of 'Freedom,' even though its chief objective was equal access—[including] to the vote [and] to education," he wrote. Likewise, "liberation" has been the watchword for movements for equal rights for both women and LGBT people. The Declaration of Independence's famous proclamation that we're all created equal aspired to equality in terms of our "unalienable rights." Abraham Lincoln rightly exhorted us to strive ceaselessly to bridge the gap between this civil libertarian ideal and the actual lived reality of everyone in the U.S., stating that the goal "should be…constantly labored for…thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence…augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere." The Presumption of Liberty David Boaz Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom. More specifically, it's the political philosophy that rests on the presumption of liberty: Like the presumption of innocence, this places the burden of proof on those who would restrict liberty, not those who would exercise it. Alternatively, it can be understood as the philosophy that seeks to minimize the use of coercion in ordering social relations, with the burden of proof resting on those who would exercise coercion, not on those on whom it is exercised. Liberty is realized through well-defined and legally secure equal rights, on the basis of which people can create voluntary associations and engage in mutually beneficial exchanges. We believe each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Accordingly, no one may initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property—rights that people possess naturally, before governments are instituted, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force—actions such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud. Most people believe in and live by that code of ethics. We don't hit people, break down their doors, take their money by force, or imprison them if they live peacefully in ways that we don't like. Libertarians believe this code should be applied consistently—and specifically, that it should be applied to actions by governments as well as by individuals. Governments should exist to safeguard rights—to protect us from others who might use force against us. That generally means police to prevent crime and arrest criminals, courts to settle disputes and punish wrongdoers, and national defense against external threats. Few people, of course, think in terms of such strict and abstract definitions. When I talk to popular audiences, I say that libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their own lives. Many people share the broad libertarian principles of personal and economic freedom, which in U.S. politics are sometimes described as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." When the political researcher David Kirby and I study the "libertarian vote," we find that about 15 percent of Americans answer survey questions in a way that cuts across contemporary liberal and conservative axes in a libertarian direction. In the past few decades, as the word liberal has come (at least in the United States) to mean an advocate of expansive government power, libertarian has increasingly been applied to scholars and political leaders who share "classical liberal" values such as support for individual rights, freer markets, and peace. Thus, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and the editors of The Economist are libertarians in contemporary American parlance. Around the globe—in China, South Africa, the Muslim world, South America, and more—people with those ideas are still generally called liberals, although the more ideologically committed sometimes describe themselves as libertarians.

www.reason.com

right

uXNyDaauEcmCoARC

test

NtqSoF6gdicBxjCO

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/media-complicity-in-the-violence-of-our-politics/

Media Complicity in the Violence of Our Politics

R. Emmett Tyrrell, J.T. Young, Robert Stacy Mccain, David Catron, Scott Mckay, Dov Fischer

Has it been noted that the country ’ s political disagreements are becoming increasingly violent ? About fifteen years ago “ the angry left ” appeared on the scene , and its indignant members got a lot of attention from the media . The enormous volume of press attention signaled the media ’ s manifest approval , if sotto voce . Next came the Occupiers ’ movement , and again these ruffians came with the media ’ s approval , at least sotto voce . Then gun-toting cowards began shooting people for humanitarian reasons , and the media did not know what to think . The assassination attempt on Congressman Steve Scalise and his colleagues comes to mind . The right too has its violent practitioners . There are the alt-right , the neo-Nazis , and the Klan . The violence at Charlottesville , Virginia , was a high-water mark for these creeps . The alt-right and their competitors seem to have faded a bit of late , but they are still out there . They are kept in the news oddly enough by their criminality , though the media never approves of it , even sotto voce . Yet the media never misses an opportunity to report on their malevolent behavior , often with inflated figures . As I have noted for years , without the media ’ s attention these creeps would be mere curiosities . Even the left-wing practitioners of violence are pretty much marginal , though they have snappier slogans . Meanwhile , the theater of operations has shifted to cable television , where the violence is more gentlemanly and ladylike . In fact , it is not even violence . It is only rhetoric : insults exchanged , vituperations heaved , and occasional syllogisms deposited . On one side the left is posing as mainstream hosts . On the other side are the self-proclaimed conservatives . The left calls us intolerable extremists , racists , and its members intimate that some of us are the prosopopoeia of the alt-right . We on the right remain gentlemen and ladies . We do not call the left socialists , cranks , and mentally unbalanced , unless we have to . Recently the left escalated things . The left threatened the right ’ s advertisers . With typical bluster they threatened to unleash their hoards , and the more timorous corporate titans bowed to the left or at least they temporarily bowed to the left . When they found that the left ’ s threats were mostly hollow they returned . Some such as the noble Mike Lindell of MyPillow never left . I bought two of his pillows and I may buy a third for pillow fights with my grandson . The left began threatening the right back in 2012 when it called upon Rush Limbaugh ’ s advertisers to cancel their ads for him . He allegedly had slandered Sandra Fluke . Remember her ? Rush held fast . Jeff Lord , the commentator , printed the cowardly advertisers ’ names and they crept back to Rush , though Rush was very discerning about whom he would take back . Now the left , notwithstanding its guff about free speech , has turned upon Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham . Again the left threatens their advertisers . Yet this time Sean and Laura have the support of a real champion of the First Amendment and a pretty good businessman too , Rupert Murdoch in person . He is the one person in America who has broken the left ’ s monopoly on media with his Fox News . Bravo Rupert once again ! About twenty years ago as Fox gained influence I noticed the battle lines forming . I sensed that there would be an attack on Fox ’ s advertisers . After all , the left had turned on newspapers some years before for running conservative columnists . It had been pretty successful at influencing newspapers in Los Angeles , San Francisco , and other left-wing havens to drop their conservative columnists . So much for the newspapers ’ clap trap in defense of the First Amendment . There is only one Rupert Murdoch . The result was fewer readers of newspapers . Now those boring newspapers are going out of business . At the time I told the media watchdog Reed Irvine that he ought to expand his army of monitors and encourage them to write letters-to-the-editor of their hometown newspapers praising the editors for publishing both sides . Surely the editors would appreciate an occasional pat-on-the-back . They could not possibly be happy with the growing acrimony on their pages , could they ? Quite possibly they could be , and certainly many of the editors are happy with things as they are today . Most are members of today ’ s mainstream media . They would rather travel with the herd than be controversial . At any rate , Reed Irvine did not take my advice . The media became angrier and angrier , and now audiences are hoping other media entrepreneurs will follow Murdoch ’ s lead . Once again , bravo Rupert !

Washington Has it been noted that the country’s political disagreements are becoming increasingly violent? About fifteen years ago “the angry left” appeared on the scene, and its indignant members got a lot of attention from the media. The enormous volume of press attention signaled the media’s manifest approval, if sotto voce. Next came the Occupiers’ movement, and again these ruffians came with the media’s approval, at least sotto voce. Then gun-toting cowards began shooting people for humanitarian reasons, and the media did not know what to think. The assassination attempt on Congressman Steve Scalise and his colleagues comes to mind. The right too has its violent practitioners. There are the alt-right, the neo-Nazis, and the Klan. The violence at Charlottesville, Virginia, was a high-water mark for these creeps. The alt-right and their competitors seem to have faded a bit of late, but they are still out there. They are kept in the news oddly enough by their criminality, though the media never approves of it, even sotto voce. Yet the media never misses an opportunity to report on their malevolent behavior, often with inflated figures. As I have noted for years, without the media’s attention these creeps would be mere curiosities. Even the left-wing practitioners of violence are pretty much marginal, though they have snappier slogans. Meanwhile, the theater of operations has shifted to cable television, where the violence is more gentlemanly and ladylike. In fact, it is not even violence. It is only rhetoric: insults exchanged, vituperations heaved, and occasional syllogisms deposited. On one side the left is posing as mainstream hosts. On the other side are the self-proclaimed conservatives. The left calls us intolerable extremists, racists, and its members intimate that some of us are the prosopopoeia of the alt-right. We on the right remain gentlemen and ladies. We do not call the left socialists, cranks, and mentally unbalanced, unless we have to. Recently the left escalated things. The left threatened the right’s advertisers. With typical bluster they threatened to unleash their hoards, and the more timorous corporate titans bowed to the left or at least they temporarily bowed to the left. When they found that the left’s threats were mostly hollow they returned. Some such as the noble Mike Lindell of MyPillow never left. I bought two of his pillows and I may buy a third for pillow fights with my grandson. The left began threatening the right back in 2012 when it called upon Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers to cancel their ads for him. He allegedly had slandered Sandra Fluke. Remember her? Rush held fast. Jeff Lord, the commentator, printed the cowardly advertisers’ names and they crept back to Rush, though Rush was very discerning about whom he would take back. Now the left, notwithstanding its guff about free speech, has turned upon Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Again the left threatens their advertisers. Yet this time Sean and Laura have the support of a real champion of the First Amendment and a pretty good businessman too, Rupert Murdoch in person. He is the one person in America who has broken the left’s monopoly on media with his Fox News. Bravo Rupert once again! About twenty years ago as Fox gained influence I noticed the battle lines forming. I sensed that there would be an attack on Fox’s advertisers. After all, the left had turned on newspapers some years before for running conservative columnists. It had been pretty successful at influencing newspapers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other left-wing havens to drop their conservative columnists. So much for the newspapers’ clap trap in defense of the First Amendment. There is only one Rupert Murdoch. The result was fewer readers of newspapers. Now those boring newspapers are going out of business. At the time I told the media watchdog Reed Irvine that he ought to expand his army of monitors and encourage them to write letters-to-the-editor of their hometown newspapers praising the editors for publishing both sides. Surely the editors would appreciate an occasional pat-on-the-back. They could not possibly be happy with the growing acrimony on their pages, could they? Quite possibly they could be, and certainly many of the editors are happy with things as they are today. Most are members of today’s mainstream media. They would rather travel with the herd than be controversial. At any rate, Reed Irvine did not take my advice. The media became angrier and angrier, and now audiences are hoping other media entrepreneurs will follow Murdoch’s lead. Once again, bravo Rupert!

www.spectator.org

right

NtqSoF6gdicBxjCO

test

JO3POXK8L9pfVRus

lgbt_rights

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/9679bebf729e11243abfd8bdba9728e3

GOP Rep. pitches LGBTQ rights bill with religious exemptions

2019-12-06

Elana Schor

FILE - In this Thursday , Sept. 19 , 2019 file photo , Rep. Chris Stewart , R-Utah , a member of the House Intelligence Committee , leaves a meeting with national intelligence inspector general Michael Atkinson about a whistleblower complaint , at the Capitol in Washington . As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom , Rep. Chris Stewart is offering a proposal on Friday , Dec. 6 , 2019 that aims to achieve both goals . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite , File ) FILE - In this Thursday , Sept. 19 , 2019 file photo , Rep. Chris Stewart , R-Utah , a member of the House Intelligence Committee , leaves a meeting with national intelligence inspector general Michael Atkinson about a whistleblower complaint , at the Capitol in Washington . As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom , Rep. Chris Stewart is offering a proposal on Friday , Dec. 6 , 2019 that aims to achieve both goals . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite , File ) As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom , one congressional Republican is offering a proposal on Friday that aims to achieve both goals . The bill that Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart plans to unveil would shield LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in employment , housing , education , and other public services — while also carving out exemptions for religious organizations to act based on beliefs that may exclude those of different sexual orientations or gender identities . Stewart ’ s bill counts support from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Seventh-day Adventist Church , but it has yet to win a backer among House Democrats who unanimously supported a more expansive LGBTQ rights measure in May . But the uphill climb for his plan doesn ’ t daunt Stewart , who sees the bill as a way to “ bridge that gap ” between preventing discrimination and allowing religion to inform individual decisions . “ I don ’ t know many people who wake up and say ‘ I want to discriminate ’ . Most people find that offensive , ” Stewart told The ███ . “ There are people who , and I ’ m included among them , have religious convictions that put them in a bind about how to reconcile those two principles . ” The Utah lawmaker ’ s legislation comes as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on cases that touch squarely on the issue of employment discrimination against LGBTQ people , who currently do not receive specific protection in federal civil rights laws . While 21 states have laws that bar employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity , Democrats in Congress and running for president are pushing for a federal statute that would provide broader protections . But that more sweeping bill ’ s chances of passage are low unless Democrats take back full control of Congress as well as the White House , given President Donald Trump ’ s opposition and Republican critics who warn of a risk to religious freedom . That prospect has informed Stewart and outside groups ’ work on a proposal to enshrine rights for the LGBTQ community while also preserving the right for religious groups to act in accordance with their faiths . Among other faith-based exemptions to anti-discrimination protections in the bill is an allowance for religious groups such as churches and schools to employ those who align with their internal guidelines , according to a summary provided in advance of its release . The bill also would prohibit religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage from having their tax-exempt status revoked . “ We have taken back the religious liberty principle from extremists who I think do want to do harm to LGBTQ people and minority rights , ” said Tyler Deaton , a senior adviser to the American Unity Fund , a nonprofit supporting Stewart ’ s bill that seeks to build conservative support for LGBTQ rights . Deaton added that some religious conservative groups who were consulted on the bill ultimately chose not to endorse it . Despite that resistance from some on the right , Stewart ’ s bill sparked sharp criticism from progressives who decry its exemptions as large enough to enable ongoing mistreatment of LGBTQ individuals . “ We need to address the real and pervasive problem that is discrimination against LGBTQ people , and everyone should come to the table to address the problem , ” said Laura Durso , a vice president at the left-leaning Center for American Progress . “ But what we can not do is treat LGBTQ people as second-class citizens by creating carve-outs that enable discrimination . ” ███ religion coverage receives support from the Lilly Endowment through the Religion News Foundation . The AP is solely responsible for this content .

FILE - In this Thursday, Sept. 19, 2019 file photo, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, leaves a meeting with national intelligence inspector general Michael Atkinson about a whistleblower complaint, at the Capitol in Washington. As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom, Rep. Chris Stewart is offering a proposal on Friday, Dec. 6, 2019 that aims to achieve both goals. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) FILE - In this Thursday, Sept. 19, 2019 file photo, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, leaves a meeting with national intelligence inspector general Michael Atkinson about a whistleblower complaint, at the Capitol in Washington. As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom, Rep. Chris Stewart is offering a proposal on Friday, Dec. 6, 2019 that aims to achieve both goals. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom, one congressional Republican is offering a proposal on Friday that aims to achieve both goals. The bill that Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart plans to unveil would shield LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other public services — while also carving out exemptions for religious organizations to act based on beliefs that may exclude those of different sexual orientations or gender identities. Stewart’s bill counts support from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but it has yet to win a backer among House Democrats who unanimously supported a more expansive LGBTQ rights measure in May. But the uphill climb for his plan doesn’t daunt Stewart, who sees the bill as a way to “bridge that gap” between preventing discrimination and allowing religion to inform individual decisions. “I don’t know many people who wake up and say ‘I want to discriminate’. Most people find that offensive,” Stewart told The Associated Press. “There are people who, and I’m included among them, have religious convictions that put them in a bind about how to reconcile those two principles.” The Utah lawmaker’s legislation comes as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on cases that touch squarely on the issue of employment discrimination against LGBTQ people, who currently do not receive specific protection in federal civil rights laws. While 21 states have laws that bar employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Democrats in Congress and running for president are pushing for a federal statute that would provide broader protections. But that more sweeping bill’s chances of passage are low unless Democrats take back full control of Congress as well as the White House, given President Donald Trump’s opposition and Republican critics who warn of a risk to religious freedom. That prospect has informed Stewart and outside groups’ work on a proposal to enshrine rights for the LGBTQ community while also preserving the right for religious groups to act in accordance with their faiths. Among other faith-based exemptions to anti-discrimination protections in the bill is an allowance for religious groups such as churches and schools to employ those who align with their internal guidelines, according to a summary provided in advance of its release. The bill also would prohibit religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage from having their tax-exempt status revoked. “We have taken back the religious liberty principle from extremists who I think do want to do harm to LGBTQ people and minority rights,” said Tyler Deaton, a senior adviser to the American Unity Fund, a nonprofit supporting Stewart’s bill that seeks to build conservative support for LGBTQ rights. Deaton added that some religious conservative groups who were consulted on the bill ultimately chose not to endorse it. Despite that resistance from some on the right, Stewart’s bill sparked sharp criticism from progressives who decry its exemptions as large enough to enable ongoing mistreatment of LGBTQ individuals. “We need to address the real and pervasive problem that is discrimination against LGBTQ people, and everyone should come to the table to address the problem,” said Laura Durso, a vice president at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “But what we cannot do is treat LGBTQ people as second-class citizens by creating carve-outs that enable discrimination.” __ Associated Press religion coverage receives support from the Lilly Endowment through the Religion News Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

www.apnews.com

center

JO3POXK8L9pfVRus

test

DTkcmJBVofLvUlcL

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/08/nyt-writer-christianity-must-be-made-to-embrace-gay-lifestyle/

NYT Writer: Chrsitians 'Must Be Made' to Embrace Gay Lifestyle

2015-04-08

Thomas D. Williams

In the wake of the Indiana donnybrook over religious liberty , which somehow was transformed overnight into a question of gay rights , it couldn ’ t be long before the New York Times weighed in against Christians . Yet who could have expected the draconian measures the Times would propose ? Either Christians fully embrace the gay lifestyle , or you will be coerced into doing so . Op-ed writer Frank Bruni , onetime Times restaurant critic and a gay activist , has written that Christians who hold on to “ ossified , ” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America ’ s table and are deserving of no particular regard . In one fell swoop , Bruni trashes all believing Christians as “ bigots , ” saying that Christians ’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “ a choice ” that “ prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still , as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing . ” In other words , if you still cling to your benighted views and your “ ancient texts , ” you are living in the past and your views merit no respect . Bruni ’ s solution to the impasse is not some sort of goodwill compromise or a treaty of mutual respect , but a take-no-prisoners ultimatum to Christians to abandon their beliefs or else . When Bruni says that Christians ’ understanding of sexual morality is “ a choice , ” what he means is that there is a way out without completely losing face : just embrace the new morality preached by mainstream liberal churches that see nothing wrong with any sexual arrangement you are comfortable with . Then we will accept you . As a food critic , NY Times writer Frank Bruni was entertaining and occasionally informative . As an op-ed columnist he is adolescent and often repetitive . But as a theologian , he is simply abysmal . Bruni takes it upon himself to explain how the Bible can be interpreted to read that God is really fine with sodomy and that all that antiquated stuff against adultery , fornication , and “ men lying with other men ” is a quaint vestige of an archaic worldview that went out definitively with Freud . The scary part about Bruni ’ s essay is not his awkward attempt at playing the biblical scholar , but the undertone of evident disdain for Christians and his proposal that those who resist should be forcibly reeducated . In Christians ’ refusal to bend with the times , Bruni sees not faithfulness to God but willful obstinacy that must be broken . “ So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn ’ t cling to and can indeed jettison , much as they ’ ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith ’ s history , rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity , ” Bruni writes . But what if Christians don ’ t want to change ? What if they don ’ t want to “ bow to the enlightenments of modernity ” ? What if they are convinced that the modern worldview is not necessarily the most enlightened path when it comes to the ultimate meaning of life and death , time and eternity ? “ Religion , ” writes Bruni , “ is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia . It will give license to discrimination . ” Bruni cites fellow gay activist Mitchell Gold , founder of the advocacy group Faith in America , as saying that church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list . “ His commandment is worthy — and warranted , ” writes Bruni . So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy ? Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful ? Isn ’ t this what America was founded to escape from ? People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings , whether they like it or not , or get out of the marriage business . Christians founded America and yet now the minority gay lobby is trying to tell them they are personae non gratae and their beliefs are no longer welcome . America has a grand tradition of tolerance and religious freedom , respect for a diversity of beliefs , and an honest engagement with ideas of all sorts . It seems that some would like to force all Americans to walk in lockstep , marching to the same drummer . Sincere Christians have no problem accepting other people with all their sins , inclinations , and struggles , fully understanding that they are in no way superior to the next guy and no better in God ’ s eyes . But attempts to force them to abandon their ethical standards and their principles reveal not open-mindedness or fairness , but intolerance , chauvinism , and hate . These are the attitudes that have no place in America .

In the wake of the Indiana donnybrook over religious liberty, which somehow was transformed overnight into a question of gay rights, it couldn’t be long before the New York Times weighed in against Christians. Yet who could have expected the draconian measures the Times would propose? Either Christians fully embrace the gay lifestyle, or you will be coerced into doing so. Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, onetime Times restaurant critic and a gay activist, has written that Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and are deserving of no particular regard. In one fell swoop, Bruni trashes all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.” In other words, if you still cling to your benighted views and your “ancient texts,” you are living in the past and your views merit no respect. Bruni’s solution to the impasse is not some sort of goodwill compromise or a treaty of mutual respect, but a take-no-prisoners ultimatum to Christians to abandon their beliefs or else. When Bruni says that Christians’ understanding of sexual morality is “a choice,” what he means is that there is a way out without completely losing face: just embrace the new morality preached by mainstream liberal churches that see nothing wrong with any sexual arrangement you are comfortable with. Then we will accept you. As a food critic, NY Times writer Frank Bruni was entertaining and occasionally informative. As an op-ed columnist he is adolescent and often repetitive. But as a theologian, he is simply abysmal. Bruni takes it upon himself to explain how the Bible can be interpreted to read that God is really fine with sodomy and that all that antiquated stuff against adultery, fornication, and “men lying with other men” is a quaint vestige of an archaic worldview that went out definitively with Freud. The scary part about Bruni’s essay is not his awkward attempt at playing the biblical scholar, but the undertone of evident disdain for Christians and his proposal that those who resist should be forcibly reeducated. In Christians’ refusal to bend with the times, Bruni sees not faithfulness to God but willful obstinacy that must be broken. “So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” Bruni writes. But what if Christians don’t want to change? What if they don’t want to “bow to the enlightenments of modernity”? What if they are convinced that the modern worldview is not necessarily the most enlightened path when it comes to the ultimate meaning of life and death, time and eternity? “Religion,” writes Bruni, “is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination.” And thus it must be stamped out. Bruni cites fellow gay activist Mitchell Gold, founder of the advocacy group Faith in America, as saying that church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list. “His commandment is worthy — and warranted,” writes Bruni. So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy? Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from? People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings, whether they like it or not, or get out of the marriage business. Christians founded America and yet now the minority gay lobby is trying to tell them they are personae non gratae and their beliefs are no longer welcome. America has a grand tradition of tolerance and religious freedom, respect for a diversity of beliefs, and an honest engagement with ideas of all sorts. It seems that some would like to force all Americans to walk in lockstep, marching to the same drummer. Sincere Christians have no problem accepting other people with all their sins, inclinations, and struggles, fully understanding that they are in no way superior to the next guy and no better in God’s eyes. But attempts to force them to abandon their ethical standards and their principles reveal not open-mindedness or fairness, but intolerance, chauvinism, and hate. These are the attitudes that have no place in America. Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome

www.breitbart.com

right

DTkcmJBVofLvUlcL

test

zgEpknUZPfgx5vR0

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/bernie_sanders_becomes_the_first_candidate_to_speak_out_on_sandra_bland_we_need_real_police_reform/

Bernie Sanders becomes the first candidate to speak out on Sandra Bland: “We need real police reform”

2015-07-22

Sophia Tesfaye

Bernie Sanders released a forceful statement blasting the conduct of Sandra Bland 's arresting officer as `` police abuse '' and calling for `` real police reform . '' So far , Sanders is the only presidential candidate to speak publicly about the death of Bland while in police custody . The arrest and subsequent death of the 28-year-old African American woman in a small Texas town set-off a national outcry last week after local officials ruled her death in a jell cell a suicide . Witness cell phone footage later released revealed Bland yelling during the arrest that the officer had slammed her head on the ground . Authorities said she hung herself with a plastic bag in a jail cell three days later on July 13 . Following Sanders ' tense confrontation with # BlackLivesMatters activists at the progressive Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix on Saturday , the independent Vermont senator added a passage to his stump speech in Houston on Sunday referencing Bland 's death , a reference the Texas Tribune said drew the longest and loudest applause from the crowd . “ It is unacceptable that police officers beat up people or kill people , '' Sanders told the audience in Houston . `` If they do that , they have got to be held accountable . ” After dashcam video of Bland 's arrest was released last night showing the officer , who had pulled Bland over for what he described as failing to signal a turn , open Bland 's driver side door and threaten to `` light her up '' with his taser if she did n't stop smoking a cigarette and exit the vehicle , Sanders was quick to release a statement Tuesday condemning the arrest : This video of the arrest of Sandra Bland shows totally outrageous police behavior . No one should be yanked from her car , thrown to the ground , assaulted and arrested for a minor traffic stop . The result is that three days later she is dead in her jail cell . This video highlights once again why we need real police reform . People should not die for a minor traffic infraction . This type of police abuse has become an all-too-common occurrence for people of color and it must stop . .Two Texas state lawmakers have already called Bland 's arrest unlawful , but the two Texans running for president , Sen. Ted Cruz and former Governor Rick Perry have not yet commented on Bland at all . Sanders is the only presidential candidate to mention Bland on the campaign trail , so far . Activists have utilized the # SayHerName hashtag on social media to garner attention to the Bland case .

Bernie Sanders released a forceful statement blasting the conduct of Sandra Bland's arresting officer as "police abuse" and calling for "real police reform." So far, Sanders is the only presidential candidate to speak publicly about the death of Bland while in police custody. The arrest and subsequent death of the 28-year-old African American woman in a small Texas town set-off a national outcry last week after local officials ruled her death in a jell cell a suicide. Witness cell phone footage later released revealed Bland yelling during the arrest that the officer had slammed her head on the ground. Authorities said she hung herself with a plastic bag in a jail cell three days later on July 13. Advertisement: Following Sanders' tense confrontation with #BlackLivesMatters activists at the progressive Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix on Saturday, the independent Vermont senator added a passage to his stump speech in Houston on Sunday referencing Bland's death, a reference the Texas Tribune said drew the longest and loudest applause from the crowd. “It is unacceptable that police officers beat up people or kill people," Sanders told the audience in Houston. "If they do that, they have got to be held accountable.” After dashcam video of Bland's arrest was released last night showing the officer, who had pulled Bland over for what he described as failing to signal a turn, open Bland's driver side door and threaten to "light her up" with his taser if she didn't stop smoking a cigarette and exit the vehicle, Sanders was quick to release a statement Tuesday condemning the arrest: This video of the arrest of Sandra Bland shows totally outrageous police behavior. No one should be yanked from her car, thrown to the ground, assaulted and arrested for a minor traffic stop. The result is that three days later she is dead in her jail cell. This video highlights once again why we need real police reform. People should not die for a minor traffic infraction. This type of police abuse has become an all-too-common occurrence for people of color and it must stop. .Two Texas state lawmakers have already called Bland's arrest unlawful, but the two Texans running for president, Sen. Ted Cruz and former Governor Rick Perry have not yet commented on Bland at all. Sanders is the only presidential candidate to mention Bland on the campaign trail, so far. Activists have utilized the #SayHerName hashtag on social media to garner attention to the Bland case.

www.salon.com

left

zgEpknUZPfgx5vR0

test

zJ6PmFQvD8lZvnlP

cybersecurity

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Obama/2015/01/10/id/617775/

Obama to Focus on Cybersecurity Issues Next Week

2015-01-10

Darlene Superville

Continuing the break with State of the Union tradition , President Barack Obama will spend most of the coming week previewing more of the proposals he will outline in the address , including on identity theft , electronic privacy , and cybersecurity , the White House announced Saturday . Obama will use a Monday event at the Federal Trade Commission to lay out the next steps of a plan to tackle identity theft and improve consumer and student privacy . It follows a plan Obama announced last October to tighten security for the debit cards that transmit federal benefits to millions of Americans . After holding his first meeting of the new year with the top leaders in Congress on Tuesday , Obama will discuss cybersecurity , including ways of getting the private sector and federal government to voluntarily share more cybersecurity information . He 'll do so at the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center , a part of the Department of Homeland Security that shares information among the public and private sectors . Obama 's focus on cybersecurity follows the recent hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc . The president and other senior administration officials blame North Korea for the crippling attack , which disclosed confidential company emails and business files and included threats of terror attacks against U.S. movie theaters until Sony agreed to cancel the Christmas release of its film `` The Interview . '' The comedy depicts an assassination plot against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un . Sony eventually released the film online and in a small number of theaters . On Wednesday , Obama will be in Iowa to talk about making affordable , high-speed Internet more available nationwide . Traditionally , the White House closely guards the details of plans to be offered in the State of the Union until just before the president delivers the nationally televised address . But in a bid to generate excitement for the speech as he begins the next-to-last year of his presidency , Obama began previewing new initiatives during the week , including programs to boost homeownership by reducing mortgage insurance premiums and increase access to higher education by paying for the first two years of community college for Americans who meet certain criteria . `` I did n't want to wait for the State of the Union to talk about all the things that make this country great and how we can make it better , so I thought I 'd get started this week , '' Obama said Wednesday in Michigan , where he discussed a rebounding U.S. auto industry . `` I figured , why wait ? It 's like opening your Christmas presents a little early . '' The proposals include steps Obama can take unilaterally using his executive authority , a practice he used frequently last year that irritated Republicans . Other proposals will require collaboration with Congress , which Republicans now control . They reacted coolly to Obama 's announcements . Vice President Joe Biden is also pitching in with the previews . He travels to Norfolk , Virginia , on Thursday to announce new funding to help train people to work in the cybersecurity industry , the White House said . Obama 's State of the Union address is scheduled for Jan. 20 .

Continuing the break with State of the Union tradition, President Barack Obama will spend most of the coming week previewing more of the proposals he will outline in the address, including on identity theft, electronic privacy, and cybersecurity, the White House announced Saturday. Obama will use a Monday event at the Federal Trade Commission to lay out the next steps of a plan to tackle identity theft and improve consumer and student privacy. It follows a plan Obama announced last October to tighten security for the debit cards that transmit federal benefits to millions of Americans. After holding his first meeting of the new year with the top leaders in Congress on Tuesday, Obama will discuss cybersecurity, including ways of getting the private sector and federal government to voluntarily share more cybersecurity information. He'll do so at the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, a part of the Department of Homeland Security that shares information among the public and private sectors. Obama's focus on cybersecurity follows the recent hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. The president and other senior administration officials blame North Korea for the crippling attack, which disclosed confidential company emails and business files and included threats of terror attacks against U.S. movie theaters until Sony agreed to cancel the Christmas release of its film "The Interview." The comedy depicts an assassination plot against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Sony eventually released the film online and in a small number of theaters. On Wednesday, Obama will be in Iowa to talk about making affordable, high-speed Internet more available nationwide. Traditionally, the White House closely guards the details of plans to be offered in the State of the Union until just before the president delivers the nationally televised address. But in a bid to generate excitement for the speech as he begins the next-to-last year of his presidency, Obama began previewing new initiatives during the week, including programs to boost homeownership by reducing mortgage insurance premiums and increase access to higher education by paying for the first two years of community college for Americans who meet certain criteria. "I didn't want to wait for the State of the Union to talk about all the things that make this country great and how we can make it better, so I thought I'd get started this week," Obama said Wednesday in Michigan, where he discussed a rebounding U.S. auto industry. "I figured, why wait? It's like opening your Christmas presents a little early." The proposals include steps Obama can take unilaterally using his executive authority, a practice he used frequently last year that irritated Republicans. Other proposals will require collaboration with Congress, which Republicans now control. They reacted coolly to Obama's announcements. Vice President Joe Biden is also pitching in with the previews. He travels to Norfolk, Virginia, on Thursday to announce new funding to help train people to work in the cybersecurity industry, the White House said. Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Jan. 20.

www.newsmax.com

right

zJ6PmFQvD8lZvnlP

test

JkDRcUBze0OMFbPi

media_bias

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/30/ryan-notes-campaign-missteps-claims-media-bias/?iref=allsearch

Ryan notes campaign ‘missteps,’ claims media bias

2012-09-30

( CNN ) – GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan acknowledged the Republican campaign 's `` missteps '' on Sunday , calling Mitt Romney ’ s now-notorious “ 47 % ” comments “ inarticulate , ” while still defending the crux of his running mate ’ s argument . Ryan also took the media to task for what he called bias against conservatives . - Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November . Appearing on “ Fox News Sunday , ” Ryan said his running mate ’ s controversial comments were `` an inarticulate way to describe what we ’ re trying to do to create prosperity and upward mobility , and reduce dependency by getting people off welfare , back to work . ” “ We 've had some missteps , '' said Ryan , also noting many conservatives ' concerns that the campaign is failing to project a clear message to voters . `` But at the end of the day , the choice is really clear , and we 're giving people a very clear choice . '' Romney made the candid `` 47 % '' remarks to a group of wealthy donors at a private fund-raiser caught on a secretly recorded video in May . The video was posted online by a left-leaning news organization earlier in September , sparking a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle . Among other hotly contested remarks , the Republican nominee said nearly half of Americans will automatically vote for the president because they are dependent on government and consider themselves “ victims . ” Ryan noted that Romney had conceded the lack of `` eloquence '' in his choice of words , though Ryan also picked up on the argument , blaming Obama for a sluggish economy and what the GOP campaign bills as policies that foster dependency on government . Ryan also accused the media of having a liberal disposition . “ I think it kind of goes without saying that there 's definitely a media bias . We 've - look , I 'm a conservative person , I 'm used to media bias . We expected media bias going into this , ” said Ryan . Asked to cite a specific example of media bias , Ryan demurred , instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and , therefore , would want a president who is a Democrat to win . “ I 'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing , ” said Ryan . “ But as a conservative , I 've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias . And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that 's the case . ”

7 years ago (CNN) – GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan acknowledged the Republican campaign's "missteps" on Sunday, calling Mitt Romney’s now-notorious “47%” comments “inarticulate,” while still defending the crux of his running mate’s argument. Ryan also took the media to task for what he called bias against conservatives. - Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker - Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Ryan said his running mate’s controversial comments were "an inarticulate way to describe what we’re trying to do to create prosperity and upward mobility, and reduce dependency by getting people off welfare, back to work.” “We've had some missteps," said Ryan, also noting many conservatives' concerns that the campaign is failing to project a clear message to voters. "But at the end of the day, the choice is really clear, and we're giving people a very clear choice." Romney made the candid "47%" remarks to a group of wealthy donors at a private fund-raiser caught on a secretly recorded video in May. The video was posted online by a left-leaning news organization earlier in September, sparking a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle. Among other hotly contested remarks, the Republican nominee said nearly half of Americans will automatically vote for the president because they are dependent on government and consider themselves “victims.” Ryan noted that Romney had conceded the lack of "eloquence" in his choice of words, though Ryan also picked up on the argument, blaming Obama for a sluggish economy and what the GOP campaign bills as policies that foster dependency on government. Ryan also accused the media of having a liberal disposition. “I think it kind of goes without saying that there's definitely a media bias. We've - look, I'm a conservative person, I'm used to media bias. We expected media bias going into this,” said Ryan. Asked to cite a specific example of media bias, Ryan demurred, instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win. “I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing,” said Ryan. “But as a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case.”

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

JkDRcUBze0OMFbPi

test

4DakNGSB2dnMHhS3

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/19/jay-sekulows-bizarre-debut-donald-trump-picked-a-lawyer-he-saw-on-fox-news-and-it-isnt-going-well/

Jay Sekulow’s bizarre debut: Donald Trump picked a lawyer he saw on Fox News and it isn’t going well

2017-06-19

Heather Digparton

Last week The Washington Post dropped one of the biggest bombshells of the Russia scandal to date when it published a story with five different sources saying that that special counsel Robert Mueller was looking into President Donald Trump 's actions related to the firing of former FBI Director James Comey . The sources were anonymous so the White House could have easily made no comment and let its outside surrogates construct some `` alternative facts , '' if only to buy some time . Then the president , up in the middle of the night — probably obsessively watching `` the shows '' on his TiVo — took to Twitter to admit that he was under investigation and he seemed to blame it on the deputy attorney general , Rod Rosenstein . By confirming that he was under investigation , Trump moved the story along substantially for no good reason . But that 's him . He is congenitally unable to keep his cool . It had been widely reported that Trump has been unable to hire any top law firms to represent him because they believe he is likely to shoot off his mouth against their advice . According to Yahoo News , one lawyer said the concerns were as follows : `` The guy won ’ t pay and he won ’ t listen . '' So after Comey 's last public testimony , Trump unleashed his longtime private lawyer Marc Kasowitz to rebut the charges and it was n't a smooth performance . The president apparently decided he needed someone with a little bit more experience in Washington . Since all the A-list defense attorneys were `` unavailable '' to come to the president 's defense , he had to turn to the right-wing fever swamps and a man named Jay Sekulow , a familiar presence for viewers of Fox News . It 's a bit unexpected for Sekulow to work for a president with a reputation as a crude libertine who clearly lacks any sincere commitment to religion and `` traditional values . '' Sekulow is best known for his work at the American Center for Law and Justice , the Christian conservatives ' answer to the American Civil Liberties Union , which the Rev . Pat Robertson founded in 1990 . The American Center for Law and Justice has become known in recent years for its work against gay marriage but it has been fighting at the front of every culture-war battle of the past 27 years . Sekulow has argued some of its most important school prayer and abortion-clinic protest cases before the Supreme Court . He even represented the notorious anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue in a famous case that determined that the RICO Act ( which is used to prosecute organized crime figures ) could not be used against anti-abortion protesters . Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice have been heavily involved in the Christian right 's odious project to criminalize homosexuality in Africa . Mother Jones reported on this in 2012 : Sekulow and his son Jordan opened affiliated offices of the ACLJ in Africa to lobby politicians to “ take the Christian ’ s views into consideration as they draft legislation and policies , ” according to ACLJ ’ s website . ACLJ ’ s Zimbabwe office has pushed an agenda that backs outlawing same-sex marriage and making sure that homosexuality “ remain [ s ] a criminal activity . ” The agenda of the American Center for Law and Justice includes ensuring that abortion is banned as well . Why would Donald Trump hire a right-wing First Amendment lawyer rather than a defense attorney ? Well , it 's obviously because Sekulow is a `` legal analyst '' for Fox News , which Trump watches obsessively . He likely saw Sekulow `` defend '' him on TV one night and decided he 'd be a good `` defense '' lawyer . So far , that 's not going too well . Sekulow made the rounds on all the Sunday talk shows ( a feat known as the `` full Ginsburg '' after Monica Lewinsky 's attorney , William Ginsburg , who hit all the shows in one famous blitz at the height of the scandal involving her . ) He insisted to anyone who would listen that despite the president 's tweeting that he was under investigation , he was really responding only to the news report and is n't under investigation at all . It did n't make much sense , but Sekulow sounded highly confident in his assertion until he came to his home network , Fox News , to appear on Chris Wallace 's show . That 's when things fell apart . Wallace asked why , if the president is n't under investigation , he would go after Rosenstein , describing the situation as a `` witch hunt . '' Sekulow lost his poise and began explaining that Trump had taken the advice of the attorney general and his deputy and `` now the Department of Justice is investigating him . '' Wallace called him on it , and they had a spirited back and forth during which Wallace insisted that Sekulow had said what we 'd just heard him say : Chris Wallace : Well , but you don ’ t know that he isn ’ t under investigation now , do you ? Jay Sekulow : Well , no one ’ s notified us that he is . So I — I can ’ t read people ’ s minds , but I can tell you this : We have not been notified that there ’ s an investigation to the president of the United States . So that — nothing has changed in that regard since James Comey ’ s testimony . Wallace : Well , you don ’ t know that he ’ s not under investigation again , sir . I mean you might — Sekulow : You know , I can ’ t read the mind — you ’ re right , Chris , I can ’ t read the minds of the special prosecutor . Wallace ended the segment with “ You don ’ t know . Oh boy , this is weird . You just told us that you didn ’ t know . ” It 's not all that surprising that Trump would end up with a lawyer like Sekulow . But why is Sekulow doing this for Trump ? He 's a religious-right guy and while he undoubtedly voted for Trump , as did millions of other conservative Christians , the president seems an odd cause for him to take up . But they may have more in common than seems obvious at first blush . According to Right Wing Watch , which has been tracking Sekulow for years , they have a similar approach to making money : Several years ago , Tony Mauro wrote an article for The Legal Times entitled “ The Secrets of Jay Sekulow ” which examined how “ through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities , [ Sekulow ] has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle — complete with multiple homes , chauffeur-driven cars , and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia . ” Sekulow runs two multimillion-dollar nonprofits , the Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism and the American Center for Law and Justice . His wife , brother , sister-in-law and two sons dominate the boards of both organizations , collecting millions of dollars through complicated legal structures . It 's a highly lucrative nepotistic empire , not unlike the Trump Organization and the current White House . These two men sell different products , but they are cut from the same cloth .

Last week The Washington Post dropped one of the biggest bombshells of the Russia scandal to date when it published a story with five different sources saying that that special counsel Robert Mueller was looking into President Donald Trump's actions related to the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. The sources were anonymous so the White House could have easily made no comment and let its outside surrogates construct some "alternative facts," if only to buy some time. Then the president, up in the middle of the night — probably obsessively watching "the shows" on his TiVo — took to Twitter to admit that he was under investigation and he seemed to blame it on the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. By confirming that he was under investigation, Trump moved the story along substantially for no good reason. But that's him. He is congenitally unable to keep his cool. Advertisement: It had been widely reported that Trump has been unable to hire any top law firms to represent him because they believe he is likely to shoot off his mouth against their advice. According to Yahoo News, one lawyer said the concerns were as follows: "The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen." So after Comey's last public testimony, Trump unleashed his longtime private lawyer Marc Kasowitz to rebut the charges and it wasn't a smooth performance. The president apparently decided he needed someone with a little bit more experience in Washington. Since all the A-list defense attorneys were "unavailable" to come to the president's defense, he had to turn to the right-wing fever swamps and a man named Jay Sekulow, a familiar presence for viewers of Fox News. It's a bit unexpected for Sekulow to work for a president with a reputation as a crude libertine who clearly lacks any sincere commitment to religion and "traditional values." Sekulow is best known for his work at the American Center for Law and Justice, the Christian conservatives' answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, which the Rev. Pat Robertson founded in 1990. Advertisement: The American Center for Law and Justice has become known in recent years for its work against gay marriage but it has been fighting at the front of every culture-war battle of the past 27 years. Sekulow has argued some of its most important school prayer and abortion-clinic protest cases before the Supreme Court. He even represented the notorious anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue in a famous case that determined that the RICO Act (which is used to prosecute organized crime figures) could not be used against anti-abortion protesters. Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice have been heavily involved in the Christian right's odious project to criminalize homosexuality in Africa. Mother Jones reported on this in 2012: Sekulow and his son Jordan opened affiliated offices of the ACLJ in Africa to lobby politicians to “take the Christian’s views into consideration as they draft legislation and policies,” according to ACLJ’s website. ACLJ’s Zimbabwe office has pushed an agenda that backs outlawing same-sex marriage and making sure that homosexuality “remain[s] a criminal activity.” The agenda of the American Center for Law and Justice includes ensuring that abortion is banned as well. Advertisement: Why would Donald Trump hire a right-wing First Amendment lawyer rather than a defense attorney? Well, it's obviously because Sekulow is a "legal analyst" for Fox News, which Trump watches obsessively. He likely saw Sekulow "defend" him on TV one night and decided he'd be a good "defense" lawyer. So far, that's not going too well. Sekulow made the rounds on all the Sunday talk shows (a feat known as the "full Ginsburg" after Monica Lewinsky's attorney, William Ginsburg, who hit all the shows in one famous blitz at the height of the scandal involving her.) He insisted to anyone who would listen that despite the president's tweeting that he was under investigation, he was really responding only to the news report and isn't under investigation at all. Advertisement: It didn't make much sense, but Sekulow sounded highly confident in his assertion until he came to his home network, Fox News, to appear on Chris Wallace's show. That's when things fell apart. Wallace asked why, if the president isn't under investigation, he would go after Rosenstein, describing the situation as a "witch hunt." Sekulow lost his poise and began explaining that Trump had taken the advice of the attorney general and his deputy and "now the Department of Justice is investigating him." Wallace called him on it, and they had a spirited back and forth during which Wallace insisted that Sekulow had said what we'd just heard him say: Chris Wallace: Well, but you don’t know that he isn’t under investigation now, do you? Jay Sekulow: Well, no one’s notified us that he is. So I — I can’t read people’s minds, but I can tell you this: We have not been notified that there’s an investigation to the president of the United States. So that — nothing has changed in that regard since James Comey’s testimony. Wallace: Well, you don’t know that he’s not under investigation again, sir. I mean you might — Sekulow: You know, I can’t read the mind — you’re right, Chris, I can’t read the minds of the special prosecutor. Wallace ended the segment with “You don’t know. Oh boy, this is weird. You just told us that you didn’t know.” Advertisement: You can see the whole exchange as captured below: It's not all that surprising that Trump would end up with a lawyer like Sekulow. But why is Sekulow doing this for Trump? He's a religious-right guy and while he undoubtedly voted for Trump, as did millions of other conservative Christians, the president seems an odd cause for him to take up. But they may have more in common than seems obvious at first blush. According to Right Wing Watch, which has been tracking Sekulow for years, they have a similar approach to making money: Advertisement: Several years ago, Tony Mauro wrote an article for The Legal Times entitled “The Secrets of Jay Sekulow” which examined how “through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, [Sekulow] has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle — complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” Sekulow runs two multimillion-dollar nonprofits, the Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism and the American Center for Law and Justice. His wife, brother, sister-in-law and two sons dominate the boards of both organizations, collecting millions of dollars through complicated legal structures. It's a highly lucrative nepotistic empire, not unlike the Trump Organization and the current White House. These two men sell different products, but they are cut from the same cloth.

www.salon.com

left

4DakNGSB2dnMHhS3

test

zeSfcxLilzR0R1Dt

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/will-fractured-house-republicans-unite-on-budget/

Will Fractured House Republicans Unite on Budget?

John Parkinson

Tomorrow morning , House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will release the latest version of his budget blueprint , setting the federal government on a course to balance annual revenue and spending levels by the year 2023 . Until now , the former Republican vice presidential nominee has never proposed a budget that balanced in just a decade . `` I would n't expect big surprises from us [ Tuesday ] . We 're making some additional modest changes to get to balance . '' Ryan , R-Wis. , told reporters at briefing last week . `` We 're adding some other policies that finish the job , but I would n't expect big surprises from us next week . I do n't want to set irrational expectations . '' This time , Ryan points to two unlikely factors that actually help achieve the conservative goal : revenue and sequestration . `` Revenue went up significantly two months ago with the `` Fiscal Cliff '' deal . The baselines changed . We 're not going to refight that fight , '' Ryan said , referring to $ 600 billion in new tax revenue President Obama secured in the deal . `` We also have some lower spending and lower deficits in that baseline as well [ as a result of sequestration ] . '' While Ryan is the chief author of the GOP 's budget proposal , he does not work alone and there are varying perspectives . The Budget committee is a melting pot of lawmakers representing the interests of the House 's most powerful committees , especially the Ways and Means committee , which Ryan also sits on , and the Appropriations committee . `` The starting point is the budget , '' Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price , the vice chairman of the Budget committee , said . `` It 's our list of priorities , our list of the visions that we have for the country . '' But some GOP insiders confidentially question whether Ryan can pass his budget out of a committee markup this week . Republicans hold a narrow 22-17 seat advantage over Democrats on the committee . With Democrats ideologically against his proposals , Ryan can only afford losing two Republicans before a third dissenter stalls the resolution in committee . `` Ryan 's budget is facing opposition from many sides , including within his own committee , '' one Republican congressional source said on the condition of anonymity . `` He loses votes on everything from Medicare and entitlement changes to his drastic discretionary cuts , and it will be difficult for him to pass his budget out of committee , let alone the House floor . '' While Ryan would not elaborate on any details from his new budget ahead of Tuesday 's release , there are reports he could raise the threshold at which people are protected from changes to the Medicare eligibility age . On the House floor , Republicans hold a 232-200 majority , plus there are three vacant seats . With 216 votes constituting a simple majority , House Speaker John Boehner and Ryan can lose just 16 rank and file Republicans . Last year 10 Republicans voted against the Ryan budget on the floor , but in the new session of Congress where the GOP 's majority is slimmer than the last session , Boehner has needed Democratic votes to pass several essential pieces of legislation . At a pen and pad briefing last week , Ryan did his best to assure reporters that all Republican members on the committee are `` unified . '' `` Everybody sees it my way . We 're all fine , '' Ryan joked . `` We have members who have various priorities and preferences coming from different districts but on the point of getting an agreement that gets cuts and reforms , that gets us on the path to balance , we are completely unified . '' While some of the most conservative Republicans griped in the past that Ryan 's budgets did not cut spending quickly enough , Rep. Tom Cole , a member of both the Budget and Appropriations committees , called Ryan 's bid the `` most aggressive budget by any majority in recent years . '' While meeting the spending caps could puzzle the appropriators ' work later this year , Cole urged House Republicans to rally around Ryan 's proposal . He predicted it will ultimately pass , but also acknowledged the uncertainty ahead as the House prepares for a vote on the floor next week . `` We ca n't have 20 members on each end of the conference dictating what 's going to happen . If you satisfy 20 on right , you 're going to lose 20 on left , '' Cole said in a phone call over the weekend . `` We do n't have much margin of error . '' Senate Democrats and President Obama are also preparing their own budget proposals . Ryan warned against buying into `` gimmicks '' in their plans that count savings from hurricane relief and war spending , which are both factored into the Congressional Budget Office 's baseline . `` When you 're looking at a budget , you 've got a watch the gimmicks , '' Ryan warned . `` We are not planning on being in Afghanistan for a decade . Nobody is . We know the deadline , but the CBO in their baseline assumes we 're going to be in Afghanistan for a decade . And if we pull out in 2014 , which is the mutually agreed to plan , that saves you all this money . We had one hurricane that was an enormous hurricane that was kind of a one-time event . The last time we had one like this was '05 . Are we going to have a supplemental like that each and every year for the decade ? CBO says so in their baseline . That 's not credible . '' `` Balance is balance no matter what , '' he continued . `` I could show balance using that CBO baseline and it would show we 're cutting a whole bunch more spending than what we 're going to show . We 're actually going to claim less spending reductions because we 're going to claim the real spending reductions , not the fake spending reductions . ''

Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo Tomorrow morning, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will release the latest version of his budget blueprint, setting the federal government on a course to balance annual revenue and spending levels by the year 2023. Until now, the former Republican vice presidential nominee has never proposed a budget that balanced in just a decade. "I wouldn't expect big surprises from us [Tuesday]. We're making some additional modest changes to get to balance." Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters at briefing last week. "We're adding some other policies that finish the job, but I wouldn't expect big surprises from us next week. I don't want to set irrational expectations." This time, Ryan points to two unlikely factors that actually help achieve the conservative goal: revenue and sequestration. "Revenue went up significantly two months ago with the "Fiscal Cliff" deal. The baselines changed. We're not going to refight that fight," Ryan said, referring to $600 billion in new tax revenue President Obama secured in the deal. "We also have some lower spending and lower deficits in that baseline as well [as a result of sequestration]." While Ryan is the chief author of the GOP's budget proposal, he does not work alone and there are varying perspectives. The Budget committee is a melting pot of lawmakers representing the interests of the House's most powerful committees, especially the Ways and Means committee, which Ryan also sits on, and the Appropriations committee. "The starting point is the budget," Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price, the vice chairman of the Budget committee, said. "It's our list of priorities, our list of the visions that we have for the country." But some GOP insiders confidentially question whether Ryan can pass his budget out of a committee markup this week. Republicans hold a narrow 22-17 seat advantage over Democrats on the committee. With Democrats ideologically against his proposals, Ryan can only afford losing two Republicans before a third dissenter stalls the resolution in committee. "Ryan's budget is facing opposition from many sides, including within his own committee," one Republican congressional source said on the condition of anonymity. "He loses votes on everything from Medicare and entitlement changes to his drastic discretionary cuts, and it will be difficult for him to pass his budget out of committee, let alone the House floor." While Ryan would not elaborate on any details from his new budget ahead of Tuesday's release, there are reports he could raise the threshold at which people are protected from changes to the Medicare eligibility age. On the House floor, Republicans hold a 232-200 majority, plus there are three vacant seats. With 216 votes constituting a simple majority, House Speaker John Boehner and Ryan can lose just 16 rank and file Republicans. Last year 10 Republicans voted against the Ryan budget on the floor, but in the new session of Congress where the GOP's majority is slimmer than the last session, Boehner has needed Democratic votes to pass several essential pieces of legislation. At a pen and pad briefing last week, Ryan did his best to assure reporters that all Republican members on the committee are "unified." "Everybody sees it my way. We're all fine," Ryan joked. "We have members who have various priorities and preferences coming from different districts but on the point of getting an agreement that gets cuts and reforms, that gets us on the path to balance, we are completely unified." While some of the most conservative Republicans griped in the past that Ryan's budgets did not cut spending quickly enough, Rep. Tom Cole, a member of both the Budget and Appropriations committees, called Ryan's bid the "most aggressive budget by any majority in recent years." While meeting the spending caps could puzzle the appropriators' work later this year, Cole urged House Republicans to rally around Ryan's proposal. He predicted it will ultimately pass, but also acknowledged the uncertainty ahead as the House prepares for a vote on the floor next week. "We can't have 20 members on each end of the conference dictating what's going to happen. If you satisfy 20 on right, you're going to lose 20 on left," Cole said in a phone call over the weekend. "We don't have much margin of error." Senate Democrats and President Obama are also preparing their own budget proposals. Ryan warned against buying into "gimmicks" in their plans that count savings from hurricane relief and war spending, which are both factored into the Congressional Budget Office's baseline. "When you're looking at a budget, you've got a watch the gimmicks," Ryan warned. "We are not planning on being in Afghanistan for a decade. Nobody is. We know the deadline, but the CBO in their baseline assumes we're going to be in Afghanistan for a decade. And if we pull out in 2014, which is the mutually agreed to plan, that saves you all this money. We had one hurricane that was an enormous hurricane that was kind of a one-time event. The last time we had one like this was '05. Are we going to have a supplemental like that each and every year for the decade? CBO says so in their baseline. That's not credible." "Balance is balance no matter what," he continued. "I could show balance using that CBO baseline and it would show we're cutting a whole bunch more spending than what we're going to show. We're actually going to claim less spending reductions because we're going to claim the real spending reductions, not the fake spending reductions."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

zeSfcxLilzR0R1Dt

test

S7Fj2t3mTvtEvrRL

banking_and_finance

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/2a1a0f6cb7f593fc79467f4ead2aa3e4

Dow drops over 1,000 as outbreak threatens global economy

2020-02-24

Elaine Kurtenbach

A man walks past an electronic stock board showing Japan 's Nikkei 225 index at a securities firm in Tokyo Tuesday , Feb. 25 , 2020 . Shares are mostly lower in Asia on Tuesday after Wall Street suffered its worst session in two years , with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumping more than 1,000 points on fears that a viral outbreak that began in China will weaken the world economy . ( AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko ) A man walks past an electronic stock board showing Japan 's Nikkei 225 index at a securities firm in Tokyo Tuesday , Feb. 25 , 2020 . Shares are mostly lower in Asia on Tuesday after Wall Street suffered its worst session in two years , with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumping more than 1,000 points on fears that a viral outbreak that began in China will weaken the world economy . ( AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko ) Shares are mostly lower in Asia on Tuesday after Wall Street suffered its worst session in two years , with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumping more than 1,000 points on fears that a viral outbreak that began in China will weaken the world economy . Japan ’ s Nikkei 225 index lost 3 % , to 22,686.61 after it reopened from a holiday on Monday . Hong Kong ’ s Hang Seng edged 0.2 % lower to 26,777.88 and the Shanghai Composite index sank 1.6 % to 2,984.19 . In Australia , the S & P ASX/200 shed 1.2 % to 6,896.10 . South Korea ’ s Kospi rebounded from a steep loss on Monday , adding 0.6 % to 2,091.80 . Shares also rose in Singapore but fell elsewhere in the region . In Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia ’ s main benchmark dropped 2.7 % amid a political upheaval after Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad offered his resignation to Malaysia ’ s king while his political party quit the ruling alliance . Overnight on Wall Street , traders sought safety in U.S. government bonds , gold and high-dividend stocks like utilities and real estate . The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to the lowest level in more than three years . Technology companies , whose supply chains have been disrupted , accounted for much of the broad market slide , which wiped out all of the Dow ’ s and S & P 500 ’ s gains for the year . More than 79,000 people worldwide have been infected by the new coronavirus . China , where the virus originated , still has the majority of cases and deaths . The country ’ s economy has been hardest hit as businesses and factories sit idle and people remain home-bound because the government has severely restricted travel and imposed strict quarantine measures to stop the virus from spreading . Economists have cut growth estimates for the Chinese economy . The ripple effects of the outbreak are being felt all around the world , as China is both a major importer of goods and a source of parts for intricate supply chains . China ’ s government promised tax cuts and other aid Monday to help companies recover despite anti-disease controls that shut down much of the world ’ s second-largest economy last month . Economists say it is likely to be at least mid-March before automakers and other companies return to full production . Still , while concern about the virus has prompted some sporadic selling in the past few weeks , for the most part global markets have traded as if the virus ’ impact would be limited . Until Monday , the major U.S. stock indexes had all been in the green . Crude oil prices slid 3.7 % on Monday but were stable early Tuesday . Benchmark U.S. crude oil rose 26 cents to $ 51.69 per barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange . It fell $ 1.95 to settle at $ 51.43 a barrel on Monday . Brent crude oil , the international standard , gained 28 cents to $ 56.06 per barrel . On Monday , it dropped $ 2.17 to close at $ 55.77 a barrel . The rapid spread from China to other countries is upping anxiety about the growing threat the outbreak poses to the global economy . “ Stock markets around the world are beginning to price in what bond markets have been telling us for weeks – that global growth is likely to be impacted in a meaningful way due to fears of the coronavirus , ” said Chris Zaccarelli , chief investment officer for Independent Advisor Alliance . The Dow lost 1,031.61 points , or 3.6 % , to 27,960.80 . The S & P 500 index skidded 3.4 % , to 3,225.89 . The Nasdaq dropped 3.7 % to 9,221.28 - its biggest loss since December 2018 . The Russell 2000 index of smaller company stocks gave up 3 % to 1,628.10 . The slump in U.S. indexes followed a sell-off in markets overseas . Italy ’ s benchmark tumbled after the number of virus cases there rose dramatically and a dozen towns in the northern part of the country were put under quarantine . There are also more cases of the virus being reported in the Middle East as it spreads to Iran , Iraq , and Kuwait , among others . Technology companies were among the worst hit by Monday ’ s sell-off . Apple , which depends on China for a lot of business , slid 4.8 % . Microsoft dropped 4.3 % . Banks such as JPMorgan and Bank of America were also big losers . Cruise lines suffered steep losses , as Carnival , Royal Caribbean Cruises and Norwegian Cruise Line were three of the top four decliners in the S & P 500 , each falling around 9 % . American Airlines also dropped sharply , and after the market closed , United Airlines withdrew its earnings estimate for 2020 because of uncertainty over how long the virus outbreak will last Gilead Sciences climbed 4.6 % and was among the few bright spots . The biotechnology company is testing a potential drug to treat the new coronavirus . Bleach-maker Clorox was also a standout , rising 1.5 % . Utilities and real estate companies held up better than most sectors . Investors tend to favor those industries , which carry high dividends and hold up relatively well during periods of turmoil , when they ’ re feeling fearful . They ’ re now the best-performing sectors in the S & P 500 for the year , while the tech sector has lost ground . In the eyes of some analysts , stocks are finally catching up to the bond market , where fear has been dominant for months . Investors have turned to the safety of bonds throughout 2020 , even as stocks overcame stumbles to set more records . The 10-year yield had recovered to 1.40 % early Tuesday after dipping to an intraday record low Monday of 1.325 % set in July 2016 , according to Tradeweb . The 30-year Treasury yield fell further after setting its own record low , down to 1.83 % from 1.92 % late Friday . Gold retreated as shares steadied , losing $ 16.50 to $ 1,660.30 ounce , silver lost 28 cents to $ 18.60 per ounce and copper fell 3 cents to $ 2.59 per pound . The dollar rose to 110.85 Japanese yen from 110.68 yen on Monday . The euro strengthened to $ 1.0865 from $ 1.0853 . AP Business writers Alex Veiga , Damian Troise and Stan Choe contributed .

A man walks past an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei 225 index at a securities firm in Tokyo Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2020. Shares are mostly lower in Asia on Tuesday after Wall Street suffered its worst session in two years, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumping more than 1,000 points on fears that a viral outbreak that began in China will weaken the world economy.(AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko) A man walks past an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei 225 index at a securities firm in Tokyo Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2020. Shares are mostly lower in Asia on Tuesday after Wall Street suffered its worst session in two years, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumping more than 1,000 points on fears that a viral outbreak that began in China will weaken the world economy.(AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko) Shares are mostly lower in Asia on Tuesday after Wall Street suffered its worst session in two years, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumping more than 1,000 points on fears that a viral outbreak that began in China will weaken the world economy. Japan’s Nikkei 225 index lost 3%, to 22,686.61 after it reopened from a holiday on Monday. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng edged 0.2% lower to 26,777.88 and the Shanghai Composite index sank 1.6% to 2,984.19. In Australia, the S&P ASX/200 shed 1.2% to 6,896.10. South Korea’s Kospi rebounded from a steep loss on Monday, adding 0.6% to 2,091.80. Shares also rose in Singapore but fell elsewhere in the region. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s main benchmark dropped 2.7% amid a political upheaval after Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad offered his resignation to Malaysia’s king while his political party quit the ruling alliance. Overnight on Wall Street, traders sought safety in U.S. government bonds, gold and high-dividend stocks like utilities and real estate. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to the lowest level in more than three years. Technology companies, whose supply chains have been disrupted, accounted for much of the broad market slide, which wiped out all of the Dow’s and S&P 500’s gains for the year. More than 79,000 people worldwide have been infected by the new coronavirus. China, where the virus originated, still has the majority of cases and deaths. The country’s economy has been hardest hit as businesses and factories sit idle and people remain home-bound because the government has severely restricted travel and imposed strict quarantine measures to stop the virus from spreading. Economists have cut growth estimates for the Chinese economy. The ripple effects of the outbreak are being felt all around the world, as China is both a major importer of goods and a source of parts for intricate supply chains. China’s government promised tax cuts and other aid Monday to help companies recover despite anti-disease controls that shut down much of the world’s second-largest economy last month. Economists say it is likely to be at least mid-March before automakers and other companies return to full production. Still, while concern about the virus has prompted some sporadic selling in the past few weeks, for the most part global markets have traded as if the virus’ impact would be limited. Until Monday, the major U.S. stock indexes had all been in the green. Crude oil prices slid 3.7% on Monday but were stable early Tuesday. Benchmark U.S. crude oil rose 26 cents to $51.69 per barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It fell $1.95 to settle at $51.43 a barrel on Monday. Brent crude oil, the international standard, gained 28 cents to $56.06 per barrel. On Monday, it dropped $2.17 to close at $55.77 a barrel. The rapid spread from China to other countries is upping anxiety about the growing threat the outbreak poses to the global economy. “Stock markets around the world are beginning to price in what bond markets have been telling us for weeks – that global growth is likely to be impacted in a meaningful way due to fears of the coronavirus,” said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer for Independent Advisor Alliance. The Dow lost 1,031.61 points, or 3.6%, to 27,960.80. The S&P 500 index skidded 3.4%, to 3,225.89. The Nasdaq dropped 3.7% to 9,221.28 - its biggest loss since December 2018. The Russell 2000 index of smaller company stocks gave up 3% to 1,628.10. The slump in U.S. indexes followed a sell-off in markets overseas. Italy’s benchmark tumbled after the number of virus cases there rose dramatically and a dozen towns in the northern part of the country were put under quarantine. There are also more cases of the virus being reported in the Middle East as it spreads to Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait, among others. Technology companies were among the worst hit by Monday’s sell-off. Apple, which depends on China for a lot of business, slid 4.8%. Microsoft dropped 4.3%. Banks such as JPMorgan and Bank of America were also big losers. Cruise lines suffered steep losses , as Carnival, Royal Caribbean Cruises and Norwegian Cruise Line were three of the top four decliners in the S&P 500, each falling around 9%. American Airlines also dropped sharply, and after the market closed, United Airlines withdrew its earnings estimate for 2020 because of uncertainty over how long the virus outbreak will last Gilead Sciences climbed 4.6% and was among the few bright spots . The biotechnology company is testing a potential drug to treat the new coronavirus. Bleach-maker Clorox was also a standout, rising 1.5%. Utilities and real estate companies held up better than most sectors. Investors tend to favor those industries, which carry high dividends and hold up relatively well during periods of turmoil, when they’re feeling fearful. They’re now the best-performing sectors in the S&P 500 for the year, while the tech sector has lost ground. In the eyes of some analysts, stocks are finally catching up to the bond market, where fear has been dominant for months. Investors have turned to the safety of bonds throughout 2020, even as stocks overcame stumbles to set more records. The 10-year yield had recovered to 1.40% early Tuesday after dipping to an intraday record low Monday of 1.325% set in July 2016, according to Tradeweb. The 30-year Treasury yield fell further after setting its own record low, down to 1.83% from 1.92% late Friday. Gold retreated as shares steadied, losing $16.50 to $1,660.30 ounce, silver lost 28 cents to $18.60 per ounce and copper fell 3 cents to $2.59 per pound. The dollar rose to 110.85 Japanese yen from 110.68 yen on Monday. The euro strengthened to $1.0865 from $1.0853. ___ AP Business writers Alex Veiga, Damian Troise and Stan Choe contributed.

www.apnews.com

center

S7Fj2t3mTvtEvrRL

test

5ExMQwh9jYM2tOnX

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/10/gops_real_ted_cruz_problem_why_partys_revenge_plot_is_silly_and_self_defeating/

GOP's real Ted Cruz problem: Why party's revenge plot is silly and self-defeating

2014-06-10

Simon Maloy

The ongoing fight between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party is turning into a downward spiral of vengeance that would leave any Greek tragedian impressed . After blowing their chance at taking the Senate in 2010 , the establishment punched back at the Tea Party and moved to keep the kooks from winning primaries in 2014 . The Tea Party , seeing its candidates go down , had its own “ revenge ” by booting out establishment Republicans in Texas and turning the state party into the Tea Party ’ s very own ideological sandbox . And now the establishment , having dealt with the foot soldiers , is planning to exact retribution on the very avatar of the Tea Party ethos : Ted Cruz . Time ’ s Jay Newton-Small reports that Republicans , with primary season largely behind them , are plotting to take revenge on Cruz for the outsize role he ’ s played in destroying the Republican brand over the last 17 months . Their swift and brutal retribution will come in the form of stripping his committee assignments and cutting him off from big donors . Doing so would be a just and fitting punishment for a senator who ’ s caused no small amount of trouble for his own party . It would also be completely stupid . The truth about the Republicans ’ “ Ted Cruz problem ” is that the “ problem , ” such as it exists , is their own damn fault . If one were asked to single out the single most damaging action Cruz has inflicted upon the GOP , the easy answer is the Obamacare-inspired government shutdown , for which Cruz was the chief proponent and agitator . Everyone recalls his ridiculous “ filibuster ” against the Senate bill to fund government operations ( and Obamacare ) , and while his hours of speech-making got a lot of attention , it did nothing to actually prevent the Senate from passing the bill . The impasse came when the House Republican leadership threw in with Cruz and stripped funding for Obamacare from their own version of the legislation . They , like Cruz , felt there was political benefit in forcing the issue and a chance they could get the White House to back down . Put plainly , Cruz wouldn ’ t have had the influence he did if his ideas weren ’ t shared by so many on the Republican side of the aisle . Punishing Cruz for the shutdown is also an indictment of John Boehner and Eric Cantor and every other Republican who actually made it possible . At the most basic level , Cruz is a senator because he represents ideas the Republican base finds very appealing . Time ’ s article mentions February ’ s debt ceiling fight , in which Cruz imposed a 60-vote supermajority to pass any increase , as one of the “ uncomfortable votes ” he ’ s forced his colleagues to take . That vote was “ uncomfortable ” for them because Republican voters really don ’ t want the debt limit to be increased . Let ’ s take a look at the establishment ’ s proposed punishments for Cruz and how they ’ re at best ineffective , and at worst counterproductive . Cutting off Cruz from whale donors within the party is , for the moment , pointless . As Time notes , Cruz ’ s considerable fundraising strength comes from “ a small but vocal part of the base , ” which has “ given him a powerful grassroots-fundraising platform. ” If the Republicans come to Cruz and say “ we ’ re cutting you off from Wall Street , ” Cruz would probably shrug and send out a fundraising email saying he ’ s been cut off from Wall Street . ( You could argue that Cruz would need those donors if he ever wants to be president , but he never will be president , so stop making silly arguments . ) Stripping Cruz of his committee assignments would be an embarrassment for him ( assuming Cruz is capable of feeling embarrassment ) but it would absolutely enrage the Tea Party base that considers Cruz its hero . The practical effect of doing that would probably be to further strengthen Cruz ’ s appeal to the base by making him a martyr of the establishment . That ’ s why this notion of taking “ revenge ” on Cruz – while perhaps cathartic to the Republicans he ’ s burned and amusing to observers on the left – is so stupid . Cruz is the type of guy who spins reprimands from the establishment as badges of honor that prove he ’ s shaking up the system . To that point , Cruz is himself a perfect expression of the modern Republican base : brash , loud , reflexively oppositional and thoroughly uninterested in the actual business of governing . For the establishment to take “ revenge ” on him would be to drive a wedge between the party and the base just as they ’ re going into the 2016 election cycle . And Cruz himself isn ’ t going anywhere . Texas loves him , and he ’ s succeeded in remaking the Texas GOP in his own image . His clout with the Tea Party means he still has sway , even if he ’ s making enemies . Greg Sargent sees him shaping the Republican position on immigration going forward , now that the chances of passing a reform bill have essentially flatlined . The best hope Republicans have for ridding themselves of Cruz ’ s is to wait and see if he ’ ll sell out and cash in like Jim DeMint , or to elect a Republican president and somehow get Cruz nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court ( an outcome some conservatives think is at least possible ) . But for now Republicans are stuck with Cruz , and for that they have themselves to thank .

The ongoing fight between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party is turning into a downward spiral of vengeance that would leave any Greek tragedian impressed. After blowing their chance at taking the Senate in 2010, the establishment punched back at the Tea Party and moved to keep the kooks from winning primaries in 2014. The Tea Party, seeing its candidates go down, had its own “revenge” by booting out establishment Republicans in Texas and turning the state party into the Tea Party’s very own ideological sandbox. And now the establishment, having dealt with the foot soldiers, is planning to exact retribution on the very avatar of the Tea Party ethos: Ted Cruz. Time’s Jay Newton-Small reports that Republicans, with primary season largely behind them, are plotting to take revenge on Cruz for the outsize role he’s played in destroying the Republican brand over the last 17 months. Their swift and brutal retribution will come in the form of stripping his committee assignments and cutting him off from big donors. Doing so would be a just and fitting punishment for a senator who’s caused no small amount of trouble for his own party. It would also be completely stupid. Advertisement: The truth about the Republicans’ “Ted Cruz problem” is that the “problem,” such as it exists, is their own damn fault. If one were asked to single out the single most damaging action Cruz has inflicted upon the GOP, the easy answer is the Obamacare-inspired government shutdown, for which Cruz was the chief proponent and agitator. Everyone recalls his ridiculous “filibuster” against the Senate bill to fund government operations (and Obamacare), and while his hours of speech-making got a lot of attention, it did nothing to actually prevent the Senate from passing the bill. The impasse came when the House Republican leadership threw in with Cruz and stripped funding for Obamacare from their own version of the legislation. They, like Cruz, felt there was political benefit in forcing the issue and a chance they could get the White House to back down. Put plainly, Cruz wouldn’t have had the influence he did if his ideas weren’t shared by so many on the Republican side of the aisle. Punishing Cruz for the shutdown is also an indictment of John Boehner and Eric Cantor and every other Republican who actually made it possible. At the most basic level, Cruz is a senator because he represents ideas the Republican base finds very appealing. Time’s article mentions February’s debt ceiling fight, in which Cruz imposed a 60-vote supermajority to pass any increase, as one of the “uncomfortable votes” he’s forced his colleagues to take. That vote was “uncomfortable” for them because Republican voters really don’t want the debt limit to be increased. Let’s take a look at the establishment’s proposed punishments for Cruz and how they’re at best ineffective, and at worst counterproductive. Cutting off Cruz from whale donors within the party is, for the moment, pointless. As Time notes, Cruz’s considerable fundraising strength comes from “a small but vocal part of the base,” which has “given him a powerful grassroots-fundraising platform.” If the Republicans come to Cruz and say “we’re cutting you off from Wall Street,” Cruz would probably shrug and send out a fundraising email saying he’s been cut off from Wall Street. (You could argue that Cruz would need those donors if he ever wants to be president, but he never will be president, so stop making silly arguments.) Advertisement: Stripping Cruz of his committee assignments would be an embarrassment for him (assuming Cruz is capable of feeling embarrassment) but it would absolutely enrage the Tea Party base that considers Cruz its hero. The practical effect of doing that would probably be to further strengthen Cruz’s appeal to the base by making him a martyr of the establishment. That’s why this notion of taking “revenge” on Cruz – while perhaps cathartic to the Republicans he’s burned and amusing to observers on the left – is so stupid. Cruz is the type of guy who spins reprimands from the establishment as badges of honor that prove he’s shaking up the system. To that point, Cruz is himself a perfect expression of the modern Republican base: brash, loud, reflexively oppositional and thoroughly uninterested in the actual business of governing. For the establishment to take “revenge” on him would be to drive a wedge between the party and the base just as they’re going into the 2016 election cycle. And Cruz himself isn’t going anywhere. Texas loves him, and he’s succeeded in remaking the Texas GOP in his own image. His clout with the Tea Party means he still has sway, even if he’s making enemies. Greg Sargent sees him shaping the Republican position on immigration going forward, now that the chances of passing a reform bill have essentially flatlined. The best hope Republicans have for ridding themselves of Cruz’s is to wait and see if he’ll sell out and cash in like Jim DeMint, or to elect a Republican president and somehow get Cruz nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court (an outcome some conservatives think is at least possible). Advertisement: But for now Republicans are stuck with Cruz, and for that they have themselves to thank.

www.salon.com

left

5ExMQwh9jYM2tOnX

test

VrSEeGywpyJ3UMnw

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/3c776a12a97468341bcfe8178638f127

House passes bill easing bids by workers to form unions

2020-02-07

Matthew Daly

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , joined at left by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka , speaks during a news conference about the Protecting the Right to Organize ( PRO ) Act at the Capitol in Washington , Wednesday , Feb. 5 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , joined at left by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka , speaks during a news conference about the Protecting the Right to Organize ( PRO ) Act at the Capitol in Washington , Wednesday , Feb. 5 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — In a move that supporters said would help working families , the Democratic-controlled House has approved a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions and bargain for higher wages , better benefits and improved working conditions . The “ Protecting the Right to Organize ” or PRO Act would allow more workers to conduct organizing campaigns and would add penalties for companies that violate workers ’ rights . The act would also weaken “ right-to-work ” laws that allow employees in more than half the states to avoid participating in or paying dues to unions that represent workers at their places of employment . In one of its most controversial provisions , the bill would close loopholes that allow what supporters call intentional misclassification of workers as supervisors and independent contractors in order to prevent them from joining a union . The House approved the bill , 224-194 , on Thursday . The measure is unlikely to be taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate and faces a veto threat from the White House . Even so , Democrats touted it as a major victory for worker rights and said it would help reverse a decades-long trend of declining union membership in the U.S. workforce . Less than 11 % of American workers belong to a union , a statistic Democrats called disgraceful . “ Without these protections , the playing field will remain heavily stacked against workers , ″ said Rep. Mark Pocan , D-Wis . The bill ’ s sponsor , Rep. Bobby Scott , D-Va. , called labor unions one of the most powerful tools workers have to improve their standard of living . But under current law , there are “ no meaningful penalties for predatory corporations that use unlawful tactics to discourage workers from organizing a union , ” said Scott , who chairs the House Education & Labor Committee . “ For far too long , workers have been stripped of their voices , losing their power to organize for better wages and benefits , ″ said Pocan , co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus . The House bill will allow workers to “ fight back against corporations and anti-union special interests that have attacked and eroded the labor movement for decades , ″ he said . Republicans dismissed the bill as a “ political gift to union bosses ” that would diminish the rights of workers and employers alike while harming the economy . “ Big Labor is in a panic over plummeting union membership , ″ said Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina , the senior Republicans on the labor panel . She urged union leaders to “ self-correct and increase transparency and accountability , ″ rather than spending ” three times as much money on political activity as on ... organizing and representing workers.″ Federal law already protects the right of employees to organize , Foxx said , adding that the House bill would require employers to hand over workers ’ personal information to union organizers , allowing them to “ target , harass and intimidate workers.″ If the House bill becomes law , “ workers will be forced to take money from their paychecks and give it to labor unions even if they don ’ t want to be represented by a union , ″ she said , noting that the bill is opposed by small business owners , trade associations and other business organizations . The White House also objected to the bill . While the Trump administration is willing to work with Congress to strengthen protections for union members , the House bill would kill jobs , violate workers ’ privacy , restrict freedom of association and roll back the administration ’ s deregulatory agenda , the White House said in a statement . The Democratic bill “ appears to cut and paste ” core provisions of a controversial California law that “ severely restricts self-employment , ″ the White House said . The California law , known as Assembly Bill 5 , “ is actively threatening the existence of both the franchise business sector and the gig economy in California , ″ the White House said , adding that it ” would be a serious mistake for Congress to impose this flawed job-killing policy on the entire country.″ The California law has drawn nationwide attention for its attempt to give wage and benefit protections to people who work for ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft . The law also applies to freelance journalists , despite complaints that it could put some out of work . Under the PRO Act , employers would not be allowed to force workers to attend anti-union meetings and would face penalties for violating workers ’ rights . “ It ’ s time to give workers the tools they need to survive in an economy rigged against them , ″ Pocan said . “ Every worker deserves to have a union.″

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., joined at left by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaks during a news conference about the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., joined at left by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaks during a news conference about the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) WASHINGTON (AP) — In a move that supporters said would help working families, the Democratic-controlled House has approved a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions and bargain for higher wages, better benefits and improved working conditions. The “Protecting the Right to Organize” or PRO Act would allow more workers to conduct organizing campaigns and would add penalties for companies that violate workers’ rights. The act would also weaken “right-to-work” laws that allow employees in more than half the states to avoid participating in or paying dues to unions that represent workers at their places of employment. In one of its most controversial provisions, the bill would close loopholes that allow what supporters call intentional misclassification of workers as supervisors and independent contractors in order to prevent them from joining a union. The House approved the bill, 224-194, on Thursday. The measure is unlikely to be taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate and faces a veto threat from the White House. Even so, Democrats touted it as a major victory for worker rights and said it would help reverse a decades-long trend of declining union membership in the U.S. workforce. Less than 11% of American workers belong to a union, a statistic Democrats called disgraceful. “Without these protections, the playing field will remain heavily stacked against workers,″ said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., called labor unions one of the most powerful tools workers have to improve their standard of living. But under current law, there are “no meaningful penalties for predatory corporations that use unlawful tactics to discourage workers from organizing a union,” said Scott, who chairs the House Education & Labor Committee. “For far too long, workers have been stripped of their voices, losing their power to organize for better wages and benefits,″ said Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The House bill will allow workers to “fight back against corporations and anti-union special interests that have attacked and eroded the labor movement for decades,″ he said. Republicans dismissed the bill as a “political gift to union bosses” that would diminish the rights of workers and employers alike while harming the economy. “Big Labor is in a panic over plummeting union membership,″ said Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the senior Republicans on the labor panel. She urged union leaders to “self-correct and increase transparency and accountability,″ rather than spending ”three times as much money on political activity as on ... organizing and representing workers.″ Federal law already protects the right of employees to organize, Foxx said, adding that the House bill would require employers to hand over workers’ personal information to union organizers, allowing them to “target, harass and intimidate workers.″ If the House bill becomes law, “workers will be forced to take money from their paychecks and give it to labor unions even if they don’t want to be represented by a union,″ she said, noting that the bill is opposed by small business owners, trade associations and other business organizations. The White House also objected to the bill. While the Trump administration is willing to work with Congress to strengthen protections for union members, the House bill would kill jobs, violate workers’ privacy, restrict freedom of association and roll back the administration’s deregulatory agenda, the White House said in a statement. The Democratic bill “appears to cut and paste” core provisions of a controversial California law that “severely restricts self-employment,″ the White House said. The California law, known as Assembly Bill 5, “is actively threatening the existence of both the franchise business sector and the gig economy in California,″ the White House said, adding that it ”would be a serious mistake for Congress to impose this flawed job-killing policy on the entire country.″ The California law has drawn nationwide attention for its attempt to give wage and benefit protections to people who work for ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft. The law also applies to freelance journalists, despite complaints that it could put some out of work. Under the PRO Act, employers would not be allowed to force workers to attend anti-union meetings and would face penalties for violating workers’ rights. “It’s time to give workers the tools they need to survive in an economy rigged against them,″ Pocan said. “Every worker deserves to have a union.″

www.apnews.com

center

VrSEeGywpyJ3UMnw

test

ABjaOAGxXGbupLv7

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-administration-join-opposition-prop-supreme-court/story?id=18561874

Will Obama Join Legal Fight for Gay Marriage?

Ariane De Vogue

There is one mystery left to solve before the Supreme Court gathers to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 in late March . That is : Will the Department of Justice weigh in on the case in favor of opponents of Prop 8 , the California ballot measure that defined marriage as between one man and one woman ? And what will it say ? Hollingsworth v. Perry concerns the California ballot initiative , enacted in 2008 . In a brief filed with the court on Thursday , opponents of Prop 8 made broad arguments claiming that it is unconstitutional . `` Proposition 8 is an arbitrary , irrational and discriminatory measure that denies gay men and lesbians their fundamental right to marry in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses , '' the opponents said . The brief was written by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies , who represent the American Foundation for Equal Rights . They wrote , `` Because of their sexual orientation -- a characteristic with which they were born and which they can not change -- plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of gay men and lesbians in California and across the country are being excluded from one of life 's most precious relationships . `` They may not marry the person they love , the person with whom they wish to partner in building a family and with whom they wish to share their future and their most intimate and private dreams , '' they added . The arguments tackled more than just the ruling that struck down Prop 8 on narrow grounds specific to California 's history on the issue of gay marriage . The language was sweeping : `` The only substantive question in this case is whether the state is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships -- their love -- of the respect , and dignity and social acceptance , that heterosexual marriages enjoy . `` This badge of inferiority , separateness and inequality must be extinguished . When it is , America will be closer to fulfilling the aspirations of its citizens , '' they wrote . A month ago , supporters of Prop 8 filed their brief in the case . Read it HERE . While the administration will certainly weigh in on the other gay marriage case in front of the court -- a challenge to the federal law , the Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) -- it has never filed a brief in the Prop 8 case because it was not directly involved . While the DOMA case challenges a federal law that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in their state , the Prop 8 case asks a much broader question : Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage under the Constitution . Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. is not required to file a so-called `` friend of the court '' brief in the Prop 8 case , but sources said the administration is considering the possibility at the highest levels . If it chooses to weigh in , it has to do so by the last week of February . In San Francisco Wednesday , President Obama told ███ station KGO-TV , `` The solicitor general is still looking at this . I have to make sure I 'm not interjecting myself too much into this process , particularly when we 're not party to the case . I can tell you , though , that obviously my personal view is that I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights and be treated like everybody else . '' At the White House briefing on Thursday , White House spokesman Jay Carney said , `` I think you have seen no expression from the president on the constitutional or legal aspects of this . He has an opinion , obviously , about Proposition 8 as policy , but we have no comment and nothing to say at this point about an issue that is properly looked at as a legal and constitutional matter over at the Department of Justice . '' Back in May , the president told ███ ' Robin Roberts that he had evolved on the issue of gay marriage and had come to personally support it . He seemed to suggest in the interview , however , that he felt the issue should be left up to the states . `` I continue to believe that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level because , historically , this has not been a federal issue , what 's recognized as marriage , '' the president said . But at the inauguration , he used much broader language : '' Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal , then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal , as well . '' Even if the Department of Justice files a brief , it does n't have to get to the broad question . It could , for example , limit its arguments to whether the supporters of Prop 8 -- in the absence of California officials who have refused to defend it -- have a legal right to bring the case . Or , it could argue in favor of the relatively narrow opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . In a conference call on Thursday , Olson urged the administration to step in . `` We very much would like the United States , in the form of the solicitor general , to file a brief , '' he said . Olson , who served as the solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration , added that the justices pay particular attention when briefs come in on behalf of the government .

There is one mystery left to solve before the Supreme Court gathers to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 in late March. That is: Will the Department of Justice weigh in on the case in favor of opponents of Prop 8, the California ballot measure that defined marriage as between one man and one woman? And what will it say? Hollingsworth v. Perry concerns the California ballot initiative, enacted in 2008. In a brief filed with the court on Thursday, opponents of Prop 8 made broad arguments claiming that it is unconstitutional. "Proposition 8 is an arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory measure that denies gay men and lesbians their fundamental right to marry in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses," the opponents said. Related: Court Prepares for Affirmative Action, DNA Cases The brief was written by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represent the American Foundation for Equal Rights. They wrote, "Because of their sexual orientation -- a characteristic with which they were born and which they cannot change -- plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of gay men and lesbians in California and across the country are being excluded from one of life's most precious relationships. "They may not marry the person they love, the person with whom they wish to partner in building a family and with whom they wish to share their future and their most intimate and private dreams," they added. The arguments tackled more than just the ruling that struck down Prop 8 on narrow grounds specific to California's history on the issue of gay marriage. The language was sweeping: "The only substantive question in this case is whether the state is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships -- their love -- of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy. "This badge of inferiority, separateness and inequality must be extinguished. When it is, America will be closer to fulfilling the aspirations of its citizens," they wrote. A month ago, supporters of Prop 8 filed their brief in the case. Read it HERE. While the administration will certainly weigh in on the other gay marriage case in front of the court -- a challenge to the federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- it has never filed a brief in the Prop 8 case because it was not directly involved. While the DOMA case challenges a federal law that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in their state, the Prop 8 case asks a much broader question: Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage under the Constitution. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. is not required to file a so-called "friend of the court" brief in the Prop 8 case, but sources said the administration is considering the possibility at the highest levels. If it chooses to weigh in, it has to do so by the last week of February. In San Francisco Wednesday, President Obama told ABC News station KGO-TV, "The solicitor general is still looking at this. I have to make sure I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not party to the case. I can tell you, though, that obviously my personal view is that I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights and be treated like everybody else." Related: Read More About Prop. 8 At the White House briefing on Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "I think you have seen no expression from the president on the constitutional or legal aspects of this. He has an opinion, obviously, about Proposition 8 as policy, but we have no comment and nothing to say at this point about an issue that is properly looked at as a legal and constitutional matter over at the Department of Justice." Back in May, the president told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he had evolved on the issue of gay marriage and had come to personally support it. He seemed to suggest in the interview, however, that he felt the issue should be left up to the states. "I continue to believe that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level because, historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as marriage," the president said. But at the inauguration, he used much broader language:"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well." Even if the Department of Justice files a brief, it doesn't have to get to the broad question. It could, for example, limit its arguments to whether the supporters of Prop 8 -- in the absence of California officials who have refused to defend it -- have a legal right to bring the case. Or, it could argue in favor of the relatively narrow opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a conference call on Thursday, Olson urged the administration to step in. "We very much would like the United States, in the form of the solicitor general, to file a brief," he said. Olson, who served as the solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration, added that the justices pay particular attention when briefs come in on behalf of the government.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

ABjaOAGxXGbupLv7

test

Hpnhgr9C47jDoX3k

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-spotlight/impeachment-witnesses-can-expect-abuse-death-threats-say-survivors-of-past-political-scandals-idUSKBN1XO1IF

Impeachment witnesses can expect abuse, death threats, say survivors of past political scandals

2019-11-15

Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - John Dean entered the witness protection program . Valerie Plame feared for her children . Both are veterans of U.S. political scandals that threatened the White House , and they have a warning for the witnesses who are testifying against President Donald Trump in the current public impeachment hearings . Life is about to change , it could get ugly , and death threats will become routine . “ You know that politics is a blood sport , but you can never quite be prepared for what is coming your way , ” Plame , who was at the center of a 2003 episode that rocked the presidency of George W. Bush , said in a telephone interview . “ They ’ re going to be subjected to all kinds of abuse . ” The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives began calling the first public witnesses in the impeachment inquiry on Wednesday , hearing from officials who handled U.S. policy in Ukraine under the Republican president . Testimony will resume on Friday and continue next week . Previous presidential scandals have turned anonymous bureaucrats or secretive operatives into household names . Those on the wrong side of the president discovered just how much intimidation a White House can marshal , especially when backed by outside acolytes and media allies . Trump and his supporters have already started attacking one witness due to testify , U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman . They have also targeted the anonymous whistleblower who started the inquiry by raising questions about Trump ’ s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy , when Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate political rival Joe Biden . Crossing a president , as Dean , a former White House counsel , did in Watergate and civil servant Linda Tripp did in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton , can trigger an avalanche of hate mail . But rallying to the president ’ s defense can pay dividends . When National Security Council staffer Oliver North enthusiastically testified in favor of President Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair , he became a darling of conservatives , launching a new career as media personality and political activist . Plame , a former CIA covert operations officer who is running as a Democrat for a U.S. House of Representatives seat in New Mexico in next year ’ s election , shot to unwanted fame for her role in discrediting Bush ’ s justification for starting a war in Iraq . A Bush aide disclosed to a journalist that Plame worked for the CIA , exposing her to an onslaught from the president ’ s supporters and forcing her to resign since her cover was blown . Plame said the ensuing firestorm lasted for years . “ Hold their family and their true friends close , and try to understand the bigger picture . This is such an important , historic time in our country , ” Plame said . Tripp , who encouraged former White House intern Monica Lewinsky to step forward and disprove Clinton ’ s denials of their affair , did not respond to a ███ request for comment . In a 2018 speech , she lamented that it was “ virtually impossible to get your good name back ” following attacks by Clinton allies . “ There ’ s nothing quite like it , and there ’ s nothing that can prepare you for it , ” Tripp said on National Whistleblower Day , according to a Washington Post report of the address . Dean , who was President Richard Nixon ’ s White House counsel , drew the ire of the president ’ s men by detailing the Watergate cover-up before a Senate committee and a national television audience . That led to death threats so vicious he spent 18 months in and out of witness protection , Dean said in a telephone interview . Dean said the Trump witnesses could avoid similar treatment if Republican leaders toned down their rhetoric , but he was pessimistic considering that some were advocating revealing the name of the whistleblower . Given that some backlash is inevitable , Dean had one recommended course of action : “ If you tell the truth , you ’ ve got nothing to worry about . ”

NEW YORK (Reuters) - John Dean entered the witness protection program. Valerie Plame feared for her children. FILE PHOTO: Former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson arrives for the screening of the film "Fair Game" at the 36th American film festival in Deauville September 9, 2010. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler/File Photo Both are veterans of U.S. political scandals that threatened the White House, and they have a warning for the witnesses who are testifying against President Donald Trump in the current public impeachment hearings. Life is about to change, it could get ugly, and death threats will become routine. “You know that politics is a blood sport, but you can never quite be prepared for what is coming your way,” Plame, who was at the center of a 2003 episode that rocked the presidency of George W. Bush, said in a telephone interview. “They’re going to be subjected to all kinds of abuse.” The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives began calling the first public witnesses in the impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, hearing from officials who handled U.S. policy in Ukraine under the Republican president. Testimony will resume on Friday and continue next week. Previous presidential scandals have turned anonymous bureaucrats or secretive operatives into household names. Those on the wrong side of the president discovered just how much intimidation a White House can marshal, especially when backed by outside acolytes and media allies. Trump and his supporters have already started attacking one witness due to testify, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. They have also targeted the anonymous whistleblower who started the inquiry by raising questions about Trump’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, when Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate political rival Joe Biden. Crossing a president, as Dean, a former White House counsel, did in Watergate and civil servant Linda Tripp did in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, can trigger an avalanche of hate mail. But rallying to the president’s defense can pay dividends. When National Security Council staffer Oliver North enthusiastically testified in favor of President Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, he became a darling of conservatives, launching a new career as media personality and political activist. ‘HOLD FAMILY CLOSE’ Plame, a former CIA covert operations officer who is running as a Democrat for a U.S. House of Representatives seat in New Mexico in next year’s election, shot to unwanted fame for her role in discrediting Bush’s justification for starting a war in Iraq. A Bush aide disclosed to a journalist that Plame worked for the CIA, exposing her to an onslaught from the president’s supporters and forcing her to resign since her cover was blown. Plame said the ensuing firestorm lasted for years. Her advice to the current witnesses? “Hold their family and their true friends close, and try to understand the bigger picture. This is such an important, historic time in our country,” Plame said. Tripp, who encouraged former White House intern Monica Lewinsky to step forward and disprove Clinton’s denials of their affair, did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. In a 2018 speech, she lamented that it was “virtually impossible to get your good name back” following attacks by Clinton allies. “There’s nothing quite like it, and there’s nothing that can prepare you for it,” Tripp said on National Whistleblower Day, according to a Washington Post report of the address. Dean, who was President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel, drew the ire of the president’s men by detailing the Watergate cover-up before a Senate committee and a national television audience. FILE PHOTO: Former White House counsel John Dean, a key figure in the Watergate scandal, testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Lessons from the Mueller Report" on Capitol Hill in Washington U.S., June 10, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo That led to death threats so vicious he spent 18 months in and out of witness protection, Dean said in a telephone interview. Dean said the Trump witnesses could avoid similar treatment if Republican leaders toned down their rhetoric, but he was pessimistic considering that some were advocating revealing the name of the whistleblower. Given that some backlash is inevitable, Dean had one recommended course of action: “If you tell the truth, you’ve got nothing to worry about.”

www.reuters.com

center

Hpnhgr9C47jDoX3k

test

E69lclskKVRuZCcT

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-medias-sickness-is-terminal/

The Media’s Sickness Is Terminal

George Neumayr, J.T. Young, Robert Stacy Mccain, David Catron, Scott Mckay, Dov Fischer

One of the media ’ s favorite refrains against Donald Trump in 2016 was that he lacked the “ temperament ” and “ maturity ” to govern . The charge was usually leveled by the most ill-tempered , immature journalists imaginable . It is typical of the left , which owns almost all of the media , to demand “ civility ” of its opponents while granting itself limitless incivilities . In the grip of government power , when they need to tame their opposition , liberals will pompously talk about the “ rules of decorum. ” But the moment they are out of power they immediately start breaking them . In the 1990s , the rattiest members of the Clinton administration famously called for a “ civility commission , ” which led to a sham group at the University of Pennsylvania , populated mainly by uncivil liberals , becoming upset at Rush Limbaugh and company for challenging their power . The relativism underpinning liberalism makes it hopelessly willful . Its relationship to civility is determined not by any principle independent of human will but by pure political opportunism . Insofar as civility is useful to gaining or preserving power , liberals pretend to honor it . But the moment civility becomes an impediment to holding or regaining power , they give themselves permission to violate it . The “ ends ” suddenly justify the means , and anyone who questions their uncivil behavior fails to see the “ higher ” good at stake . In this atmosphere , anything goes , at both the low and high ends of liberalism , as we have seen since Trump ’ s victory : Upper East Side liberals trotting over to Central Park to watch a play in which a Donald Trump character is stabbed to death ; audiences laughing at comedienne Kathy Griffin for holding up a mock-severed , bloody head of Trump ; liberals retweeting actor Peter Fonda calling for Trump ’ s son to be thrown into a “ cage with pedophiles ” ; liberal activists cheering attempts to throw Ivanka Trump off a plane ; liberal activists congratulating a restaurant for refusing to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders . In the latter case , the only surprise is that the restaurant didn ’ t poison her . Maybe that will happen in Trump ’ s second term . In the Bush years , liberals threw cakes at reviled conservatives . Now they kick them out of restaurants before dessert , while simultaneously demanding that Christians make cakes for gay nuptials . It is amusing to see supposedly “ serious ” liberal publications join in the madness . In the last week or so , they flat-out fabricated a Time cover ( depicting a child at the border not separated from her family as if she was ) , falsely accused a border official of sporting a Nazi tattoo ( that came courtesy of the “ high-brow ” liberals at the New Yorker ) , and ran a hit piece on Trump aide Stephen Miller based on his time in elementary school . The last item is my favorite . It is not enough for the media to investigate Miller ’ s high school years in Santa Monica , when he busied himself with such nefarious activities as saying the Pledge of Allegiance . No , now they have got him dead to rights on his troubling lack of neatness and inclusiveness in the third grade . Some editor at Politico thought it a good idea to run a piece by one of his classmates who sat next to him during that momentous year.The author of the piece , John F. Muller , is still sore at Miller for not laughing at his story about a “ mixed-up chicken ” : It was difficult to make Stephen laugh . I found him difficult to reach at all , and so , it seemed , did most everyone else . He was frequently distracted , vacillating between total disinterest in everything around him — my stories , of course , included — and complete obsession with highly specific tasks that could only be performed alone . Miller was also “ obsessed with tape and glue ” and wanted a demarcation line between Muller ’ s side of the desk and his own , according to the author : The formality of this struck me as odd . I was a fairly neat kid , at least at school , and I had never spread my things to his side of the desk . Stephen , meanwhile , could not have been much messier : His side of the desk was sticky and peeling , littered with scraps of paper , misshapen erasers and pencil nubs . Muller detected “ channeled hostility ” in Miller ’ s picking at the tape along the demarcation line . Nor did he care for Miller ’ s manner of playing with glue , which smacked of a narcissistic wall-building instinct inside of him : …it is at least poetic that Stephen was bent on building a nonsensical wall even back then , a wall that had more to do with what lay inside him than with what lay beyond . He thought he was trying to keep out the chaos of the world , when really he was looking for a way to explain away the chaos on his own side of the desk . For that was where chaos had always been . The author ’ s bio at the end of the piece describes him as a former “ lecturer at Harvard Law School. ” That sounds about right . The liberal elite has never outgrown its childishness , which always resurfaces once it is stripped of power . It went from raging against Trump ’ s lack of “ temperament ” to throwing a temper tantrum worthy of a third-grader .

One of the media’s favorite refrains against Donald Trump in 2016 was that he lacked the “temperament” and “maturity” to govern. The charge was usually leveled by the most ill-tempered, immature journalists imaginable. It is typical of the left, which owns almost all of the media, to demand “civility” of its opponents while granting itself limitless incivilities. In the grip of government power, when they need to tame their opposition, liberals will pompously talk about the “rules of decorum.” But the moment they are out of power they immediately start breaking them. In the 1990s, the rattiest members of the Clinton administration famously called for a “civility commission,” which led to a sham group at the University of Pennsylvania, populated mainly by uncivil liberals, becoming upset at Rush Limbaugh and company for challenging their power. The relativism underpinning liberalism makes it hopelessly willful. Its relationship to civility is determined not by any principle independent of human will but by pure political opportunism. Insofar as civility is useful to gaining or preserving power, liberals pretend to honor it. But the moment civility becomes an impediment to holding or regaining power, they give themselves permission to violate it. The “ends” suddenly justify the means, and anyone who questions their uncivil behavior fails to see the “higher” good at stake. In this atmosphere, anything goes, at both the low and high ends of liberalism, as we have seen since Trump’s victory: Upper East Side liberals trotting over to Central Park to watch a play in which a Donald Trump character is stabbed to death; audiences laughing at comedienne Kathy Griffin for holding up a mock-severed, bloody head of Trump; liberals retweeting actor Peter Fonda calling for Trump’s son to be thrown into a “cage with pedophiles”; liberal activists cheering attempts to throw Ivanka Trump off a plane; liberal activists congratulating a restaurant for refusing to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders. In the latter case, the only surprise is that the restaurant didn’t poison her. Maybe that will happen in Trump’s second term. In the Bush years, liberals threw cakes at reviled conservatives. Now they kick them out of restaurants before dessert, while simultaneously demanding that Christians make cakes for gay nuptials. It is amusing to see supposedly “serious” liberal publications join in the madness. In the last week or so, they flat-out fabricated a Time cover (depicting a child at the border not separated from her family as if she was), falsely accused a border official of sporting a Nazi tattoo (that came courtesy of the “high-brow” liberals at the New Yorker), and ran a hit piece on Trump aide Stephen Miller based on his time in elementary school. The last item is my favorite. It is not enough for the media to investigate Miller’s high school years in Santa Monica, when he busied himself with such nefarious activities as saying the Pledge of Allegiance. No, now they have got him dead to rights on his troubling lack of neatness and inclusiveness in the third grade. Some editor at Politico thought it a good idea to run a piece by one of his classmates who sat next to him during that momentous year.The author of the piece, John F. Muller, is still sore at Miller for not laughing at his story about a “mixed-up chicken”: It was difficult to make Stephen laugh. I found him difficult to reach at all, and so, it seemed, did most everyone else. He was frequently distracted, vacillating between total disinterest in everything around him — my stories, of course, included — and complete obsession with highly specific tasks that could only be performed alone. Miller was also “obsessed with tape and glue” and wanted a demarcation line between Muller’s side of the desk and his own, according to the author: The formality of this struck me as odd. I was a fairly neat kid, at least at school, and I had never spread my things to his side of the desk. Stephen, meanwhile, could not have been much messier: His side of the desk was sticky and peeling, littered with scraps of paper, misshapen erasers and pencil nubs. Muller detected “channeled hostility” in Miller’s picking at the tape along the demarcation line. Nor did he care for Miller’s manner of playing with glue, which smacked of a narcissistic wall-building instinct inside of him: …it is at least poetic that Stephen was bent on building a nonsensical wall even back then, a wall that had more to do with what lay inside him than with what lay beyond. He thought he was trying to keep out the chaos of the world, when really he was looking for a way to explain away the chaos on his own side of the desk. For that was where chaos had always been. The author’s bio at the end of the piece describes him as a former “lecturer at Harvard Law School.” That sounds about right. The liberal elite has never outgrown its childishness, which always resurfaces once it is stripped of power. It went from raging against Trump’s lack of “temperament” to throwing a temper tantrum worthy of a third-grader.

www.spectator.org

right

E69lclskKVRuZCcT

test