Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

8Bc6K4RvQvBgfdkz

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/30/boehner-ally-steve-scalise-rocked-with-white-supremacy-scandal/

Boehner Ally Steve Scalise Rocked by White Supremacy Scandal

2014-12-30

Matthew Boyle

A member of John Boehner ’ s inner circle is under fire even as the House Speaker is at his most vulnerable : Exactly one week before the House GOP ’ s top official will seek re-election to his post . “ Every member who votes for John Boehner is vulnerable because not only is he unpopular with the base after his lame duck deception , but now he ’ s exposing members to the results of his poor judgement , ” a senior GOP aide told ███ after news broke Monday from the Washington Post and local Louisiana sources that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise spoke at a conference of white supremacists back in 2002 . “ Rep . Steve Scalise ( R-La . ) , the House majority whip , acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white nationalist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002 , thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers , ” the Washington Post ’ s Robert Costa wrote late Monday . “ The 48-year-old Scalise , who ascended to the House GOP ’ s third-ranking post earlier this year , confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization . That organization , founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke , has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center . ” Scalise is Boehner ’ s second lieutenant , serving right beneath House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy . His scandal could put pressure on every Republican member who voted for him for whip . It also , that senior GOP aide said , shows Boehner and McCarthy are weak leaders because they either failed to properly vet Scalise or they withheld information about his past . “ Boehner ’ s cronies not only backed Scalise for whip but they also backed him for RSC chair , ” the aide said , indicating that Boehner and McCarthy should have done their due diligence before supporting someone like Scalise for the whip job . The irony is that several establishment Republicans , including National Republican Senatorial Committee ( NRSC ) spokesman Brad Dayspring , pushed the idea this past electoral cycle that establishment Republicans are better vetted than Conservative types . He pointed to Christine O ’ Donnell and Sharron Angle from 2012 as examples . Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz tells ███ the Scalise story—coupled with the resignation from the House of Rep. Michael Grimm ( R-NY ) in New York following his guilty plea to a tax evasion charge—is proof that the GOP establishment narrative is baseless . “ It ’ s ironic that this latest scandal is brought to us by the same people who claim conservatives can not win elections because they have not been properly vetted , ” Horowitz said in an email . “ Coupled with Michael Grimm , the establishment has created gratuitous vulnerabilities in the party at a time when the Democrats should be the ones on the ropes . ” O ’ Donnell , who won the 2010 GOP nomination in Delaware for U.S. Senate over then Rep. Mike Castle ( R-DE ) , infamously had to defend herself from allegations she practiced witchcraft—something her old television appearances fueled . This year in Mississippi , though , it was establishment incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran who had a questionable background . During his primary against state Sen. Chris McDaniel , Cochran faced concerns over taxpayer-funded world travels with his longtime aide , problems with his short-term memory and questionable comments he made about farm animals . In the end , Cochran won the primary and swept to victory in deep-red Mississippi . Nonetheless , all that talk from GOP establishment figures about vetting GOP candidates could come back to bite them in a big way as the repercussions for Scalise ’ s actions sort themselves out . This scandal gives conservatives a major weapon against the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party should that talking point come out again . “ I am not a witch is nothing to compared to I am not a KKK member , ” that first senior GOP aide joked to ███ . A second GOP congressional aide , when asked about Scalise ’ s performance in the leadership role , told ███ : “ Well he seemed like another Boehner stooge so far . ” “ Scalise is clearly in the camp of the corporatist wing of the party that needs to be taken down , ” that second GOP aide added . At this point , there hasn ’ t been much of a serious effort to take down Boehner—at least not as there was at the beginning of the last Congress . But the Scalise news could change everything , a handful of connected House GOP aides told ███ late Monday . That ’ s not to say there is definitely going to be another coup attempt , but small pockets of resistance to Boehner that formed over the past two years thanks to his immigration stances and especially thanks to his pushing through the cromnibus spending bill are now emboldened in the wake of this crippling news to this still-young GOP leadership team . Scalise didn ’ t take over as GOP whip until the middle of 2014 . He moved over from the chairmanship of the Republican Study Committee after then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was upset in a primary in June by now-Rep. Dave Brat ( R-VA ) . Cantor was replaced in the number two slot by McCarthy , and Scalise beat out Reps. Marlin Stutzman ( R-IN ) and Peter Roskam ( R-IL ) for the whip position . Scalise came under fire during the battle over the so-called “ cromnibus , ” a 1,774-page $ 1.1 trillion spending bill that Boehner forced through Congress with Obama ’ s help right after the midterm elections during the lame duck session of Congress . After ███ reported that Scalise was in political trouble back home for his role in getting the cromnibus—which funds , in its entirety , President Barack Obama ’ s executive amnesty—passed through Congress by whipping votes for it , former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin highlighted his political woes on her Facebook page . She has more than four million followers . “ GOP leaders already going wobbly , hoping us peons won ’ t notice , ” Palin wrote , providing a link to the ███ story raising the possibility of a primary challenge against Scalise from retired Air Force Col . Rob Maness . Maness was a U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana ’ s jungle primary , campaigning against both now Senator-elect Bill Cassidy and outgoing Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu . Maness shocked the political world in Louisiana and nationally , garnering some 200,000 votes statewide with hardly any national help outside the endorsement of Palin . Maness could be even more emboldened to make a move at Scalise now , given the vulnerabilities he ’ s showing both in Washington and back home in Louisiana . The knives are out for Scalise behind the scenes , and Boehner and McCarthy are both not defending him publicly . Maness , who would presumably be ready to fill Scalise ’ s congressional seat should this scandal force his regignation , lives in Scalise ’ s district . He just launched the hybrid Political Action Committee ( PAC ) Gator PAC after campaigning for Cassidy against Landrieu . In addition to newly-formed alliances with Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter—the likely next governor of the state—Maness and Cassidy have since made amends . During the campaign , Maness showed he ’ s willing to criticize fellow Republicans when he perceives them to be wrong on race . When Cassidy said that Harry Reid ’ s Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate was “ like a plantation , ” Maness ripped the term as “ incredibly offensive to many Americans ” and called on Cassidy to “ immediately apologize. ” Maness also made minority outreach in black communities across Louisiana a major plank of his campaign by publicly supporting the Redeem Act from Sens . Rand Paul ( R-KY ) and Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) , something that would help those caught up in the criminal justice system reintegrate into society . To mark his enthusiastic support for the Paul-Booker bill , Maness toured Louisiana ’ s Angola State Penitentiary to learn more about rehabilitation of inmates post-incarceration . “ Angola has some of the most progressive rehabilitation programs in the nation for non-violent offenders , ” the Times-Picayune ’ s Cole Avery wrote about Maness ’ Angola prison tour . “ Maness visited a class where a group of about 20 inmates learned about air conditioners so they can get jobs when their sentences are up . It ’ s a program near to Maness ’ believes that anyone can succeed with hard work and personal responsibility . ” There ’ s also talk in Louisiana that Maness may fill Vitter ’ s Senate seat when he steps down after presumably winning the governor ’ s election later in 2015 . But since Rep. John Fleming ( R-LA ) , another hardcore conservative , is also definitely in the running for the Senate seat as well—and with Scalise ’ s woes—Maness may change course and go for Scalise ’ s House seat , something that would avoid an intra-conservative battle between Maness and Fleming . Making matters murkier is the fact that calls for Scalise ’ s resignation are beginning , even though several major Republicans are , so far , publicly backing him up . “ Rep . Scalise should resign his leadership post , ” Peter Wehner , an Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow and former official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes , Tweeted . “ The party of Lincoln shouldn ’ t have as its # 3 a keynoter at a white supremacist convention . ” “ If Scalise doesn ’ t resign , then @ GOP members should be asked why they would continue to serve as members of his caucus . Seriously , ” conservative strategist Jimmy LaSalvia added . “ I don ’ t think Scalise should resign over this . He should resign over the lame duck betrayal over obama ’ s amnesty . And we should # FireBoehner , ” the Conservative Review ’ s Horowitz added via Twitter . Two different spokespersons for Scalise have not responded to a request for comment from ███ in response to the calls for Scalise ’ s resignation from leadership and from Congress . “ A career-on-the-line test for Scalise in the coming days : does his base crack or can he hold on ? ” the Post ’ s Costa Tweeted , summarizing the calamity in leadership right now . Even Scalise himself , however , seemed unsure if he would walk away from this scandal unscathed and job intact . “ At the end of the day , you are judged by your character , ” he said when asked by the Times-Picayune on Monday night if he ’ s concerned this will affect his position in leadership . “ And look , I ’ m proud of my record of working to help people throughout my years of public service . Whether they have the same political philosophy as me or not , I work hard to help all people . ” Some top Republicans , ranging from Rep. Steve King ( R-IA ) to Rep. Peter King ( R-NY ) to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich , defended Scalise . “ This is an absurdity , ” Gingrich said in statement defending Scalise and attacking reporters for pursuing the story . “ Twelve years ago Scalise made a mistake in judgment while giving speeches on the state budget . ” “ Scalise will remain whip and he will do a good job for all Americans , ” Gingrich added . Peter King said that Scalise has “ no bias or bigotry , ” and stood by him in an interview with the Post ’ s Costa . Steve King stood by Scalise , too , saying : “ Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners… I know [ Steve ’ s ] heart . ” From the left , Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro ( D-TX ) attacked Scalise , saying this episode “ raises serious questions about the judgment of an elected official . ” But Castro ’ s fellow Democrat and Scalise ’ s fellow Louisianan , Rep. Cedric Richmond ( D-LA ) —a member of the Congressional Black Caucus—defended Scalise . “ I don ’ t think he has a racist bone in his body , ” Richmond said . Richmond ’ s support for Scalise came without the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus , however , as CBC vice chairwoman Rep. Yvette Clark ( D-NY ) called on Boehner to investigate Scalise . “ It is my hope that Speaker Boehner will do a thorough investigation into the circumstances involved in Congressman Scalise ’ s participation with the organization and reassure all members that his leadership has not been compromised by an affiliation with such an organization , ” Clark said . Conservative commentator Erick Erickson laid into Scalise , too , saying via Twitter : “ How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is ? ” Erickson is guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh ’ s nationally syndicated radio program on Tuesday , and hinted via Twitter that this storyline will be a major focus of the show . Nonetheless , the chaos in the political world over this—with unusual alliances forming on both sides of Scalise—does Boehner no favors heading into the all-important speakership vote next week . Top aides to Boehner and McCarthy haven ’ t responded to a detailed set of questions from ███ about whether they vetted Scalise before letting him into their inner circle in leadership , or what they knew and when they knew it about this incident . But according to Costa , all of GOP leadership—Scalise ’ s office , and Boehner ’ s and McCarthy ’ s teams—are terrified right now . “ Boehner , McCarthy mum . But people close to them both are nervous . This came out of left field . Privately , mounting concern , ” Costa Tweeted . “ The scene inside House GOP right now , based on dozens of calls and e-mails tonight : wait and see , ” Costa added in another Tweet . “ Boehner , McCarthy said to be monitoring press coverage of Scalise , but so far no comment , per GOP aides , ” Costa said in yet another Tweet . To make matters worse for GOP leadership , in addition to the several inconsistencies in Scalise ’ s story , the incident has propelled a conversation about race in GOP politics—rather than the direction of the country under President Obama—to the front of the political world heading into the first days of the new Congress . Perhaps even more shocking than that to Boehner and company is now thanks to these revelations , David Duke—a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan—is now elevated into the political narrative , a disastrous situation for a Republican Party looking to govern as it gains official control over all of Congress for the first time since before Obama took the oval office . Duke actually did an interview with the Washington Post , in which he said about Scalise : “ I ’ ve certainly met him . He ’ s a nice guy . ” “ [ Scalise ] says he didn ’ t realize what the conference was . I don ’ t know if he did or did not , ” Duke added in his interview with Costa . Duke followed up with the Washington Post later in the evening as well , saying in a second interview with Costa that his campaign manager Kenny Knight and Scalise were personally close . “ Scalise did communicate a lot with my campaign manager , Kenny Knight , ” Duke told the Post , adding that was “ why he was invited ” to the white supremacist conference in 2002 . When Duke was asked what Scalise and his confidante Knight discussed regularly , he told the Post they talked about “ Hollywood system , about war ” and that Scalise “ was just a state rep then. ” Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) records indicate that Duke ’ s campaign manager donated at least $ 1,000 to Scalise ’ s campaign as recently as 2008 , something Costa flagged late Monday night noting that Duke confirmed the address listed on the FEC records for a “ Kenneth Knight ” $ 1,000 donation to Scalise in 2008 was indeed that of his campaign manager ’ s . Scalise spokeswoman Moira Bagley didn ’ t deny that her boss spoke to the white supremacist group run by David Duke in 2002 , but simply said her boss was , in the words of Costa , “ unaware at the time of the group ’ s ideology and its association with racists and neo-Nazi activists . ” “ Throughout his career in public service , Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints , ” Bagley said to the Washington Post . “ In every case , he was building support for his policies , not the other way around . In 2002 , he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families . ” “ He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question , ” Bagley added . “ The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father , a husband , and a devoted Catholic . ” Costa cited other anonymous Scalise aides who he wrote “ argued that Scalise was poorly staffed during the period , when he was busy touring the state promoting his efforts to curb state spending . ” “ Scalise ’ s aides said due to the unavailability of Scalise ’ s schedule from that year , they did not have details to share about his appearance or remarks , but said he was a frequent speaker at a variety of events at that hotel—a hotspot for New Orleans-area conventions , ” Costa wrote . But , as Costa reported , local press clippings from the timeframe indicate that Scalise was either complete oblivious to what was going on in his community—or he ’ s being misleading about not knowing now . “ The Gambit Weekly , an alternative publication in New Orleans , wrote days before the conference that the hotel distanced itself from Duke ’ s group and expressed its discomfort , ” Costa wrote , adding that : “ The Iowa Cubs , a minor-league baseball team , also told the Gambit Weekly that they were concerned about housing their players , which included several African-Americans , at that hotel while traveling to Louisiana . ” In addition , Roll Call ’ s Niels Lesnewski discovered an old interview from 1999 in his publication—three years before the 2002 David Duke conference that Scalise is now facing fire for—in which Scalise admitted he knew who David Duke was , and seemed to support some of his policies . Duke was considering a run for the first congressional district U.S. House seat that Scalise now holds , and Scalise—and now Sen. David Vitter ( R-LA ) —were other potential candidates . Vitter , then an attorney in Metairie , Louisiana , is quoted first in the story disavowing Duke ’ s beliefs . “ I honestly think his 15 minutes of fame have come and gone , ” Vitter is quoted in the 1999 Roll Call piece , which noted he was “ seriously considering ” a run for the House seat he eventually won before becoming a U.S . Senator years later , as saying of Duke . “ When he ’ s competed in a field with real conservatives , real Republicans , Duke has not done well at all . ” Then Scalise is quoted as saying , according to Roll Call reporter John Mercurio , as someone who “ embraces many of the same ‘ conservative ’ views as Duke ” but painted himself as “ far more viable . ” “ The novelty of David Duke has worn off , ” Scalise said at the time . “ The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about , but also can get elected . Duke has proven that he can ’ t get elected , and that ’ s the first and most important thing . ” Another defense Scalise used in an on-the-record interview he conducted with his hometown Times-Picayune on Monday evening was that he didn ’ t have “ Google ” back in 2002 , when this event occurred , so he couldn ’ t vet the organization . “ There is a lot more vetting that goes into setting my appointments , ” Scalise told the paper . “ I have a scheduler . I didn ’ t have a scheduler back then . I was without the advantages of a tool like Google . It ’ s nice to have those . Those tools weren ’ t available back then . ” That ’ s not entirely true . The internet was in full swing by that point , and Google had technically been inn use for years by the time of this event in 2002 . There were plenty of other search engines that Scalise could have used to vet the organizations he was speaking at . In addition , as the Roll Call article he had previously been quoted in showed , he knew full well who David Duke was in 1999 , and in 2002 .

A member of John Boehner’s inner circle is under fire even as the House Speaker is at his most vulnerable: Exactly one week before the House GOP’s top official will seek re-election to his post. “Every member who votes for John Boehner is vulnerable because not only is he unpopular with the base after his lame duck deception, but now he’s exposing members to the results of his poor judgement,” a senior GOP aide told Breitbart News after news broke Monday from the Washington Post and local Louisiana sources that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise spoke at a conference of white supremacists back in 2002. “Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white nationalist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers,” the Washington Post’s Robert Costa wrote late Monday. “The 48-year-old Scalise, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post earlier this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. That organization, founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Scalise is Boehner’s second lieutenant, serving right beneath House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. His scandal could put pressure on every Republican member who voted for him for whip. It also, that senior GOP aide said, shows Boehner and McCarthy are weak leaders because they either failed to properly vet Scalise or they withheld information about his past. “Boehner’s cronies not only backed Scalise for whip but they also backed him for RSC chair,” the aide said, indicating that Boehner and McCarthy should have done their due diligence before supporting someone like Scalise for the whip job. The irony is that several establishment Republicans, including National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Brad Dayspring, pushed the idea this past electoral cycle that establishment Republicans are better vetted than Conservative types. He pointed to Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle from 2012 as examples. Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz tells Breitbart News the Scalise story—coupled with the resignation from the House of Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) in New York following his guilty plea to a tax evasion charge—is proof that the GOP establishment narrative is baseless. “It’s ironic that this latest scandal is brought to us by the same people who claim conservatives cannot win elections because they have not been properly vetted,” Horowitz said in an email. “Coupled with Michael Grimm, the establishment has created gratuitous vulnerabilities in the party at a time when the Democrats should be the ones on the ropes.” O’Donnell, who won the 2010 GOP nomination in Delaware for U.S. Senate over then Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), infamously had to defend herself from allegations she practiced witchcraft—something her old television appearances fueled. This year in Mississippi, though, it was establishment incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran who had a questionable background. During his primary against state Sen. Chris McDaniel, Cochran faced concerns over taxpayer-funded world travels with his longtime aide, problems with his short-term memory and questionable comments he made about farm animals. In the end, Cochran won the primary and swept to victory in deep-red Mississippi. Nonetheless, all that talk from GOP establishment figures about vetting GOP candidates could come back to bite them in a big way as the repercussions for Scalise’s actions sort themselves out. This scandal gives conservatives a major weapon against the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party should that talking point come out again. “I am not a witch is nothing to compared to I am not a KKK member,” that first senior GOP aide joked to Breitbart News. A second GOP congressional aide, when asked about Scalise’s performance in the leadership role, told Breitbart News: “Well he seemed like another Boehner stooge so far.” “Scalise is clearly in the camp of the corporatist wing of the party that needs to be taken down,” that second GOP aide added. At this point, there hasn’t been much of a serious effort to take down Boehner—at least not as there was at the beginning of the last Congress. But the Scalise news could change everything, a handful of connected House GOP aides told Breitbart News late Monday. That’s not to say there is definitely going to be another coup attempt, but small pockets of resistance to Boehner that formed over the past two years thanks to his immigration stances and especially thanks to his pushing through the cromnibus spending bill are now emboldened in the wake of this crippling news to this still-young GOP leadership team. Scalise didn’t take over as GOP whip until the middle of 2014. He moved over from the chairmanship of the Republican Study Committee after then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was upset in a primary in June by now-Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). Cantor was replaced in the number two slot by McCarthy, and Scalise beat out Reps. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Peter Roskam (R-IL) for the whip position. Scalise came under fire during the battle over the so-called “cromnibus,” a 1,774-page $1.1 trillion spending bill that Boehner forced through Congress with Obama’s help right after the midterm elections during the lame duck session of Congress. After Breitbart News reported that Scalise was in political trouble back home for his role in getting the cromnibus—which funds, in its entirety, President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty—passed through Congress by whipping votes for it, former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin highlighted his political woes on her Facebook page. She has more than four million followers. “GOP leaders already going wobbly, hoping us peons won’t notice,” Palin wrote, providing a link to the Breitbart News story raising the possibility of a primary challenge against Scalise from retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness. Maness was a U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana’s jungle primary, campaigning against both now Senator-elect Bill Cassidy and outgoing Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. Maness shocked the political world in Louisiana and nationally, garnering some 200,000 votes statewide with hardly any national help outside the endorsement of Palin. Maness could be even more emboldened to make a move at Scalise now, given the vulnerabilities he’s showing both in Washington and back home in Louisiana. The knives are out for Scalise behind the scenes, and Boehner and McCarthy are both not defending him publicly. Maness, who would presumably be ready to fill Scalise’s congressional seat should this scandal force his regignation, lives in Scalise’s district. He just launched the hybrid Political Action Committee (PAC) Gator PAC after campaigning for Cassidy against Landrieu. In addition to newly-formed alliances with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter—the likely next governor of the state—Maness and Cassidy have since made amends. During the campaign, Maness showed he’s willing to criticize fellow Republicans when he perceives them to be wrong on race. When Cassidy said that Harry Reid’s Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate was “like a plantation,” Maness ripped the term as “incredibly offensive to many Americans” and called on Cassidy to “immediately apologize.” Maness also made minority outreach in black communities across Louisiana a major plank of his campaign by publicly supporting the Redeem Act from Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), something that would help those caught up in the criminal justice system reintegrate into society. To mark his enthusiastic support for the Paul-Booker bill, Maness toured Louisiana’s Angola State Penitentiary to learn more about rehabilitation of inmates post-incarceration. “Angola has some of the most progressive rehabilitation programs in the nation for non-violent offenders,” the Times-Picayune’s Cole Avery wrote about Maness’ Angola prison tour. “Maness visited a class where a group of about 20 inmates learned about air conditioners so they can get jobs when their sentences are up. It’s a program near to Maness’ believes that anyone can succeed with hard work and personal responsibility.” There’s also talk in Louisiana that Maness may fill Vitter’s Senate seat when he steps down after presumably winning the governor’s election later in 2015. But since Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), another hardcore conservative, is also definitely in the running for the Senate seat as well—and with Scalise’s woes—Maness may change course and go for Scalise’s House seat, something that would avoid an intra-conservative battle between Maness and Fleming. Making matters murkier is the fact that calls for Scalise’s resignation are beginning, even though several major Republicans are, so far, publicly backing him up. “Rep. Scalise should resign his leadership post,” Peter Wehner, an Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow and former official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, Tweeted. “The party of Lincoln shouldn’t have as its #3 a keynoter at a white supremacist convention.” “If Scalise doesn’t resign, then @GOP members should be asked why they would continue to serve as members of his caucus. Seriously,” conservative strategist Jimmy LaSalvia added. “I don’t think Scalise should resign over this. He should resign over the lame duck betrayal over obama’s amnesty. And we should #FireBoehner,” the Conservative Review’s Horowitz added via Twitter. Two different spokespersons for Scalise have not responded to a request for comment from Breitbart News in response to the calls for Scalise’s resignation from leadership and from Congress. “A career-on-the-line test for Scalise in the coming days: does his base crack or can he hold on?” the Post’s Costa Tweeted, summarizing the calamity in leadership right now. Even Scalise himself, however, seemed unsure if he would walk away from this scandal unscathed and job intact. “At the end of the day, you are judged by your character,” he said when asked by the Times-Picayune on Monday night if he’s concerned this will affect his position in leadership. “And look, I’m proud of my record of working to help people throughout my years of public service. Whether they have the same political philosophy as me or not, I work hard to help all people.” Some top Republicans, ranging from Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, defended Scalise. “This is an absurdity,” Gingrich said in statement defending Scalise and attacking reporters for pursuing the story. “Twelve years ago Scalise made a mistake in judgment while giving speeches on the state budget.” “Scalise will remain whip and he will do a good job for all Americans,” Gingrich added. Peter King said that Scalise has “no bias or bigotry,” and stood by him in an interview with the Post’s Costa. Steve King stood by Scalise, too, saying: “Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners… I know [Steve’s] heart.” From the left, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) attacked Scalise, saying this episode “raises serious questions about the judgment of an elected official.” But Castro’s fellow Democrat and Scalise’s fellow Louisianan, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)—a member of the Congressional Black Caucus—defended Scalise. “I don’t think he has a racist bone in his body,” Richmond said. Richmond’s support for Scalise came without the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus, however, as CBC vice chairwoman Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) called on Boehner to investigate Scalise. “It is my hope that Speaker Boehner will do a thorough investigation into the circumstances involved in Congressman Scalise’s participation with the organization and reassure all members that his leadership has not been compromised by an affiliation with such an organization,” Clark said. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson laid into Scalise, too, saying via Twitter: “How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?” Erickson is guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio program on Tuesday, and hinted via Twitter that this storyline will be a major focus of the show. Nonetheless, the chaos in the political world over this—with unusual alliances forming on both sides of Scalise—does Boehner no favors heading into the all-important speakership vote next week. Top aides to Boehner and McCarthy haven’t responded to a detailed set of questions from Breitbart News about whether they vetted Scalise before letting him into their inner circle in leadership, or what they knew and when they knew it about this incident. But according to Costa, all of GOP leadership—Scalise’s office, and Boehner’s and McCarthy’s teams—are terrified right now. “Boehner, McCarthy mum. But people close to them both are nervous. This came out of left field. Privately, mounting concern,” Costa Tweeted. “The scene inside House GOP right now, based on dozens of calls and e-mails tonight: wait and see,” Costa added in another Tweet. “Boehner, McCarthy said to be monitoring press coverage of Scalise, but so far no comment, per GOP aides,” Costa said in yet another Tweet. To make matters worse for GOP leadership, in addition to the several inconsistencies in Scalise’s story, the incident has propelled a conversation about race in GOP politics—rather than the direction of the country under President Obama—to the front of the political world heading into the first days of the new Congress. Perhaps even more shocking than that to Boehner and company is now thanks to these revelations, David Duke—a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan—is now elevated into the political narrative, a disastrous situation for a Republican Party looking to govern as it gains official control over all of Congress for the first time since before Obama took the oval office. Duke actually did an interview with the Washington Post, in which he said about Scalise: “I’ve certainly met him. He’s a nice guy.” “[Scalise] says he didn’t realize what the conference was. I don’t know if he did or did not,” Duke added in his interview with Costa. Duke followed up with the Washington Post later in the evening as well, saying in a second interview with Costa that his campaign manager Kenny Knight and Scalise were personally close. “Scalise did communicate a lot with my campaign manager, Kenny Knight,” Duke told the Post, adding that was “why he was invited” to the white supremacist conference in 2002. When Duke was asked what Scalise and his confidante Knight discussed regularly, he told the Post they talked about “Hollywood system, about war” and that Scalise “was just a state rep then.” Federal Election Commission (FEC) records indicate that Duke’s campaign manager donated at least $1,000 to Scalise’s campaign as recently as 2008, something Costa flagged late Monday night noting that Duke confirmed the address listed on the FEC records for a “Kenneth Knight” $1,000 donation to Scalise in 2008 was indeed that of his campaign manager’s. Scalise spokeswoman Moira Bagley didn’t deny that her boss spoke to the white supremacist group run by David Duke in 2002, but simply said her boss was, in the words of Costa, “unaware at the time of the group’s ideology and its association with racists and neo-Nazi activists.” “Throughout his career in public service, Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints,” Bagley said to the Washington Post. “In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around. In 2002, he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families.” “He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question,” Bagley added. “The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a husband, and a devoted Catholic.” Costa cited other anonymous Scalise aides who he wrote “argued that Scalise was poorly staffed during the period, when he was busy touring the state promoting his efforts to curb state spending.” “Scalise’s aides said due to the unavailability of Scalise’s schedule from that year, they did not have details to share about his appearance or remarks, but said he was a frequent speaker at a variety of events at that hotel—a hotspot for New Orleans-area conventions,” Costa wrote. But, as Costa reported, local press clippings from the timeframe indicate that Scalise was either complete oblivious to what was going on in his community—or he’s being misleading about not knowing now. “The Gambit Weekly, an alternative publication in New Orleans, wrote days before the conference that the hotel distanced itself from Duke’s group and expressed its discomfort,” Costa wrote, adding that: “The Iowa Cubs, a minor-league baseball team, also told the Gambit Weekly that they were concerned about housing their players, which included several African-Americans, at that hotel while traveling to Louisiana.” In addition, Roll Call’s Niels Lesnewski discovered an old interview from 1999 in his publication—three years before the 2002 David Duke conference that Scalise is now facing fire for—in which Scalise admitted he knew who David Duke was, and seemed to support some of his policies. Duke was considering a run for the first congressional district U.S. House seat that Scalise now holds, and Scalise—and now Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)—were other potential candidates. Vitter, then an attorney in Metairie, Louisiana, is quoted first in the story disavowing Duke’s beliefs. “I honestly think his 15 minutes of fame have come and gone,” Vitter is quoted in the 1999 Roll Call piece, which noted he was “seriously considering” a run for the House seat he eventually won before becoming a U.S. Senator years later, as saying of Duke. “When he’s competed in a field with real conservatives, real Republicans, Duke has not done well at all.” Then Scalise is quoted as saying, according to Roll Call reporter John Mercurio, as someone who “embraces many of the same ‘conservative’ views as Duke” but painted himself as “far more viable.” “The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” Scalise said at the time. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.” Another defense Scalise used in an on-the-record interview he conducted with his hometown Times-Picayune on Monday evening was that he didn’t have “Google” back in 2002, when this event occurred, so he couldn’t vet the organization. “There is a lot more vetting that goes into setting my appointments,” Scalise told the paper. “I have a scheduler. I didn’t have a scheduler back then. I was without the advantages of a tool like Google. It’s nice to have those. Those tools weren’t available back then.” That’s not entirely true. The internet was in full swing by that point, and Google had technically been inn use for years by the time of this event in 2002. There were plenty of other search engines that Scalise could have used to vet the organizations he was speaking at. In addition, as the Roll Call article he had previously been quoted in showed, he knew full well who David Duke was in 1999, and in 2002.

www.breitbart.com

right

8Bc6K4RvQvBgfdkz

test

4dnH4xUnguk3JAXu

politics

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/9f395c43d3782e14f171e0253ae76e66

Trump portrays himself as defender of faith for evangelicals

2020-01-03

Jonathan Lemire, Elana Schor

MIAMI ( AP ) — Highlighting his record on religious liberty , President Donald Trump on Friday worked to energize a group of evangelical supporters who make up an influential piece of his political base that could prove vital in battleground states . Trump spoke to more than 5,000 Christians , including a large group of Latinos , at a Miami megachurch , just days after he was the subject of a scathing editorial in Christianity Today magazine that called for his removal from office . Thousands of the faithful lifted their hands and prayed over Trump as he began speaking and portrayed himself as a defender of faith . “ We ’ re defending religion itself . A society without religion can not prosper . A nation without faith can not endure , ” said Trump , who also tried to paint his Democratic rivals for the 2020 election as threats to religious liberty . “ We can ’ t let one of our radical left friends come in here because everything we ’ ve done will be gone in short order . ” “ The day I was sworn in , the federal government war ’ s on religion came to an abrupt end , ” Trump declared . He later added : “ We can smile because we ’ re winning by so much . ” Although some of his address resembled his standard campaign speech , Trump cited his support for Israel , installation of federal judges , prison reform and a push to put prayer in public school . Those are issues his Republican reelection campaign believes could further jolt evangelical turnout that could help them secure wins in states like Michigan , Florida , Pennsylvania , North Carolina and Georgia . The El Rey Jesús church kickoff of “ Evangelicals for Trump ” will be followed in the weeks ahead by the launches of “ Catholics for Trump ” and “ Jewish Voices for Trump. ” It also comes days after Trump and his wife went to an evangelical Christmas Eve service in West Palm Beach rather than the liberal Episcopalian church in which they were married and often attend holiday services . Advisers believe that emphasizing religious issues may also provide inroads with Latino voters , who have largely steered clear of supporting the president over issues like immigration . Deep into his speech , Trump touched on the issue by praising his border wall . His aides believe even a slight uptick with faith-focused Latinos could help Trump carry Florida again and provide some needed breathing room in states like Texas . The president made no mention of the editorial , which ran in a magazine founded by the late Rev . Billy Graham . “ Remember who you are and whom you serve , ” the editorial states . “ Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior . Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump ’ s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency . ” Campaign officials said the Miami event was in the works well before the op-ed , and they trotted out a number of high-profile evangelical pastors to defend the president . “ I think his record in the past three years is rock-solid in things that the faith community cares about him , ” said Jentezen Franklin , a pastor to a megachurch in Georgia . “ We used to see politicians once every four years , but this one is totally different in constantly reaching out to the faith community , and we even get a chance to tell him when we disagree . ” The event comes just day after a new poll revealed that white evangelical Protestants stand noticeably apart from other religious people on how the government should act on two of the most politically divisive issues at play in the 2020 presidential election . Asked about significant restrictions on abortion -- making it illegal except in cases of rape , incest or to threats to a mother ’ s life -- 37 % of all Americans responded in support , according to the poll conducted by The ███-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research . Those abortion limits drew 39 % support from white mainline Protestants , 33 % support from nonwhite Protestants and 45 % support from Catholics , but 67 % support from white evangelical Protestants . A similar divide emerged over whether the government should bar discrimination against people who are lesbian , gay , bisexual or transgender in workplaces , housing or schools . About 6 in 10 Catholics , white mainline Protestants and nonwhite Protestants supported those protections , compared with about a third of white evangelical Protestants . White evangelicals were also more likely than members of other faiths to say religion should have at least some influence on policy-making . But Democrats have shown strong interest in connecting with voters of faith , even evangelicals whom Trump is often assumed to have locked down . And some religious leaders believe people of faith may be turned off by Trump ’ s personal conduct or record . “ Friday ’ s rally is Trump ’ s desperate response to the realization that he is losing his primary voting bloc — faith voters . He knows he needs every last vote if he wants a shot at reelection , as losing just 5 % of the faith voters ends his chances , ” said the Rev . Doug Pagitt , the executive director of Vote Common Good . “ In addition , he is trying to use this part of his base to give cover for his broken promises and immoral policies . ” Schor reported from New York . AP Polling director Emily Swanson and ███ writers Kevin Freking and Aamer Madhani contributed from Washington . The AP-NORC poll of 1,053 adults was conducted Dec. 5-9 using a sample drawn from NORC ’ s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel , which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population . The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4 percentage points . Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods and later were interviewed online or by phone .

MIAMI (AP) — Highlighting his record on religious liberty, President Donald Trump on Friday worked to energize a group of evangelical supporters who make up an influential piece of his political base that could prove vital in battleground states. Trump spoke to more than 5,000 Christians, including a large group of Latinos, at a Miami megachurch, just days after he was the subject of a scathing editorial in Christianity Today magazine that called for his removal from office. Thousands of the faithful lifted their hands and prayed over Trump as he began speaking and portrayed himself as a defender of faith. “We’re defending religion itself. A society without religion cannot prosper. A nation without faith can not endure,” said Trump, who also tried to paint his Democratic rivals for the 2020 election as threats to religious liberty. “We can’t let one of our radical left friends come in here because everything we’ve done will be gone in short order.” “The day I was sworn in, the federal government war’s on religion came to an abrupt end,” Trump declared. He later added: “We can smile because we’re winning by so much.” Although some of his address resembled his standard campaign speech, Trump cited his support for Israel, installation of federal judges, prison reform and a push to put prayer in public school. Those are issues his Republican reelection campaign believes could further jolt evangelical turnout that could help them secure wins in states like Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia. The El Rey Jesús church kickoff of “Evangelicals for Trump” will be followed in the weeks ahead by the launches of “Catholics for Trump” and “Jewish Voices for Trump.” It also comes days after Trump and his wife went to an evangelical Christmas Eve service in West Palm Beach rather than the liberal Episcopalian church in which they were married and often attend holiday services. Advisers believe that emphasizing religious issues may also provide inroads with Latino voters, who have largely steered clear of supporting the president over issues like immigration. Deep into his speech, Trump touched on the issue by praising his border wall. His aides believe even a slight uptick with faith-focused Latinos could help Trump carry Florida again and provide some needed breathing room in states like Texas. The president made no mention of the editorial, which ran in a magazine founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham. “Remember who you are and whom you serve,” the editorial states. “Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency.” Campaign officials said the Miami event was in the works well before the op-ed, and they trotted out a number of high-profile evangelical pastors to defend the president. “I think his record in the past three years is rock-solid in things that the faith community cares about him,” said Jentezen Franklin, a pastor to a megachurch in Georgia. “We used to see politicians once every four years, but this one is totally different in constantly reaching out to the faith community, and we even get a chance to tell him when we disagree.” The event comes just day after a new poll revealed that white evangelical Protestants stand noticeably apart from other religious people on how the government should act on two of the most politically divisive issues at play in the 2020 presidential election. Asked about significant restrictions on abortion -- making it illegal except in cases of rape, incest or to threats to a mother’s life -- 37% of all Americans responded in support, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Those abortion limits drew 39% support from white mainline Protestants, 33% support from nonwhite Protestants and 45% support from Catholics, but 67% support from white evangelical Protestants. A similar divide emerged over whether the government should bar discrimination against people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in workplaces, housing or schools. About 6 in 10 Catholics, white mainline Protestants and nonwhite Protestants supported those protections, compared with about a third of white evangelical Protestants. White evangelicals were also more likely than members of other faiths to say religion should have at least some influence on policy-making. But Democrats have shown strong interest in connecting with voters of faith, even evangelicals whom Trump is often assumed to have locked down. And some religious leaders believe people of faith may be turned off by Trump’s personal conduct or record. “Friday’s rally is Trump’s desperate response to the realization that he is losing his primary voting bloc — faith voters. He knows he needs every last vote if he wants a shot at reelection, as losing just 5% of the faith voters ends his chances,” said the Rev. Doug Pagitt, the executive director of Vote Common Good. “In addition, he is trying to use this part of his base to give cover for his broken promises and immoral policies.” ___ Schor reported from New York. AP Polling director Emily Swanson and Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Aamer Madhani contributed from Washington. ___ Follow Lemire on Twitter at http://twitter.com/@JonLemire ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,053 adults was conducted Dec. 5-9 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4 percentage points. Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods and later were interviewed online or by phone. ___ Online: AP-NORC Center: http://www.apnorc.org/

www.apnews.com

center

4dnH4xUnguk3JAXu

test

TV8ouGIlN4yT0hIA

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/trump-oil-gas-middle-east/2019/09/16/id/932811/

Trump: America Doesn't Need Oil, Gas From Middle East

2019-09-16

President Donald Trump promised to help allies following attacks on major Saudi Arabian oil facilities , even though he said the U.S. no longer needs energy from the Middle East and has few tankers there . `` We are a net Energy Exporter , '' Trump tweeted Monday morning . `` We do n't need Middle Eastern Oil & Gas , & in fact have very few tankers there , but will help our Allies ! '' Brent oil posted its biggest ever intraday jump Monday to more than $ 71 a barrel . It pared some gains , though both Brent and West Texas crude were still trading about 10 % higher as news of the devastating attack on the world 's largest exporter also sent currencies of commodity-linked nations higher . Trump 's statement Monday followed his weekend vow that the U.S. is `` locked and loaded depending on verification '' that Iran staged the attack on major Saudi Arabian oil facilities , an assertion already made by his secretary of state and backed by administration officials . `` There is reason to believe that we know the culprit , are locked and loaded depending on verification , '' Trump said on Twitter on Sunday without mentioning Iran or specifying what the response would entail . He said he 's awaiting word from Saudi Arabia about who it believed caused the attack and `` under what terms we would proceed ! '' Several administration officials said Sunday that they had substantial evidence that Iran was behind the attack , not the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who claimed responsibility . On Saturday , Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said unequivocally in a tweet that Iran was to blame . Two administration officials who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations told reporters that cruise missiles may have been used in the attacks on a Saudi oil field and the world 's biggest crude-processing facility in Abqaiq . The range from Yemen was also far beyond the distance of anything the Houthis have ever done , the officials said . A third administration official , who also asked not to be identified discussing non-public findings , said precision-guided munitions had been used . The U.S. officials did n't rule out that armed drones were used as well , even as they rejected the Houthi claims that they mounted the attacks using such pilotless aircraft . Now , the challenge that the Trump administration faces is balancing a tough response to what it says is a clear act of of Iranian aggression , against concern that it 's rushing headlong into a conflict that could spiral out of control . Analysts also warn that doing nothing could send a message to Iran or its proxy militias across the Middle East that they can strike their enemies with impunity . `` There 's no great response here , '' said Aaron David Miller , senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace . `` The question becomes how does the U.S. navigate between not allowing this precedent to stand on one hand , and avoiding a punitive escalation or one designed to deter future attacks without an escalation . And the answer is there is no answer . '' Still , a major U.S. military response may be unlikely , according to experts who said they doubt Trump will be willing to use force against Tehran or risk escalating violence in the Middle East ahead of the 2020 presidential election . In June , Trump said he considered a military strike on Iran for shooting down a U.S. drone , only to call off the action at the last minute . Analysts also said the attacks may do little to deter the president from seeking a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in an effort to broker a new nuclear agreement . Trump has n't ruled out a possible meeting with Rouhani when both are in New York in a week for the annual United Nations General Assembly . He tweeted on Sunday that the `` Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran , ‘ No Conditions ' That is an incorrect statement ( as usual ! ) . '' But officials including Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have told reporters publicly that Trump is willing to take a meeting with no conditions . The administration 's `` maximum pressure '' stance against Iran is focused on imposing sanctions and isolating the country over its nuclear ambitions and malign activities in the region . That approach has come under renewed scrutiny at a time the president 's foreign policy team is in flux , after Trump 's firing of hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton last week . U.S. and Saudi officials say they 're gathering more evidence that Iran was behind the attacks — some of it on the ground in Saudi Arabia — that will be released in due time . Iran 's Foreign Ministry described Pompeo 's comments blaming the Islamic Republic as `` blind and fruitless accusations . '' According to U.S. government information , there were 19 points of attack at state-owned Saudi Aramco 's crude-processing facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field , all on the north or northwest-facing sides — suggesting that the weaponry used came from that direction . Iraq lies to the north , and the U.S. in the past has accused Iran of stashing explosives with affiliated militias in the country . Yemen , by contrast , is hundreds of miles to the south . Saudi Aramco lost roughly 5.7 million barrels per day of output after the attacks , although officials cited progress in restoring production . Pompeo tweeted Saturday that there is `` no evidence the attacks came from Yemen '' and accused Iran of being behind `` an unprecedented attack on the world 's energy supply . '' `` The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression , '' he added . Paul Pillar , a former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officer , said the one `` policy option left is de-escalation — of the Saudi air war against Yemen , and of the Trump administration 's economic war against Iran . '' Pillar , who 's now a non-resident senior fellow at Georgetown University in Washington , said `` further attempts to escalate on either of those war fronts offers no reason to believe that they would be any more successful than the wars have been up to this point . '' Trump would risk criticism from many of his Republican allies if he chose to meet with Iran 's leader barely a week after accusing the country of being responsible for a strike that caused a significant disruption to the world 's oil markets . Republican Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has said the U.S. should n't rule out a military strike on Iranian oil facilities in response . `` Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real , like attacking their refineries , which will break the regime 's back , '' Graham tweeted Saturday . One Western diplomat , who asked not to be identified , said Trump sees what he wants to see in world events , so if he wanted to meet with Iran 's president , the strikes would n't necessarily deter him . Trump has repeatedly brushed aside short-range missile tests by North Korea as he seeks to broker a historic nuclear pact with leader Kim Jong Un . White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway said on `` Fox News Sunday '' that the administration will continue its `` maximum pressure campaign , '' but she added that `` the president will always consider his options , '' including a meeting with Rouhani . That was hours before Trump seemed to rule out a meeting unless the Iranian president met unspecified conditions . Nor is it clear the Iranian leader would be willing to take such a meeting — even an informal chat on the sidelines of the UN gathering — without the U.S. making some gesture to ease its sanctions on his country . The strikes in Saudi Arabia may all but rule out such a move anytime soon despite pleas by Western leaders led by French President Emmanuel Macron . The attacks on Saudi Arabia also pose a major test for Pompeo , who has an opportunity to consolidate power after Bolton 's departure . Pompeo and Brian Hook , the State Department 's special representative for Iran , have argued the U.S. could afford to ramp up sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Iran because there 's plenty of global oil supply . But there 's now little cushion in the market with the major disruption caused by the drone attacks , which could force the president and his team to look for ways to relieve the pressure . While analysts estimate Saudi Arabia may be able to restore half of the lost production as early as Monday , Trump said on Twitter Sunday that he 's authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if needed based on the attacks `` in a to-be-determined amount sufficient to keep the markets well-supplied . '' The stock of about 645 million barrels of crude and petroleum products could help meet demand during the time it would take for the Saudis to repair the facilities . Trump also told U.S. agencies to expedite approvals of oil pipelines in the permitting process . There 's also the question of the administration 's credibility . Some foreign policy analysts said it 's hard to take at face value the claim that Tehran is responsible , given the hard line against Iran advocated by Pompeo , Bolton and others . `` The Trump administration appears to have evidence of Iranian responsibility but will face skepticism from others , both because of policy disagreements between the US and its allies , and because declining to attribute an attack provides an excuse not to respond , '' tweeted Michael Singh , managing director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy .

President Donald Trump promised to help allies following attacks on major Saudi Arabian oil facilities, even though he said the U.S. no longer needs energy from the Middle East and has few tankers there. "We are a net Energy Exporter," Trump tweeted Monday morning. "We don't need Middle Eastern Oil & Gas, & in fact have very few tankers there, but will help our Allies!" Brent oil posted its biggest ever intraday jump Monday to more than $71 a barrel. It pared some gains, though both Brent and West Texas crude were still trading about 10% higher as news of the devastating attack on the world's largest exporter also sent currencies of commodity-linked nations higher. Trump's statement Monday followed his weekend vow that the U.S. is "locked and loaded depending on verification" that Iran staged the attack on major Saudi Arabian oil facilities, an assertion already made by his secretary of state and backed by administration officials. "There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification," Trump said on Twitter on Sunday without mentioning Iran or specifying what the response would entail. He said he's awaiting word from Saudi Arabia about who it believed caused the attack and "under what terms we would proceed!" Several administration officials said Sunday that they had substantial evidence that Iran was behind the attack, not the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who claimed responsibility. On Saturday, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said unequivocally in a tweet that Iran was to blame. Two administration officials who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations told reporters that cruise missiles may have been used in the attacks on a Saudi oil field and the world's biggest crude-processing facility in Abqaiq. The range from Yemen was also far beyond the distance of anything the Houthis have ever done, the officials said. A third administration official, who also asked not to be identified discussing non-public findings, said precision-guided munitions had been used. The U.S. officials didn't rule out that armed drones were used as well, even as they rejected the Houthi claims that they mounted the attacks using such pilotless aircraft. Now, the challenge that the Trump administration faces is balancing a tough response to what it says is a clear act of of Iranian aggression, against concern that it's rushing headlong into a conflict that could spiral out of control. Analysts also warn that doing nothing could send a message to Iran or its proxy militias across the Middle East that they can strike their enemies with impunity. "There's no great response here," said Aaron David Miller, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The question becomes how does the U.S. navigate between not allowing this precedent to stand on one hand, and avoiding a punitive escalation or one designed to deter future attacks without an escalation. And the answer is there is no answer." Still, a major U.S. military response may be unlikely, according to experts who said they doubt Trump will be willing to use force against Tehran or risk escalating violence in the Middle East ahead of the 2020 presidential election. In June, Trump said he considered a military strike on Iran for shooting down a U.S. drone, only to call off the action at the last minute. Analysts also said the attacks may do little to deter the president from seeking a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in an effort to broker a new nuclear agreement. Trump hasn't ruled out a possible meeting with Rouhani when both are in New York in a week for the annual United Nations General Assembly. He tweeted on Sunday that the "Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, ‘No Conditions' That is an incorrect statement (as usual!)." But officials including Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have told reporters publicly that Trump is willing to take a meeting with no conditions. 'Maximum Pressure' The administration's "maximum pressure" stance against Iran is focused on imposing sanctions and isolating the country over its nuclear ambitions and malign activities in the region. That approach has come under renewed scrutiny at a time the president's foreign policy team is in flux, after Trump's firing of hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton last week. U.S. and Saudi officials say they're gathering more evidence that Iran was behind the attacks — some of it on the ground in Saudi Arabia — that will be released in due time. Iran's Foreign Ministry described Pompeo's comments blaming the Islamic Republic as "blind and fruitless accusations." According to U.S. government information, there were 19 points of attack at state-owned Saudi Aramco's crude-processing facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field, all on the north or northwest-facing sides — suggesting that the weaponry used came from that direction. Iraq lies to the north, and the U.S. in the past has accused Iran of stashing explosives with affiliated militias in the country. Yemen, by contrast, is hundreds of miles to the south. Saudi Aramco lost roughly 5.7 million barrels per day of output after the attacks, although officials cited progress in restoring production. Pompeo's Tweet Pompeo tweeted Saturday that there is "no evidence the attacks came from Yemen" and accused Iran of being behind "an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply." "The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression," he added. Paul Pillar, a former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officer, said the one "policy option left is de-escalation — of the Saudi air war against Yemen, and of the Trump administration's economic war against Iran." Pillar, who's now a non-resident senior fellow at Georgetown University in Washington, said "further attempts to escalate on either of those war fronts offers no reason to believe that they would be any more successful than the wars have been up to this point." Trump would risk criticism from many of his Republican allies if he chose to meet with Iran's leader barely a week after accusing the country of being responsible for a strike that caused a significant disruption to the world's oil markets. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has said the U.S. shouldn't rule out a military strike on Iranian oil facilities in response. Graham Tweet "Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime's back," Graham tweeted Saturday. One Western diplomat, who asked not to be identified, said Trump sees what he wants to see in world events, so if he wanted to meet with Iran's president, the strikes wouldn't necessarily deter him. Trump has repeatedly brushed aside short-range missile tests by North Korea as he seeks to broker a historic nuclear pact with leader Kim Jong Un. White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway said on "Fox News Sunday" that the administration will continue its "maximum pressure campaign," but she added that "the president will always consider his options," including a meeting with Rouhani. That was hours before Trump seemed to rule out a meeting unless the Iranian president met unspecified conditions. UN Meeting Nor is it clear the Iranian leader would be willing to take such a meeting — even an informal chat on the sidelines of the UN gathering — without the U.S. making some gesture to ease its sanctions on his country. The strikes in Saudi Arabia may all but rule out such a move anytime soon despite pleas by Western leaders led by French President Emmanuel Macron. The attacks on Saudi Arabia also pose a major test for Pompeo, who has an opportunity to consolidate power after Bolton's departure. Pompeo and Brian Hook, the State Department's special representative for Iran, have argued the U.S. could afford to ramp up sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Iran because there's plenty of global oil supply. But there's now little cushion in the market with the major disruption caused by the drone attacks, which could force the president and his team to look for ways to relieve the pressure. While analysts estimate Saudi Arabia may be able to restore half of the lost production as early as Monday, Trump said on Twitter Sunday that he's authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if needed based on the attacks "in a to-be-determined amount sufficient to keep the markets well-supplied." The stock of about 645 million barrels of crude and petroleum products could help meet demand during the time it would take for the Saudis to repair the facilities. Trump also told U.S. agencies to expedite approvals of oil pipelines in the permitting process. There's also the question of the administration's credibility. Some foreign policy analysts said it's hard to take at face value the claim that Tehran is responsible, given the hard line against Iran advocated by Pompeo, Bolton and others. "The Trump administration appears to have evidence of Iranian responsibility but will face skepticism from others, both because of policy disagreements between the US and its allies, and because declining to attribute an attack provides an excuse not to respond," tweeted Michael Singh, managing director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

www.newsmax.com

right

TV8ouGIlN4yT0hIA

test

9fY1zSuTTYYKOaYJ

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40795122

Trump 'weighed in' on son's statement about Russian meeting

The White House has confirmed reports that President Donald Trump helped draft a statement on his son 's meeting last year with a Russian lawyer . Mr Trump `` weighed in '' on his son 's response to media last month but did not dictate it , the White House said . Donald Trump Jr initially said the meeting was about Russian adoption before acknowledging he was offered damaging material on Hillary Clinton . The president 's lawyer had denied Mr Trump made any input to the statement . The 39-year-old US first son came under scrutiny after the New York Times began reporting last month on his June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower . White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told a news briefing on Tuesday : `` The president weighed in as any father would based on the limited information that he had . '' But she maintained he `` did n't dictate '' the statement and the issue was `` of no consequence '' . `` The Democrats want to continue to use this as a PR stunt and are doing everything they can to keep this story alive and in the papers every single day , '' she added . Ms Huckabee Sanders said there was no inaccuracy in Mr Trump Jr 's statements . The Senate , House of Representatives and a special counsel are all investigating intelligence findings that Moscow interfered in the US presidential election in an alleged attempt to undermine Mrs Clinton - a claim denied by the Kremlin . I had no meetings with Russia as a campaign representative - Trump Jr ( March 2017 ) It was a short meeting but we only talked about adoption - Trump Jr ( 8 July ) I was promised dirt on Clinton but her statements were vague - Trump Jr ( 9 July ) It was standard opposition research - Trump Jr ( 10 July ) The president was `` not involved in the drafting '' of the statement - President Trump 's lawyer ( 16 July ) The president `` weighed in '' on the statement - White House spokeswoman ( 1 August ) The Washington Post reported late on Monday that President Trump himself personally dictated the statement his son issued about the meeting with lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya . The president was flying home last month aboard Air Force One from the G8 summit in Germany when he told his son what to say , according to the newspaper . Mr Trump Jr 's statement said he and Ms Veselnitskaya `` primarily discussed a programme about the adoption of Russian children '' . The initial plan was for Mr Trump Jr to fully disclose what he knew about the meeting , the Post says . But that decision was reportedly reversed and his first statement said they had discussed the adoption of Russian children , not campaign issues . Mr Trump Jr later acknowledged he had agreed to meet after being told Kremlin-linked information about Mrs Clinton would be offered during the talks . He also released the email exchange that brought about the meeting , insisting nothing came of the encounter . The Washington Post says some of the president 's advisers fear the extent of the Mr Trump 's intervention could place him and some of his inner circle in legal jeopardy . The reports about Mr Trump Jr 's statement came in the midst of further turmoil at the White House . White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was fired on Monday after fewer than 10 days in the post . The former Wall Street financier had drawn criticism after calling a reporter to give a profanity-laced tirade against his colleagues . According to the Washington Post , Donald Trump thinks that because he did n't do anything wrong , he ca n't obstruct the criminal investigation into Russian electoral meddling . The president 's personal lawyers might want to tell him that 's not how it works - and the president might want to listen . Even if misdirecting the media is n't a crime , the Post points out that it 's enough to encourage special counsel Robert Mueller to take a closer look . And if the president , who it now appears had a deep involvement in crafting the response to the Donald Trump Jr email bombshell , did more than just help mislead the American public , he could be in legal jeopardy . At the very least the president is playing with political dynamite by not insulating himself from the investigation . It 's a lesson President Richard Nixon learned the hard way during Watergate . But then Mr Trump is operating as president the way he did as a candidate - with a small , sometimes chaotic inner circle , where lines of authority are blurred , `` expert '' advice is often dismissed and all paths lead to Trump . If he - or new chief of staff John Kelly - does n't change this structure soon , the president may come to regret it . Get news from the BBC in your inbox , each weekday morning

Image copyright Getty Images The White House has confirmed reports that President Donald Trump helped draft a statement on his son's meeting last year with a Russian lawyer. Mr Trump "weighed in" on his son's response to media last month but did not dictate it, the White House said. Donald Trump Jr initially said the meeting was about Russian adoption before acknowledging he was offered damaging material on Hillary Clinton. The president's lawyer had denied Mr Trump made any input to the statement. The 39-year-old US first son came under scrutiny after the New York Times began reporting last month on his June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told a news briefing on Tuesday: "The president weighed in as any father would based on the limited information that he had." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Sarah Huckabee Sanders: "The president weighed in as any father would" But she maintained he "didn't dictate" the statement and the issue was "of no consequence". "The Democrats want to continue to use this as a PR stunt and are doing everything they can to keep this story alive and in the papers every single day," she added. Ms Huckabee Sanders said there was no inaccuracy in Mr Trump Jr's statements. President Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia. The Senate, House of Representatives and a special counsel are all investigating intelligence findings that Moscow interfered in the US presidential election in an alleged attempt to undermine Mrs Clinton - a claim denied by the Kremlin. How Trump team changed their story I had no meetings with Russia as a campaign representative - Trump Jr (March 2017) It was a short meeting but we only talked about adoption - Trump Jr (8 July) I was promised dirt on Clinton but her statements were vague - Trump Jr (9 July) It was standard opposition research - Trump Jr (10 July) The president was "not involved in the drafting" of the statement - President Trump's lawyer (16 July) The president "weighed in" on the statement - White House spokeswoman (1 August) The Washington Post reported late on Monday that President Trump himself personally dictated the statement his son issued about the meeting with lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The president was flying home last month aboard Air Force One from the G8 summit in Germany when he told his son what to say, according to the newspaper. Mr Trump Jr's statement said he and Ms Veselnitskaya "primarily discussed a programme about the adoption of Russian children". The initial plan was for Mr Trump Jr to fully disclose what he knew about the meeting, the Post says. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption All you need to know about the Trump-Russia investigation But that decision was reportedly reversed and his first statement said they had discussed the adoption of Russian children, not campaign issues. Mr Trump Jr later acknowledged he had agreed to meet after being told Kremlin-linked information about Mrs Clinton would be offered during the talks. He also released the email exchange that brought about the meeting, insisting nothing came of the encounter. The Washington Post says some of the president's advisers fear the extent of the Mr Trump's intervention could place him and some of his inner circle in legal jeopardy. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Former US Defence Secretary William Cohen says White House turmoil appears 'reckless' The reports about Mr Trump Jr's statement came in the midst of further turmoil at the White House. White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was fired on Monday after fewer than 10 days in the post. The former Wall Street financier had drawn criticism after calling a reporter to give a profanity-laced tirade against his colleagues. Why is Trump possibly in legal trouble? By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington According to the Washington Post, Donald Trump thinks that because he didn't do anything wrong, he can't obstruct the criminal investigation into Russian electoral meddling. The president's personal lawyers might want to tell him that's not how it works - and the president might want to listen. Even if misdirecting the media isn't a crime, the Post points out that it's enough to encourage special counsel Robert Mueller to take a closer look. And if the president, who it now appears had a deep involvement in crafting the response to the Donald Trump Jr email bombshell, did more than just help mislead the American public, he could be in legal jeopardy. At the very least the president is playing with political dynamite by not insulating himself from the investigation. It's a lesson President Richard Nixon learned the hard way during Watergate. But then Mr Trump is operating as president the way he did as a candidate - with a small, sometimes chaotic inner circle, where lines of authority are blurred, "expert" advice is often dismissed and all paths lead to Trump. If he - or new chief of staff John Kelly - doesn't change this structure soon, the president may come to regret it. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump Jr maintains that there was nothing to tell his father President Trump Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

www.bbc.com

center

9fY1zSuTTYYKOaYJ

test

q7W2CcNt7aPtUMqZ

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/17/first-on-cnn-attracting-minority-voters-a-key-gop-goal-as-obama-begins-second-term/

Attracting minority voters a key GOP goal as Obama begins second term

2013-01-17

Washington ( CNN ) – Days after President Barack Obama is sworn-in for a second term , Republican leaders from across the country will assemble in the southern city where Obama accepted his party ’ s presidential nomination in September to strategize a path forward for the GOP in a nation experiencing major demographic shifts . It will be a three-day discussion focused primarily on how to grow the Republican Party by convincing black , Hispanic and Asian voters that the GOP better represents their values than the Democratic Party , according to a party official involved in the planning of the Republican National Committee ’ s winter meeting in Charlotte , North Carolina , who spoke on the condition of anonymity . The argument , certainly in the near term , will be tough sell for the GOP , given the unyielding positions and controversial comments from some conservative lawmakers and opinion leaders on the issue of illegal immigration and Democrats ’ deep ties to the black community . The CNN Exit Poll from the 2012 presidential election showed that Obama won 93 % of the black vote , 71 % of the Hispanic vote and 73 % of the Asian vote . “ The big takeaway that will be discussed during the week and championed by Priebus is that the party needs more voters and needs to do a better job of reaching out to minority communities and not just six months before the election , ” said the Republican official . Priebus is RNC Chairman Reince Priebus , a 40-year-old lawyer from Wisconsin , who , until two years ago , was relatively unknown outside of the small , clubby world of the committee , an organization that has only 168 members . In January 2011 , Priebus emerged from a pack of similarly ambitious Republicans , including his former political ally and then-Chairman Michael Steele , for the right to lead the national party . He inherited more than $ 20 million of debt after the 2010 midterm elections and a depressed RNC donor base that was being courted by White House hopefuls and congressional Republicans . Priebus eventually pulled the RNC out of the red and handed Mitt Romney a relatively healthy national party operation when the former Massachusetts governor became the Republican presidential nominee . Paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that the RNC ended 2012 with about $ 3.3 million in the bank and no debt . With the White House in Democratic hands and Capitol Hill Republicans focused on legislative fights with Obama , the task to grow the GOP , for now , rests primarily on his shoulders . He is expected to win a second term as national chairman as he faces only token opposition from a Maine Republican at the party ’ s meeting in North Carolina . Republicans won the state in November , the only bright spot in crushing November defeats where Obama easily defeated Romney , Republicans lost ground in the House and failed to regain control of the Senate . The theme of the RNC meeting is “ Renew , Grow , Win , ” a tacit admission that the party has some serious political reckoning to deal with in the coming months , especially with the fast-growing Hispanic population . “ The ideas and the principles of the party are sound , ” said the GOP source . “ But the way they need to be communicated needs to be updated to become more relatable and relevant . ” The source added that in his speech next week to fellow Republicans , Priebus will offer a “ very optimistic and bold agenda , ” but was careful not to say much more beyond the overall theme of trying to broaden the party ’ s appeal . After the election , Priebus pledged to do a top-to-bottom review of the party , named it the “ Growth and Opportunity Effort ” and appointed five Republicans to lead the project . While minority outreach and recruitment will serve as a main theme of the Charlotte meeting , Priebus is also expected to emphasize a need to update the party ’ s digital operations . The Obama campaign ’ s emphasis on developing and utilizing cutting edge technology and fusing it with traditional get-out-the vote methods was widely praised and considered key to the president winning a second term . Representatives from companies such as Facebook , Google and Twitter are expected to attend the meeting , said the source , as will Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal , one of many Republicans said to be eyeing a run for president in 2016 . Jindal will speak at a dinner on Thursday . “ Simply put , we can not win if we continue to fight just over battleground states , ” said the source , referring to the narrow mathematical paths to victory Romney had in the election . Large states such as California , New York and Pennsylvania are considered Democratic strongholds , and besides North Carolina , Romney failed to win any of the so-called swing states that neither party has a lock on , such as Colorado and Nevada , two states with growing Hispanic populations .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) – Days after President Barack Obama is sworn-in for a second term, Republican leaders from across the country will assemble in the southern city where Obama accepted his party’s presidential nomination in September to strategize a path forward for the GOP in a nation experiencing major demographic shifts. It will be a three-day discussion focused primarily on how to grow the Republican Party by convincing black, Hispanic and Asian voters that the GOP better represents their values than the Democratic Party, according to a party official involved in the planning of the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Follow @politicalticker The argument, certainly in the near term, will be tough sell for the GOP, given the unyielding positions and controversial comments from some conservative lawmakers and opinion leaders on the issue of illegal immigration and Democrats’ deep ties to the black community. The CNN Exit Poll from the 2012 presidential election showed that Obama won 93% of the black vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote and 73% of the Asian vote. “The big takeaway that will be discussed during the week and championed by Priebus is that the party needs more voters and needs to do a better job of reaching out to minority communities and not just six months before the election,” said the Republican official. Priebus is RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, a 40-year-old lawyer from Wisconsin, who, until two years ago, was relatively unknown outside of the small, clubby world of the committee, an organization that has only 168 members. In January 2011, Priebus emerged from a pack of similarly ambitious Republicans, including his former political ally and then-Chairman Michael Steele, for the right to lead the national party. He inherited more than $20 million of debt after the 2010 midterm elections and a depressed RNC donor base that was being courted by White House hopefuls and congressional Republicans. Priebus eventually pulled the RNC out of the red and handed Mitt Romney a relatively healthy national party operation when the former Massachusetts governor became the Republican presidential nominee. Paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that the RNC ended 2012 with about $3.3 million in the bank and no debt. With the White House in Democratic hands and Capitol Hill Republicans focused on legislative fights with Obama, the task to grow the GOP, for now, rests primarily on his shoulders. He is expected to win a second term as national chairman as he faces only token opposition from a Maine Republican at the party’s meeting in North Carolina. Republicans won the state in November, the only bright spot in crushing November defeats where Obama easily defeated Romney, Republicans lost ground in the House and failed to regain control of the Senate. The theme of the RNC meeting is “Renew, Grow, Win,” a tacit admission that the party has some serious political reckoning to deal with in the coming months, especially with the fast-growing Hispanic population. “The ideas and the principles of the party are sound,” said the GOP source. “But the way they need to be communicated needs to be updated to become more relatable and relevant.” READ MORE: Avlon: GOP's surprising edge on diversity The source added that in his speech next week to fellow Republicans, Priebus will offer a “very optimistic and bold agenda,” but was careful not to say much more beyond the overall theme of trying to broaden the party’s appeal. After the election, Priebus pledged to do a top-to-bottom review of the party, named it the “Growth and Opportunity Effort” and appointed five Republicans to lead the project. While minority outreach and recruitment will serve as a main theme of the Charlotte meeting, Priebus is also expected to emphasize a need to update the party’s digital operations. The Obama campaign’s emphasis on developing and utilizing cutting edge technology and fusing it with traditional get-out-the vote methods was widely praised and considered key to the president winning a second term. Representatives from companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter are expected to attend the meeting, said the source, as will Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, one of many Republicans said to be eyeing a run for president in 2016. Jindal will speak at a dinner on Thursday. “Simply put, we cannot win if we continue to fight just over battleground states,” said the source, referring to the narrow mathematical paths to victory Romney had in the election. Large states such as California, New York and Pennsylvania are considered Democratic strongholds, and besides North Carolina, Romney failed to win any of the so-called swing states that neither party has a lock on, such as Colorado and Nevada, two states with growing Hispanic populations.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

q7W2CcNt7aPtUMqZ

test

0Lvg0GzwAR0hF6pO

cybersecurity

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cyber-idUSKBN19U0P4

Republicans blast Trump idea for cyber security unit with Russia

2017-07-10

Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday backtracked on his push for a cyber security unit with Russia , tweeting that he did not think it could happen , hours after his proposal was harshly criticized by Republicans who said Moscow could not be trusted . Trump said on Twitter early on Sunday that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed on Friday forming “ an impenetrable Cyber Security unit ” to address issues like the risk of cyber meddling in elections . The idea appeared to be a political non-starter . It was immediately scorned by several of Trump ’ s fellow Republicans , who questioned why the United States would work with Russia after Moscow ’ s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election . “ It ’ s not the dumbest idea I have ever heard but it ’ s pretty close , ” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” program . Ash Carter , who was U.S. defense secretary until the end of former Democratic President Barack Obama ’ s administration in January , told CNN flatly : “ This is like the guy who robbed your house proposing a working group on burglary . ” Trump ’ s advisers , including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin , had recently sought to explain Trump ’ s cyber push . Mnuchin said on Saturday that Trump and Putin had agreed to create “ a cyber unit to make sure that there was absolutely no interference whatsoever , that they would work on cyber security together . ” But Trump returned to Twitter on Sunday to play down the idea , which arose at his talks with Putin at a summit of the Group of 20 nations in Hamburg , Germany . “ The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn ’ t mean I think it can happen . It can ’ t , ” Trump said on Twitter . He then noted that an agreement with Russia for a ceasefire in Syria “ can & did ” happen . Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona acknowledged Trump ’ s desire to move forward with Russia , but added : “ There has to be a price to pay . ” “ There has been no penalty , ” McCain , who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee , told CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” program according to a CBS transcript . “ Vladimir Putin ... got away with literally trying to change the outcome ... of our election . ” Trump argued for a rapprochement with Moscow in his campaign but has been unable to deliver because his administration has been dogged by investigations into the allegations of Russian interference in the election and ties with his campaign . Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the matter , including whether there may have been any collusion on the part of Trump campaign officials , as are congressional committees including both the House of Representatives and Senate intelligence panels . Those probes are focused almost exclusively on Moscow ’ s actions , lawmakers and intelligence officials say , and no evidence has surfaced publicly implicating other countries despite Trump ’ s suggestion that others could have been involved . Moscow has denied any interference , and Trump says his campaign did not collude with Russia . Representative Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee , told CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” program that Russia could not be a credible partner in a cyber security unit . “ If that ’ s our best election defense , we might as well just mail our ballot boxes to Moscow , ” Schiff added . Separately , U.S. government officials said a recent hack into business systems of U.S. nuclear power and other energy companies was carried out by Russian government hackers , the Washington Post reported on Saturday . Trump said he “ strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election . He vehemently denied it . ” He added : “ We negotiated a ceasefire in parts of Syria which will save lives . Now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia ! ” In Trump ’ s first attempt at ending the six-year Syrian civil war , the United States , Russia and Jordan on Friday reached a ceasefire and “ de-escalation agreement ” for southwestern Syria . The ceasefire was holding hours after it took effect on Sunday , a monitor and two rebel officials said . Any joint U.S.-Russia cyber initiative would have been a different matter . Depending how much it veered into military or espionage operations , it could have faced major legal hurdles . U.S. President Donald Trump waves as walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington , U.S. , from the G20 Summit in Hamburg , July 8 , 2017 . ███/Yuri Gripas Language in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act prohibits the Pentagon , which includes the National Security Agency and the U.S. military ’ s Cyber Command , from using any funds for bilateral military cooperation with Russia . Michael McFaul , a former U.S. ambassador to Russia , also noted restrictions on sharing information with Russia that would clearly prohibit offering Moscow a sense of U.S. cyber capabilities . Russia would be similarly adverse to revealing its capabilities to the United States , he noted .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday backtracked on his push for a cyber security unit with Russia, tweeting that he did not think it could happen, hours after his proposal was harshly criticized by Republicans who said Moscow could not be trusted. Trump said on Twitter early on Sunday that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed on Friday forming “an impenetrable Cyber Security unit” to address issues like the risk of cyber meddling in elections. The idea appeared to be a political non-starter. It was immediately scorned by several of Trump’s fellow Republicans, who questioned why the United States would work with Russia after Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. “It’s not the dumbest idea I have ever heard but it’s pretty close,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. Ash Carter, who was U.S. defense secretary until the end of former Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration in January, told CNN flatly: “This is like the guy who robbed your house proposing a working group on burglary.” Trump’s advisers, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, had recently sought to explain Trump’s cyber push. Mnuchin said on Saturday that Trump and Putin had agreed to create “a cyber unit to make sure that there was absolutely no interference whatsoever, that they would work on cyber security together.” But Trump returned to Twitter on Sunday to play down the idea, which arose at his talks with Putin at a summit of the Group of 20 nations in Hamburg, Germany. “The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn’t mean I think it can happen. It can’t,” Trump said on Twitter. He then noted that an agreement with Russia for a ceasefire in Syria “can & did” happen. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona acknowledged Trump’s desire to move forward with Russia, but added: “There has to be a price to pay.” “There has been no penalty,” McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” program according to a CBS transcript. “Vladimir Putin ... got away with literally trying to change the outcome ... of our election.” Trump argued for a rapprochement with Moscow in his campaign but has been unable to deliver because his administration has been dogged by investigations into the allegations of Russian interference in the election and ties with his campaign. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the matter, including whether there may have been any collusion on the part of Trump campaign officials, as are congressional committees including both the House of Representatives and Senate intelligence panels. Those probes are focused almost exclusively on Moscow’s actions, lawmakers and intelligence officials say, and no evidence has surfaced publicly implicating other countries despite Trump’s suggestion that others could have been involved. Moscow has denied any interference, and Trump says his campaign did not collude with Russia. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN’s “State of the Union” program that Russia could not be a credible partner in a cyber security unit. “If that’s our best election defense, we might as well just mail our ballot boxes to Moscow,” Schiff added. Separately, U.S. government officials said a recent hack into business systems of U.S. nuclear power and other energy companies was carried out by Russian government hackers, the Washington Post reported on Saturday. ‘TIME TO MOVE FORWARD’ WITH RUSSIA Trump said he “strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it.” He added: “We negotiated a ceasefire in parts of Syria which will save lives. Now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!” In Trump’s first attempt at ending the six-year Syrian civil war, the United States, Russia and Jordan on Friday reached a ceasefire and “de-escalation agreement” for southwestern Syria. The ceasefire was holding hours after it took effect on Sunday, a monitor and two rebel officials said. Any joint U.S.-Russia cyber initiative would have been a different matter. Depending how much it veered into military or espionage operations, it could have faced major legal hurdles. U.S. President Donald Trump waves as walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, U.S., from the G20 Summit in Hamburg, July 8, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas Language in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act prohibits the Pentagon, which includes the National Security Agency and the U.S. military’s Cyber Command, from using any funds for bilateral military cooperation with Russia. Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, also noted restrictions on sharing information with Russia that would clearly prohibit offering Moscow a sense of U.S. cyber capabilities. Russia would be similarly adverse to revealing its capabilities to the United States, he noted. “It just will not happen,” McFaul told Reuters.

www.reuters.com

center

0Lvg0GzwAR0hF6pO

test

EyGh0Mh4D8M3pOHC

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/11/beware-the-presss-self-serving-calls-to

Beware the Press’s Self-Serving Calls to Regulate Social Media

2018-09-11

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

In the states and abroad , policymakers and commentators are salivating over the opportunity to regulate social media content . It is easy to understand why governments might want to have more influence on social media platforms . But the legacy media 's consistent push for more controls on platforms like Facebook and Twitter has been less scrutinized . There is a ███ for this consilience : these policies can ultimately serve as a government-granted privilege that favored media firms use to get an edge over their competition . It may sound a little roundabout . It does n't take a short-sighted partisan to have serious problems with a lot of social media practices . For instance , tech platforms have collaborated , willingly or not , with governments in surveillance and social conditioning campaigns . Then there 's the spectral but speculated upon creation of `` shadow profiles '' that are only discernable through their algorithmic residue . But do n't be fooled : Some parties who trot out these more reasonable pretexts for enhanced tech scrutiny do so for opportunistic reasons . Consider the recent campaign by media outfits in the United Kingdom to crack down on social media platforms . In early September , the leaders of some of the top media conglomerates across the pond—including the BBC , Sky , ITV , and Channel 4—wrote a strong letter to The Sunday Telegraph urging the government to intervene to counteract `` all potential online harms , many of which are exacerbated by social media . '' There are a variety of proposals on the table , and these media leaders specifically suggested that a government oversight board could be created to monitor and manage social media platforms . But whatever the final form , it is clear to them that Something Must Be Done . After all , they `` do not think it is realistic or appropriate to expect internet and social media companies to make all the judgment calls about what content is and is not acceptable , without any independent oversight . '' Sound ironic ? The same media companies who would rightly howl at the suggestion that a government oversee their `` judgement calls about what content is and is not acceptable '' —A.K.A . delivering news—self-righteously call to impose these rules on a competing industry without a second thought . They may cloak their self-interested campaign in the rhetoric of `` safety , '' but so do opponents of the free press . It is no secret that the rise of social media has caught many in the traditional media industry flatfooted . The unfortunate demise of many austere news houses is cliché to the point of being a frequent presidential punching bag , and the digitization of information has absolutely driven that trend . Adding insult to injury , the advertising infrastructure that used to prop up traditional journalism has likewise become `` optimized , '' prompting journalists ' futures to be driven by the algorithmic whims of a perhaps too easily bamboozled public . I 'd be mad about this state of affairs , too . But this does not justify privilege-seeking . It is easy to see how enhanced government control of the means of information distribution could have the happy effect of shoring up the positions of traditional media outlets . Any kind of controls that slow down the rate of information distribution could do this . Even better—the oversight board could be staffed by current or former members of the established press . After all , who better than they to determine what content is in the public interest ? And perhaps it just so happens that their current or former institutions happen to be the most trustworthy , and therefore the most often allowed on social media platforms… . Society is always made worse off overall when specific industries are protected by the government . But this state of affairs is all the more frightening when the relevant industry concerns a factor so vital to governance as delivering the truth . The situation is similar in the United States , as last week 's spectacle on Capitol Hill suggests . Here , as in the United Kingdom , many media outlets harbor grudges against social media platforms for their effects on the news industry and public opinion . But there are key institutional differences that change the calculus . The freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right in America , but not in the U.K . Even though social media platforms are private companies , the cultural respect of free speech is jealously guarded here , and that influences people 's opinions on proper policy responses . Perhaps the cultural antibodies against violations of free speech are simply weaker in the U.K. Alternatively , perhaps Americans will misdirect our love of free speech into supporting public utility regulations on social media platforms that also violate the speech rights of social media platforms . At the end of the day , media companies—vaunted though their profession may be in some circles—are still companies . And many of them are very big and very powerful . Some who call for social media oversight may truly have earnest motives . But surely all of them do not , and we should not allow the halo of `` the press '' to cloud our scrutiny of what may be simply an ugly business move .

In the states and abroad, policymakers and commentators are salivating over the opportunity to regulate social media content. It is easy to understand why governments might want to have more influence on social media platforms. But the legacy media's consistent push for more controls on platforms like Facebook and Twitter has been less scrutinized. There is a reason for this consilience: these policies can ultimately serve as a government-granted privilege that favored media firms use to get an edge over their competition. It may sound a little roundabout. It doesn't take a short-sighted partisan to have serious problems with a lot of social media practices. For instance, tech platforms have collaborated, willingly or not, with governments in surveillance and social conditioning campaigns. Then there's the spectral but speculated upon creation of "shadow profiles" that are only discernable through their algorithmic residue. But don't be fooled: Some parties who trot out these more reasonable pretexts for enhanced tech scrutiny do so for opportunistic reasons. Consider the recent campaign by media outfits in the United Kingdom to crack down on social media platforms. In early September, the leaders of some of the top media conglomerates across the pond—including the BBC, Sky, ITV, and Channel 4—wrote a strong letter to The Sunday Telegraph urging the government to intervene to counteract "all potential online harms, many of which are exacerbated by social media." There are a variety of proposals on the table, and these media leaders specifically suggested that a government oversight board could be created to monitor and manage social media platforms. But whatever the final form, it is clear to them that Something Must Be Done. After all, they "do not think it is realistic or appropriate to expect internet and social media companies to make all the judgment calls about what content is and is not acceptable, without any independent oversight." Sound ironic? The same media companies who would rightly howl at the suggestion that a government oversee their "judgement calls about what content is and is not acceptable"—A.K.A. delivering news—self-righteously call to impose these rules on a competing industry without a second thought. They may cloak their self-interested campaign in the rhetoric of "safety," but so do opponents of the free press. It is no secret that the rise of social media has caught many in the traditional media industry flatfooted. The unfortunate demise of many austere news houses is cliché to the point of being a frequent presidential punching bag, and the digitization of information has absolutely driven that trend. Adding insult to injury, the advertising infrastructure that used to prop up traditional journalism has likewise become "optimized," prompting journalists' futures to be driven by the algorithmic whims of a perhaps too easily bamboozled public. I'd be mad about this state of affairs, too. But this does not justify privilege-seeking. It is easy to see how enhanced government control of the means of information distribution could have the happy effect of shoring up the positions of traditional media outlets. Any kind of controls that slow down the rate of information distribution could do this. Even better—the oversight board could be staffed by current or former members of the established press. After all, who better than they to determine what content is in the public interest? And perhaps it just so happens that their current or former institutions happen to be the most trustworthy, and therefore the most often allowed on social media platforms… . Society is always made worse off overall when specific industries are protected by the government. But this state of affairs is all the more frightening when the relevant industry concerns a factor so vital to governance as delivering the truth. The situation is similar in the United States, as last week's spectacle on Capitol Hill suggests. Here, as in the United Kingdom, many media outlets harbor grudges against social media platforms for their effects on the news industry and public opinion. But there are key institutional differences that change the calculus. The freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right in America, but not in the U.K. Even though social media platforms are private companies, the cultural respect of free speech is jealously guarded here, and that influences people's opinions on proper policy responses. Perhaps the cultural antibodies against violations of free speech are simply weaker in the U.K. Alternatively, perhaps Americans will misdirect our love of free speech into supporting public utility regulations on social media platforms that also violate the speech rights of social media platforms. At the end of the day, media companies—vaunted though their profession may be in some circles—are still companies. And many of them are very big and very powerful. Some who call for social media oversight may truly have earnest motives. But surely all of them do not, and we should not allow the halo of "the press" to cloud our scrutiny of what may be simply an ugly business move.

www.reason.com

right

EyGh0Mh4D8M3pOHC

test

Q3fi7XE121Xj8pKB

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/25/roger-stone-trump-ally-arrested-on-seven-charges

Trump ally Roger Stone arrested on seven charges in Mueller inquiry

2019-01-25

Jon Swaine, Paul Owen, Sabrina Siddiqui

Roger Stone , a longtime adviser to Donald Trump , has said he will not testify against the president after he was arrested by the FBI on Friday morning and indicted on seven criminal charges . Stone , a veteran Republican operative , appeared in federal court in Fort Lauderdale charged by special counsel Robert Mueller with obstruction , lying to Congress and witness tampering . He was released on $ 250,000 bail and denies wrongdoing . Mueller alleged in a long-anticipated indictment that Stone , 66 , was asked by Trump ’ s 2016 presidential campaign to get inside information about emails that were stolen from Democrats by Russian government hackers and passed to WikiLeaks . A senior campaign official “ was directed ” to tell Stone to find out what damaging information WikiLeaks had about Hillary Clinton even after it was reported that the material being published by the group came from Russia , the indictment said . The allegations were the first to connect Trump ’ s campaign to the explosive release of the emails stolen by Russian operatives . Their release disrupted Clinton ’ s campaign and led the Democratic party ’ s chairwoman to resign . US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia ’ s interference was aimed at damaging Clinton ’ s campaign and helping Trump . Mueller is investigating whether any Trump associates coordinated with the Russian effort . Appearing outside the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale after his hearing , Stone smiled and said he would resist pressure from Mueller to turn on Trump . “ I will not testify against the president because I would have to bear false witness , ” he said . The White House press secretary , Sarah Sanders , repeatedly declined to say if the order for Stone was given by Trump himself . Sanders claimed the charges against Stone , an early adviser to Trump ’ s campaign , had “ nothing to do with the president ” . Roger Stone 's arrest may renew threat of impeachment for Trump Read more But Dianne Feinstein , a senior Democratic senator , noted that the phrase “ Trump campaign ” appeared 24 times in Stone ’ s indictment . “ It ’ s time for President Trump and his top aides to be truthful with the American people , ” Feinstein said . Mark Warner , the Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee , said the new charges showed Stone ’ s activities “ happened at least with the full knowledge of , and appear to have been encouraged by , the highest levels of the Trump campaign ” . Stone shuffled into court at 11am shackled at the waist and hands . Dressed in a blue polo shirt and jeans , he appeared disheveled after his 6am wake-up call from the FBI . Protesters gathered outside the courthouse in downtown Fort Lauderdale , some booing and waving “ Impeach Trump ” placards . The indictment , which was issued in Washington DC , alleged that in June or July 2016 , Stone told senior Trump campaign officials that he knew WikiLeaks had damaging information on Clinton . Julian Assange , the head of WikiLeaks , first publicly hinted that the group had information to release on Clinton on 12 June , in an interview on British television . Two days later it was first reported that Russia had hacked Democratic computer systems . Mueller said that after WikiLeaks began publishing the first leaked Democratic emails on 22 July , Stone repeatedly attempted to get to WikiLeaks through intermediaries , and then “ told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material ” . First he sent emails urging Jerome Corsi , a rightwing commentator , to get their mutual friend Ted Malloch , a London-based academic , to visit Assange at Ecuador ’ s embassy in London , where Assange has been holed up for more than six years . Corsi sent back what he said was inside information . Then Stone began messaging with Randy Credico , a friend and eccentric radio host who had his own connections to WikiLeaks . Mueller said that on 1 October 2016 , Credico told Stone that there would be “ big news ” from WikiLeaks later that week . “ Now pretend you don ’ t know me … Hillary ’ s campaign will die this week , ” he said . On 7 October , WikiLeaks began publishing emails stolen from John Podesta , the chairman of Clinton ’ s campaign . Mueller said on Friday that soon after the first Podesta emails were published , an associate of Trump ’ s campaign boss Steve Bannon sent a text message to Stone that said : “ Well done. ” Stone took credit for passing on inside information in later talks with senior Trump campaign staff , Mueller said . Although Stone did not hold an official position for much of Trump ’ s 2016 campaign , he is perhaps the president ’ s longest-serving informal political adviser , stemming from a close association in New York spanning more than a decade . Stone has attracted intense scrutiny from Mueller and other investigators , after a tweet and other public statements he made in the summer of 2016 indicated that he had knowledge the emails stolen from Podesta would soon be released . Late last year he predicted he would be indicted . “ Robert Mueller is coming for me , ” Stone wrote to supporters in August . Stone denied wrongdoing and said he faced legal peril simply because he had advised Trump for several decades . A self-proclaimed “ dirty trickster ” , Stone has been a controversial figure in Republican political circles stretching back to the 1970s , when he worked on Richard Nixon ’ s notorious committee for re-election . He has a tattoo of Nixon ’ s face on his back . The indictment also said Stone made false statements when questioned by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives . When asked if he had no emails or other communications relating to WikiLeaks and the hacked Democratic documents , Stone allegedly said : “ That is correct . Not to my knowledge . ” In fact , the indictment said , Stone “ sent and received numerous emails and text messages during the 2016 campaign in which he discussed ” WikiLeaks , Assange , and their possession of hacked emails . It was Stone who first recommended that Trump ’ s team hire as its campaign manager Paul Manafort , his former business partner . Manafort has since been found guilty on eight counts of financial crimes and is said to have breached a plea agreement with the special counsel . Manafort made his first court appearance in months on Friday as prosecutors and defence lawyers argue over whether he intentionally lied to investigators . Mueller ’ s team say Manafort repeatedly lied to them even after he began cooperating last September . Manafort ’ s lawyers say he simply forgot some details .

This article is more than 9 months old This article is more than 9 months old Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Donald Trump, has said he will not testify against the president after he was arrested by the FBI on Friday morning and indicted on seven criminal charges. Stone, a veteran Republican operative, appeared in federal court in Fort Lauderdale charged by special counsel Robert Mueller with obstruction, lying to Congress and witness tampering. He was released on $250,000 bail and denies wrongdoing. Mueller alleged in a long-anticipated indictment that Stone, 66, was asked by Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to get inside information about emails that were stolen from Democrats by Russian government hackers and passed to WikiLeaks. A senior campaign official “was directed” to tell Stone to find out what damaging information WikiLeaks had about Hillary Clinton even after it was reported that the material being published by the group came from Russia, the indictment said. The allegations were the first to connect Trump’s campaign to the explosive release of the emails stolen by Russian operatives. Their release disrupted Clinton’s campaign and led the Democratic party’s chairwoman to resign. US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia’s interference was aimed at damaging Clinton’s campaign and helping Trump. Mueller is investigating whether any Trump associates coordinated with the Russian effort. Appearing outside the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale after his hearing, Stone smiled and said he would resist pressure from Mueller to turn on Trump. “I will not testify against the president because I would have to bear false witness,” he said. The White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, repeatedly declined to say if the order for Stone was given by Trump himself. Sanders claimed the charges against Stone, an early adviser to Trump’s campaign, had “nothing to do with the president”. Roger Stone's arrest may renew threat of impeachment for Trump Read more But Dianne Feinstein, a senior Democratic senator, noted that the phrase “Trump campaign” appeared 24 times in Stone’s indictment. “It’s time for President Trump and his top aides to be truthful with the American people,” Feinstein said. Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the new charges showed Stone’s activities “happened at least with the full knowledge of, and appear to have been encouraged by, the highest levels of the Trump campaign”. Stone shuffled into court at 11am shackled at the waist and hands. Dressed in a blue polo shirt and jeans, he appeared disheveled after his 6am wake-up call from the FBI. Protesters gathered outside the courthouse in downtown Fort Lauderdale, some booing and waving “Impeach Trump” placards. The indictment, which was issued in Washington DC, alleged that in June or July 2016, Stone told senior Trump campaign officials that he knew WikiLeaks had damaging information on Clinton. Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, first publicly hinted that the group had information to release on Clinton on 12 June, in an interview on British television. Two days later it was first reported that Russia had hacked Democratic computer systems. Mueller said that after WikiLeaks began publishing the first leaked Democratic emails on 22 July, Stone repeatedly attempted to get to WikiLeaks through intermediaries, and then “told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material”. First he sent emails urging Jerome Corsi, a rightwing commentator, to get their mutual friend Ted Malloch, a London-based academic, to visit Assange at Ecuador’s embassy in London, where Assange has been holed up for more than six years. Corsi sent back what he said was inside information. Then Stone began messaging with Randy Credico, a friend and eccentric radio host who had his own connections to WikiLeaks. Mueller said that on 1 October 2016, Credico told Stone that there would be “big news” from WikiLeaks later that week. “Now pretend you don’t know me … Hillary’s campaign will die this week,” he said. On 7 October, WikiLeaks began publishing emails stolen from John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign. Mueller said on Friday that soon after the first Podesta emails were published, an associate of Trump’s campaign boss Steve Bannon sent a text message to Stone that said: “Well done.” Stone took credit for passing on inside information in later talks with senior Trump campaign staff, Mueller said. Q&A Who is Roger Stone? Show Hide Stone is the self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” of Republican politics and a longtime ally of Donald Trump. The 66-year-old has spent decades cultivating a reputation as a combative political operative with a penchant for making brash statements and trafficking in conspiracy theories. Raised in Lewisboro, New York, Stone’s first foray into national politics came when he was just 19. An ardent supporter of Richard Nixon, Stone was part of a scheme in 1972 to sink the president’s longshot primary challenger, Pete McCloskey. The plot, uncovered during the Watergate congressional hearings, entailed sending McCloskey donations from the “Young Socialist Alliance” and then leaking the information to the press in an attempt to damage his image. Stone remained such a Nixon devotee that he infamously got the former president’s face tattooed on his back. During the 70s, Stone also played a key role in bringing the full force of outside campaign money to negative advertising. He worked for Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 presidential campaign and served as a political director on Reagan’s second, successful, run in 1980. Although he did not join the Reagan administration, Stone remained a key player in politics. A Washington Post profile, published in 1986, said Stone “earns a reported $450,000 a year, owns two homes and a hot tub, wears $800 designer suits and a Patek Phillipe watch”. Stone repeatedly urged Trump to run for president. When Trump ultimately threw his hat in the ring, Stone acted as an adviser. He later left his official position in the campaign, but continued to informally advise Trump. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA Although Stone did not hold an official position for much of Trump’s 2016 campaign, he is perhaps the president’s longest-serving informal political adviser, stemming from a close association in New York spanning more than a decade. Stone has attracted intense scrutiny from Mueller and other investigators, after a tweet and other public statements he made in the summer of 2016 indicated that he had knowledge the emails stolen from Podesta would soon be released. Late last year he predicted he would be indicted. “Robert Mueller is coming for me,” Stone wrote to supporters in August. Stone denied wrongdoing and said he faced legal peril simply because he had advised Trump for several decades. A self-proclaimed “dirty trickster”, Stone has been a controversial figure in Republican political circles stretching back to the 1970s, when he worked on Richard Nixon’s notorious committee for re-election. He has a tattoo of Nixon’s face on his back. The indictment also said Stone made false statements when questioned by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives. When asked if he had no emails or other communications relating to WikiLeaks and the hacked Democratic documents, Stone allegedly said: “That is correct. Not to my knowledge.” In fact, the indictment said, Stone “sent and received numerous emails and text messages during the 2016 campaign in which he discussed” WikiLeaks, Assange, and their possession of hacked emails. It was Stone who first recommended that Trump’s team hire as its campaign manager Paul Manafort, his former business partner. Manafort has since been found guilty on eight counts of financial crimes and is said to have breached a plea agreement with the special counsel. Manafort made his first court appearance in months on Friday as prosecutors and defence lawyers argue over whether he intentionally lied to investigators. Mueller’s team say Manafort repeatedly lied to them even after he began cooperating last September. Manafort’s lawyers say he simply forgot some details. Additional reporting: Richard Luscombe in Fort Lauderdale

www.theguardian.com

left

Q3fi7XE121Xj8pKB

test

kLRKETgas9Ufkr87

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-chaos/syria-mattis-afghanistan-shutdown-trump-ends-year-in-chaos-idUSKCN1OK0A5

Syria, Mattis, Afghanistan, shutdown: Trump ends year in chaos

2018-12-21

Steve Holland

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Trump ’ s presidency has lurched from crisis to crisis since he took office less than two years ago , but Thursday was a landmark day of chaos that appeared to test the resolve of even senior Republican backers in Washington . Defense Secretary James Mattis , a widely respected figure seen as a stabilizing influence inside the administration , handed in his resignation after arguing with Trump over foreign policy in a White House meeting . Mattis then released a letter that showed fundamental policy differences between the two men and implicitly criticized Trump ’ s disregard for allies abroad . Also on Thursday , Trump resisted pressure to stand down from a decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria , made plans to pull American forces out of Afghanistan and pushed the U.S. government toward a shutdown over funding for a border wall . To top it all off , U.S. share prices tumbled as investors worried the looming shutdown , slower economic growth and the Federal Reserve ’ s projections for more interest rate hikes next year . Even some of Trump ’ s friends showed deepening worry about where his administration is heading at the halfway point of his term . Senator Lindsey Graham , a close ally and frequent golf partner , on Thursday praised Mattis , publicly urged Trump to reconsider the Syrian pullout and warned that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could ultimately lead to another attack on America similar to the one on Sept. 11 , 2001 . “ I believe you are on course to make the same mistake President ( Barack ) Obama made in Iraq ... It will turn out no better for you than it did for him. ” Graham tweeted of the Syria move . Graham said the conditions in Afghanistan made troop withdrawals a high-risk strategy . “ If we continue on our present course we are setting in motion the loss of all our gains and paving the way toward a second 9/11 . ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement expressing grave reservations about why Mattis left . “ I am particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on ... key aspects of America ’ s global leadership , ” he said . It was a vivid reminder of the early months of Trump ’ s White House , when he fired his first national security adviser , Michael Flynn , after only days in office , fired then-FBI Director James Comey and launched a travel ban against majority Muslim countries that was blocked by the courts . Trump already faces a difficult 2019 , likely to be dominated by a special prosecutor ’ s investigation into whether his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia and congressional probes into his businesses , his family and some cabinet members . Democrats will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January and plan to use their power to dig deep into Trump ’ s past and his administration . Those Democrats , eager to soften Trump up for his expected run for re-election in 2020 , leaped to take advantage of the scenes of turmoil on Thursday . “ It is a shame that this president , who is plunging the nation into chaos , is throwing another temper tantrum and is going to hurt lots of innocent people , ” said U.S . Senator Chuck Schumer of New York , the top Democrat in the Senate . “ The Trump temper tantrum will shut down the government , but it will not get him his wall , ” Schumer said . Without the chaos , Trump might have had a good week . He celebrated a rare bipartisan success with Senate passage of prison reform legislation , an initiative pushed by his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner . He also signed a major farm bill and promoted the ceremony with a moment of levity : He tweeted a video of himself from the Emmys awards show from years ago wearing farm attire - a straw hat , denim overalls and waving a pitch fork - and sang the theme song to the old “ Green Acres ” TV show . Aides said he has been in a good mood for the most part , spending some of the pre-holiday week reconnecting with old friends . He has sat down for sessions with allies in the Oval Office and attended holiday receptions in the residence with friends.Behind the scenes , however , his White House team has been struggling to keep up . His new White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has scrambled to meeting after meeting . So too has national security adviser John Bolton , an Iran hawk who had wanted to keep U.S. troops in Syria as a counter to Tehran . Since the midterm elections , Trump has fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly after they lost his confidence , as well as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke , who is under an ethics cloud . Others who were previously seen as on the way out may stay longer . Trump is said by aides to be pleased by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for toughening her approach to the border , and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is unlikely to be forced out unless he wants to leave . U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a signing ceremony for H.R . 2 , the `` Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 '' in Washington , U.S. , December 20 , 2018 . ███/Jim Young White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters that she did not believe Trump had asked Mattis to resign . “ The president had a good relationship ( with Mattis ) , but sometimes they disagree . The president always listens to the members of his national security team , but at the end of the day it is the president ’ s decision to make , ” she said .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Trump’s presidency has lurched from crisis to crisis since he took office less than two years ago, but Thursday was a landmark day of chaos that appeared to test the resolve of even senior Republican backers in Washington. Defense Secretary James Mattis, a widely respected figure seen as a stabilizing influence inside the administration, handed in his resignation after arguing with Trump over foreign policy in a White House meeting. Mattis then released a letter that showed fundamental policy differences between the two men and implicitly criticized Trump’s disregard for allies abroad. Also on Thursday, Trump resisted pressure to stand down from a decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, made plans to pull American forces out of Afghanistan and pushed the U.S. government toward a shutdown over funding for a border wall. To top it all off, U.S. share prices tumbled as investors worried the looming shutdown, slower economic growth and the Federal Reserve’s projections for more interest rate hikes next year. Even some of Trump’s friends showed deepening worry about where his administration is heading at the halfway point of his term. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally and frequent golf partner, on Thursday praised Mattis, publicly urged Trump to reconsider the Syrian pullout and warned that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could ultimately lead to another attack on America similar to the one on Sept. 11, 2001. “I believe you are on course to make the same mistake President (Barack) Obama made in Iraq ... It will turn out no better for you than it did for him.” Graham tweeted of the Syria move. Graham said the conditions in Afghanistan made troop withdrawals a high-risk strategy. “If we continue on our present course we are setting in motion the loss of all our gains and paving the way toward a second 9/11.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement expressing grave reservations about why Mattis left. “I am particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on ... key aspects of America’s global leadership,” he said. It was a vivid reminder of the early months of Trump’s White House, when he fired his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, after only days in office, fired then-FBI Director James Comey and launched a travel ban against majority Muslim countries that was blocked by the courts. HEADING FOR A TOUGH YEAR Trump already faces a difficult 2019, likely to be dominated by a special prosecutor’s investigation into whether his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia and congressional probes into his businesses, his family and some cabinet members. Democrats will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January and plan to use their power to dig deep into Trump’s past and his administration. Those Democrats, eager to soften Trump up for his expected run for re-election in 2020, leaped to take advantage of the scenes of turmoil on Thursday. “It is a shame that this president, who is plunging the nation into chaos, is throwing another temper tantrum and is going to hurt lots of innocent people,” said U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the top Democrat in the Senate. “The Trump temper tantrum will shut down the government, but it will not get him his wall,” Schumer said. Without the chaos, Trump might have had a good week. He celebrated a rare bipartisan success with Senate passage of prison reform legislation, an initiative pushed by his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. He also signed a major farm bill and promoted the ceremony with a moment of levity: He tweeted a video of himself from the Emmys awards show from years ago wearing farm attire - a straw hat, denim overalls and waving a pitch fork - and sang the theme song to the old “Green Acres” TV show. Aides said he has been in a good mood for the most part, spending some of the pre-holiday week reconnecting with old friends. He has sat down for sessions with allies in the Oval Office and attended holiday receptions in the residence with friends.Behind the scenes, however, his White House team has been struggling to keep up. His new White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has scrambled to meeting after meeting. So too has national security adviser John Bolton, an Iran hawk who had wanted to keep U.S. troops in Syria as a counter to Tehran. Since the midterm elections, Trump has fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly after they lost his confidence, as well as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who is under an ethics cloud. Others who were previously seen as on the way out may stay longer. Trump is said by aides to be pleased by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for toughening her approach to the border, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is unlikely to be forced out unless he wants to leave. U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a signing ceremony for H.R. 2, the "Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018" in Washington, U.S., December 20, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Young But Mattis’ resignation was jarring. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters that she did not believe Trump had asked Mattis to resign. “The president had a good relationship (with Mattis), but sometimes they disagree. The president always listens to the members of his national security team, but at the end of the day it is the president’s decision to make,” she said.

www.reuters.com

center

kLRKETgas9Ufkr87

test

t6IDJoP8ifca7wnZ

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45230894

George Papadopoulos: Mueller proposes sentence for ex-Trump aide

US special counsel Robert Mueller has recommended a prison sentence of up to six months for former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos . Mr Mueller , head of an investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election , said such a sentence was `` warranted and appropriate '' . Mr Papadopoulos has admitted lying about his contacts with Russians while a member of the Trump campaign team . `` The government does not take a position with respect to a particular sentence to be imposed , but respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration within the applicable guidelines range of zero to six months imprisonment is appropriate and warranted , '' Mr Mueller 's memorandum to the judge in the case says . The memorandum adds that Mr Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about his contacts with alleged Russian go-betweens . They included a London-based professor who said Russia had `` dirt '' on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton . `` The defendant 's lies undermined investigators ' ability to challenge the professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States , '' the memorandum says . `` The defendant 's false statements were intended to harm the investigation , and did so . '' Mr Papadopoulos - a Chicago-based international energy lawyer - is one of three ex-Trump campaign officials who have admitted lying to investigators , including former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and businessman Richard Gates , who served as deputy campaign chairman . Separately , former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort faces charges of bank and tax fraud in the first trial stemming from the inquiry into alleged Russian meddling . He denies any wrongdoing . Prosecutors say the 69-year-old dodged taxes on millions of dollars he made lobbying for Ukrainian politicians . Members of the jury are now deciding their verdict - with their identities protected over safety concerns after the judge in the case admitted he had received threats himself . If found guilty on the fraud charges , Mr Manafort could spend the rest of his life in jail . The allegations against him are not linked to Mr Trump and centre on his consultancy work with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine .

Image copyright Twitter Image caption George Papadopoulos said he was told the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton US special counsel Robert Mueller has recommended a prison sentence of up to six months for former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. Mr Mueller, head of an investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, said such a sentence was "warranted and appropriate". Mr Papadopoulos has admitted lying about his contacts with Russians while a member of the Trump campaign team. Sentencing is due to take place on 7 September. "The government does not take a position with respect to a particular sentence to be imposed, but respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration within the applicable guidelines range of zero to six months imprisonment is appropriate and warranted," Mr Mueller's memorandum to the judge in the case says. The memorandum adds that Mr Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about his contacts with alleged Russian go-betweens. They included a London-based professor who said Russia had "dirt" on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. "The defendant's lies undermined investigators' ability to challenge the professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States," the memorandum says. "The defendant's false statements were intended to harm the investigation, and did so." Key background Mr Papadopoulos - a Chicago-based international energy lawyer - is one of three ex-Trump campaign officials who have admitted lying to investigators, including former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and businessman Richard Gates, who served as deputy campaign chairman. Separately, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort faces charges of bank and tax fraud in the first trial stemming from the inquiry into alleged Russian meddling. He denies any wrongdoing. Prosecutors say the 69-year-old dodged taxes on millions of dollars he made lobbying for Ukrainian politicians. Members of the jury are now deciding their verdict - with their identities protected over safety concerns after the judge in the case admitted he had received threats himself. If found guilty on the fraud charges, Mr Manafort could spend the rest of his life in jail. The allegations against him are not linked to Mr Trump and centre on his consultancy work with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

center

t6IDJoP8ifca7wnZ

test

0AQJgbEgZNYsRvLn

federal_budget

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/eac219fdb053191bceb521b0fe6b654d

Fed makes strongest bid yet to protect firms and governments

2020-03-23

Christopher Rugaber

FILE - In this Tuesday , March 3 , 2020 file photo , Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pauses during a news conference to discuss an announcement from the Federal Open Market Committee , in Washington . In a series of sweeping steps , the U.S. Federal Reserve will lend to small and large businesses and local governments as well as extend its bond buying programs . The announcement Monday , March 23 is part of the Fed 's ongoing efforts to support the flow of credit through an economy ravaged by the viral outbreak . ( AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin , File ) FILE - In this Tuesday , March 3 , 2020 file photo , Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pauses during a news conference to discuss an announcement from the Federal Open Market Committee , in Washington . In a series of sweeping steps , the U.S. Federal Reserve will lend to small and large businesses and local governments as well as extend its bond buying programs . The announcement Monday , March 23 is part of the Fed 's ongoing efforts to support the flow of credit through an economy ravaged by the viral outbreak . ( AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Federal Reserve is unleashing its boldest effort yet to protect the U.S. economy from the coronavirus by helping companies and governments pay their bills and survive a devastating crisis . With lending in Treasury and mortgage markets threatening to shut down , the Fed announced an aggressive set of programs Monday to try to smooth out those markets . To do so , it committed to buy as much government-backed debt as it deems necessary . And for the first time ever , the Fed said it plans to buy corporate debt , too . Its intervention is intended to ensure that households , companies , banks and governments can get the loans they need at a time when their own revenue is fast drying up as the economy stalls . The Fed ’ s all-out effort to support the flow of credit through an economy ravaged by the viral outbreak has now gone beyond even the extraordinary drive it made to rescue the economy from the 2008 financial crisis . “ The coronavirus pandemic is causing tremendous hardship across the United States and around the world , ” the Fed said in a statement . “ Aggressive efforts must be taken across the public and private sectors to limit the losses to jobs and incomes and to promote a swift recovery once the disruptions abate . ” The announcement initially lifted stocks in early trading . But rancorous talks in Congress over a $ 2 trillion rescue package — and uncertainty over when any agreement might be reached — depressed shares about 2.5 % in volatile midday trading . The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond fell , a sign that more investors are willing to purchase the securities . With its new programs , the Fed , led by Chair Jerome Powell , is trying to both stabilize the economy and allay panic in financial markets . As the need for cash has escalated among many corporations and city and state governments , large businesses have been drawing as much as they can on their existing borrowing relationships with banks . The intensifying need for money means that banks and other investors are seeking to rapidly unload Treasuries , short-term corporate debt , municipal bonds and other securities . The Fed ’ s move to intervene as a buyer of last resort is intended to supply that needed cash . President Donald Trump , a frequent Fed critic , had rare praise for Powell on Monday . “ I really think he ’ s caught up and he ’ s done the right thing , ” Trump said during a White House press conference . He said he called Powell on Monday and said , “ Jerome , good job. ” Less than two weeks ago , Trump was noting that he had the power to fire or demote the Fed chief . The central bank ’ s actions , meanwhile , increase pressure on Congress to approve an agreement that would include funds to backstop the Fed ’ s lending . Many economists say that whatever financial support Congress eventually provides will likely be even more important than the Fed ’ s intervention . And they warn that such fiscal help needs to come soon . The Fed ’ s intervention is not a substitute for fiscal stimulus , ” said Joseph Gagnon , a former Fed economist who is now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics . “ Let ’ s hope Congress passes something quickly . ” Joe Brusuelas , chief economist at RSM , a tax and advisory firm , said that if Congress can pass the legislation and have it signed into law by Tuesday , banks could start making loans to small and medium-sized businesses , with the Fed ’ s support , by Friday . In its announcement Monday , the Fed said it will establish three new lending facilities that will provide up to $ 300 billion by purchasing corporate bonds , a wider range of municipal bonds and securities tied to such debt as auto and real estate loans . It will also buy an unlimited amount of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to try to hold down borrowing rates and ensure those markets function smoothly . The central bank ’ s go-for-broke approach is an acknowledgment that its previous plans to keep credit flowing smoothly , which included dollar limits , wouldn ’ t be enough in the face of the viral outbreak , which has brought the U.S. economy to a near-standstill as workers and consumers stay home . Last week , it said it would buy $ 500 billion of Treasuries and $ 200 billion of mortgage-backed securities , then quickly ran through roughly half those amounts by week ’ s end . And on Monday , the New York Federal Reserve said it would buy $ 75 billion of Treasuries and $ 50 billion of mortgage-backed securities each day this week . “ They ’ re really setting the economy up ” to start functioning again when the health crisis subsides , said Donald Kohn , a former Fed vice chair who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution . “ Part of this is about the other side of the valley : Make sure the credit is there . ’ ’ Kohn noted that it would take time to set up some of the Fed ’ s programs , but just knowing that they are on the way should reassure businesses . Many companies seeking loans are worried about cash flow as their revenue dries up along with their customers . Elizabeth Cooper McFadden , who runs Novella Brandhouse , a marketing firm in Kansas City , Missouri , has applied for a disaster loan from the Small Business Administration . But she ’ s concerned about how long that loan will take to be processed and wonders if the Fed program might be faster . She will need more money in the next 30 to 60 days . McFadden would also like to see more lenient terms than SBA loans allow . “ We ’ re looking at any and all options , ” she said , adding , hopefully : “ I feel that 90 days from now , it ’ s going to be a different picture — in a positive way . ” The Fed mostly creates the money it will use to buy bonds and lend to large and small businesses . But it seeks to avoid credit losses . It has been using money from a Treasury fund to offset any losses on its loans . That fund has already committed most of that money to the Fed ’ s existing facilities . The congressional legislation could boost that amount by about $ 500 billion . “ The steps announced today , combined with the previous ones ... should substantially improve market functioning and should provide some important support for the economy , ” said Roberto Perli , a former Fed economist who is now head of global policy research at Cornerstone Macro . But Perli cautioned that the benefits won ’ t be felt immediately . “ The next couple of quarters will still be probably bad , ” he said . The new programs announced Monday by the Fed include two that will buy corporate debt issued by large companies . One program will buy newly issued corporate debt . This is an effort to revive that market , which has effectively come to a standstill . The second will buy previously issued corporate debt . Both programs will include $ 10 billion provided by the Treasury to offset any losses . A third new lending program will buy securities backed by packages of auto loans , credit card loans and some small business loans . Lending in those areas hinges on the ability of banks to package those loans into securities and sell them . So the Fed ’ s move is critical to the ability of banks to continue to provide these loans as the economy falters . The Treasury will also provide $ 10 billion to that program to offset any losses . All told , those three programs can lend up to $ 300 billion . The Fed said that companies “ that are expected to receive direct financial assistance under pending federal legislation ” are not eligible to participate in the corporate lending programs — a reference to the airline industry and perhaps others under consideration . Companies will have to be rated at investment grade , or above junk level , to be eligible for lending . The companies can defer payments for up to six months , the Fed said . If they do suspend payment , they are not allowed to buy back their shares or pay dividends , it said . The Fed also said it will soon establish a “ Main Street Business Lending Program ” to support lending to small and medium-sized businesses . But it provided few details and didn ’ t say when that program would begin . That program will likely be funded by and is intended to complement the congressional stimulus legislation , which also includes a provision to provide financing to very small companies . The Fed ’ s Main Street program will target medium-sized businesses , officials said . Brusuelas noted that by announcing the Main Street lending program , the Fed had committed to something before a congressional backstop was in place , a virtually unheard-of step . “ You ’ re never going to see that again , hopefully , ” he said .

FILE - In this Tuesday, March 3, 2020 file photo, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pauses during a news conference to discuss an announcement from the Federal Open Market Committee, in Washington. In a series of sweeping steps, the U.S. Federal Reserve will lend to small and large businesses and local governments as well as extend its bond buying programs. The announcement Monday, March 23 is part of the Fed's ongoing efforts to support the flow of credit through an economy ravaged by the viral outbreak. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) FILE - In this Tuesday, March 3, 2020 file photo, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pauses during a news conference to discuss an announcement from the Federal Open Market Committee, in Washington. In a series of sweeping steps, the U.S. Federal Reserve will lend to small and large businesses and local governments as well as extend its bond buying programs. The announcement Monday, March 23 is part of the Fed's ongoing efforts to support the flow of credit through an economy ravaged by the viral outbreak. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve is unleashing its boldest effort yet to protect the U.S. economy from the coronavirus by helping companies and governments pay their bills and survive a devastating crisis. With lending in Treasury and mortgage markets threatening to shut down, the Fed announced an aggressive set of programs Monday to try to smooth out those markets. To do so, it committed to buy as much government-backed debt as it deems necessary. And for the first time ever, the Fed said it plans to buy corporate debt, too. Its intervention is intended to ensure that households, companies, banks and governments can get the loans they need at a time when their own revenue is fast drying up as the economy stalls. The Fed’s all-out effort to support the flow of credit through an economy ravaged by the viral outbreak has now gone beyond even the extraordinary drive it made to rescue the economy from the 2008 financial crisis. “The coronavirus pandemic is causing tremendous hardship across the United States and around the world,” the Fed said in a statement. “Aggressive efforts must be taken across the public and private sectors to limit the losses to jobs and incomes and to promote a swift recovery once the disruptions abate.” The announcement initially lifted stocks in early trading. But rancorous talks in Congress over a $2 trillion rescue package — and uncertainty over when any agreement might be reached — depressed shares about 2.5% in volatile midday trading. The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond fell, a sign that more investors are willing to purchase the securities. With its new programs, the Fed, led by Chair Jerome Powell, is trying to both stabilize the economy and allay panic in financial markets. As the need for cash has escalated among many corporations and city and state governments, large businesses have been drawing as much as they can on their existing borrowing relationships with banks. The intensifying need for money means that banks and other investors are seeking to rapidly unload Treasuries , short-term corporate debt, municipal bonds and other securities. The Fed’s move to intervene as a buyer of last resort is intended to supply that needed cash. President Donald Trump, a frequent Fed critic, had rare praise for Powell on Monday. “I really think he’s caught up and he’s done the right thing,” Trump said during a White House press conference. He said he called Powell on Monday and said, “Jerome, good job.” Less than two weeks ago, Trump was noting that he had the power to fire or demote the Fed chief. The central bank’s actions, meanwhile, increase pressure on Congress to approve an agreement that would include funds to backstop the Fed’s lending. Many economists say that whatever financial support Congress eventually provides will likely be even more important than the Fed’s intervention. And they warn that such fiscal help needs to come soon. The Fed’s intervention is not a substitute for fiscal stimulus,” said Joseph Gagnon, a former Fed economist who is now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Let’s hope Congress passes something quickly.” Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, a tax and advisory firm, said that if Congress can pass the legislation and have it signed into law by Tuesday, banks could start making loans to small and medium-sized businesses, with the Fed’s support, by Friday. In its announcement Monday, the Fed said it will establish three new lending facilities that will provide up to $300 billion by purchasing corporate bonds, a wider range of municipal bonds and securities tied to such debt as auto and real estate loans. It will also buy an unlimited amount of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to try to hold down borrowing rates and ensure those markets function smoothly. Full Coverage: Economy The central bank’s go-for-broke approach is an acknowledgment that its previous plans to keep credit flowing smoothly, which included dollar limits, wouldn’t be enough in the face of the viral outbreak, which has brought the U.S. economy to a near-standstill as workers and consumers stay home. Last week, it said it would buy $500 billion of Treasuries and $200 billion of mortgage-backed securities, then quickly ran through roughly half those amounts by week’s end. And on Monday, the New York Federal Reserve said it would buy $75 billion of Treasuries and $50 billion of mortgage-backed securities each day this week. “They’re really setting the economy up” to start functioning again when the health crisis subsides, said Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chair who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Part of this is about the other side of the valley: Make sure the credit is there.’’ Kohn noted that it would take time to set up some of the Fed’s programs, but just knowing that they are on the way should reassure businesses. Many companies seeking loans are worried about cash flow as their revenue dries up along with their customers. Elizabeth Cooper McFadden, who runs Novella Brandhouse, a marketing firm in Kansas City, Missouri, has applied for a disaster loan from the Small Business Administration. But she’s concerned about how long that loan will take to be processed and wonders if the Fed program might be faster. She will need more money in the next 30 to 60 days. McFadden would also like to see more lenient terms than SBA loans allow. “We’re looking at any and all options,” she said, adding, hopefully: “I feel that 90 days from now, it’s going to be a different picture — in a positive way.” The Fed mostly creates the money it will use to buy bonds and lend to large and small businesses. But it seeks to avoid credit losses. It has been using money from a Treasury fund to offset any losses on its loans. That fund has already committed most of that money to the Fed’s existing facilities. The congressional legislation could boost that amount by about $500 billion. “The steps announced today, combined with the previous ones ... should substantially improve market functioning and should provide some important support for the economy,” said Roberto Perli, a former Fed economist who is now head of global policy research at Cornerstone Macro. But Perli cautioned that the benefits won’t be felt immediately. “The next couple of quarters will still be probably bad,” he said. The new programs announced Monday by the Fed include two that will buy corporate debt issued by large companies. One program will buy newly issued corporate debt. This is an effort to revive that market, which has effectively come to a standstill. The second will buy previously issued corporate debt. Both programs will include $10 billion provided by the Treasury to offset any losses. A third new lending program will buy securities backed by packages of auto loans, credit card loans and some small business loans. Lending in those areas hinges on the ability of banks to package those loans into securities and sell them. So the Fed’s move is critical to the ability of banks to continue to provide these loans as the economy falters. The Treasury will also provide $10 billion to that program to offset any losses. All told, those three programs can lend up to $300 billion. The Fed said that companies “that are expected to receive direct financial assistance under pending federal legislation” are not eligible to participate in the corporate lending programs — a reference to the airline industry and perhaps others under consideration. Companies will have to be rated at investment grade, or above junk level, to be eligible for lending. The companies can defer payments for up to six months, the Fed said. If they do suspend payment, they are not allowed to buy back their shares or pay dividends, it said. The Fed also said it will soon establish a “Main Street Business Lending Program” to support lending to small and medium-sized businesses. But it provided few details and didn’t say when that program would begin. That program will likely be funded by and is intended to complement the congressional stimulus legislation, which also includes a provision to provide financing to very small companies. The Fed’s Main Street program will target medium-sized businesses, officials said. Brusuelas noted that by announcing the Main Street lending program, the Fed had committed to something before a congressional backstop was in place, a virtually unheard-of step. “You’re never going to see that again, hopefully,” he said. ___ AP writers Paul Wiseman, Martin Crutsinger and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

0AQJgbEgZNYsRvLn

test

ytqDHeJFccMNnJ7V

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/clinton-camp-still-challenging-legitimacy-of-trump-election/

Clinton Camp Still Challenging ‘Legitimacy’ Of Trump Election

2017-01-13

More than two months after the presidential election , elected Democrats and members of Hillary Clinton ’ s inner circle continue to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump ’ s electoral victory . Among the latest Clinton insiders to do so was Brian Fallon , who was the press secretary on Hillary ’ s unsuccessful campaign . Asked on CNN ’ s “ New Day ” on Friday to respond to a series of Trump tweets hammering Clinton , Fallon claimed the “ legitimacy ” of Trump ’ s election is still in question . “ I think those tweets are just the latest indication that Donald Trump is someone very insecure in his victory , and I understand why . Every day there are new developments and new shoes dropping , so to speak , that call into question the legitimacy of his win , ” Fallon claimed . “ First it was with respect to Russian interference and they tried to deny , the Trump folks did , that Russia was behind this and now forced to admit that . Then they tried to say it was not for the purposes of trying to help Donald Trump , they were trying to sow confusion and targeting both sides and now folks in the government have concluded it was to tip the election Donald Trump ’ s way , ” he continued . “ And now , with respect to the FBI , we see that Jim Comey ’ s actions are significantly questionable that the independent watchdog and the DOJ think they merit an independent review , so I think Donald Trump is is trying to cling to whatever legitimacy that is still in effect here . ” Trump wouldn ’ t say if he ’ ll accept the outcome of the election . That ’ s horrifying—but part of a pattern . https : //t.co/OrT9W4bSGW — Hillary Clinton ( @ HillaryClinton ) October 20 , 2016 Democratic Georgia Rep. John Lewis , who had endorsed Clinton for president , also challenged Trump ’ s legitimacy on Friday , telling NBC News : “ I don ’ t see Trump as a legitimate president . ” Fallon and Lewis are just the latest Democrats close to Clinton to try and undermine the legitimacy of Trump ’ s election . ( RELATED : Journalists Exposed By WikiLeaks Will Now Cover Trump White House ) Heba Abedin , sister of longtime Hilary aide and confidant Huma Abedin , appeared to imply that the vote tallies had been tampered with in a Facebook post after the election , urging her followers to “ audit ” the election results . The reason for the audit , according to Heba , was that “ there is something really off about the election results as they come in . ” The Clinton camp later signed on to recount efforts in a handful of states that turned out to be pointless , as they only delivered Clinton a handful of votes — nowhere near what she would have needed to overturn the election results . It was later revealed that Hillary Clinton ’ s staffers quietly supported the “ faithless elector ” push to try and have the electoral college override the election outcome . Clinton ended up losing more electoral votes than Trump . ( RELATED : White House , Clinton Tied To PR Firm Behind Electoral College Push )

More than two months after the presidential election, elected Democrats and members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle continue to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s electoral victory. Among the latest Clinton insiders to do so was Brian Fallon, who was the press secretary on Hillary’s unsuccessful campaign. Asked on CNN’s “New Day” on Friday to respond to a series of Trump tweets hammering Clinton, Fallon claimed the “legitimacy” of Trump’s election is still in question. “I think those tweets are just the latest indication that Donald Trump is someone very insecure in his victory, and I understand why. Every day there are new developments and new shoes dropping, so to speak, that call into question the legitimacy of his win,” Fallon claimed. “First it was with respect to Russian interference and they tried to deny, the Trump folks did, that Russia was behind this and now forced to admit that. Then they tried to say it was not for the purposes of trying to help Donald Trump, they were trying to sow confusion and targeting both sides and now folks in the government have concluded it was to tip the election Donald Trump’s way,” he continued. “And now, with respect to the FBI, we see that Jim Comey’s actions are significantly questionable that the independent watchdog and the DOJ think they merit an independent review, so I think Donald Trump is is trying to cling to whatever legitimacy that is still in effect here.” Trump wouldn’t say if he’ll accept the outcome of the election. That’s horrifying—but part of a pattern. https://t.co/OrT9W4bSGW — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 20, 2016 Democratic Georgia Rep. John Lewis, who had endorsed Clinton for president, also challenged Trump’s legitimacy on Friday, telling NBC News: “I don’t see Trump as a legitimate president.” Fallon and Lewis are just the latest Democrats close to Clinton to try and undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election. (RELATED: Journalists Exposed By WikiLeaks Will Now Cover Trump White House) Heba Abedin, sister of longtime Hilary aide and confidant Huma Abedin, appeared to imply that the vote tallies had been tampered with in a Facebook post after the election, urging her followers to “audit” the election results. The reason for the audit, according to Heba, was that “there is something really off about the election results as they come in.” The Clinton camp later signed on to recount efforts in a handful of states that turned out to be pointless, as they only delivered Clinton a handful of votes — nowhere near what she would have needed to overturn the election results. It was later revealed that Hillary Clinton’s staffers quietly supported the “faithless elector” push to try and have the electoral college override the election outcome. Clinton ended up losing more electoral votes than Trump. (RELATED: White House, Clinton Tied To PR Firm Behind Electoral College Push) WATCH: Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

www.dailycaller.com

right

ytqDHeJFccMNnJ7V

test

XsDnqOJFCiQozbKP

race_and_racism

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/17/holder-donald-sterling-not-the-real-issue/?hpt=po_c2

Holder: Donald Sterling not the real issue

2014-05-17

( CNN ) - Outbursts like Donald Sterling 's recorded rant or Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy 's controversial comments are not the real problem , says Attorney General Eric Holder . `` More subtle '' forms of racism that `` cut deeper '' cause the real harm , he argued Saturday . In a commencement speech at Morgan State University , a historically black college in Baltimore , Holder used the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that desegregated schools to highlight inequalities that persist today . Referencing the `` systematic and unwarranted racial disparities '' of the criminal justice system and the `` moral failings '' of voter identification laws , Holder argued legitimate problems usually get lost in the din over major public incidents . Most recently , Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling caused outrage after he went on a racist rant in a leaked audio recording . Bundy , who is challenging the federal government over land fees , suggested blacks may be better off as slaves . While it is good to see such remarks condemned swiftly and widely , Holder said , it often misses the point . `` If we focus solely on these incidents - on outlandish statements that capture national attention and spark outrage on Facebook and Twitter - we are likely to miss the more hidden , and more troubling , reality behind the headlines , '' he said . `` Policies that disenfranchise specific groups are more pernicious than hateful rants , '' he continued . `` Proposals that feed uncertainty , question the desire of a people to work , and relegate particular Americans to economic despair are more malignant than intolerant public statements , no matter how many eyebrows the outbursts might raise . And a criminal justice system that treats groups of people differently - and punishes them unequally - has a much more negative impact than misguided words that we can reject out of hand . '' The attorney general went on to speak to specific issues . In particular , he addressed the higher incarceration rates and longer sentences that African-American men face . African-American men have received sentences that are nearly 20 % longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes , said Holder , citing the U.S . Sentencing Commission . Black men are also more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated , according to the Pew Research Center . While schools may no longer be segregated legally , some districts have moved in that direction , said Holder , also arguing that disciplinary policies often unfairly target young black men . `` In too many of our school districts , significant divisions persist and desegregation has reoccurred - including zero-tolerance school discipline practices that , while well-intentioned and aimed at promoting school safety , affect black males at a rate three times higher than their white peers , '' he said . Laws may forbid racism , but `` there are other policies that too easily escape such scrutiny because they have the appearance of being race-neutral . Their impacts , however , are anything but , '' he said . `` In too many jurisdictions , new types of restrictions are justified as attempts to curb an epidemic of voter fraud that - in reality - has never been shown to exist , '' he said , and instead they `` disproportionately disenfranchise African-Americans , Hispanics , other communities of color , and vulnerable populations such as the elderly . '' Holder even went after Chief Justice John Roberts . In April , the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions . Last June , the court struck down a key provision of the historic Civil Rights Act . At the time , Roberts said that the section was no longer necessary because `` our country has changed '' for the better . Holder disagrees . `` Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether . This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it does n't need to be actively confronted , '' he said . Holder concluded by calling for a national conversation about race . More dialogue , he argued , can lead to more progress .

6 years ago (CNN) - Outbursts like Donald Sterling's recorded rant or Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's controversial comments are not the real problem, says Attorney General Eric Holder. "More subtle" forms of racism that "cut deeper" cause the real harm, he argued Saturday. In a commencement speech at Morgan State University, a historically black college in Baltimore, Holder used the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that desegregated schools to highlight inequalities that persist today. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @ConorCNN Referencing the "systematic and unwarranted racial disparities" of the criminal justice system and the "moral failings" of voter identification laws, Holder argued legitimate problems usually get lost in the din over major public incidents. Most recently, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling caused outrage after he went on a racist rant in a leaked audio recording. Bundy, who is challenging the federal government over land fees, suggested blacks may be better off as slaves. While it is good to see such remarks condemned swiftly and widely, Holder said, it often misses the point. "If we focus solely on these incidents - on outlandish statements that capture national attention and spark outrage on Facebook and Twitter - we are likely to miss the more hidden, and more troubling, reality behind the headlines," he said. "Policies that disenfranchise specific groups are more pernicious than hateful rants," he continued. "Proposals that feed uncertainty, question the desire of a people to work, and relegate particular Americans to economic despair are more malignant than intolerant public statements, no matter how many eyebrows the outbursts might raise. And a criminal justice system that treats groups of people differently - and punishes them unequally - has a much more negative impact than misguided words that we can reject out of hand." The attorney general went on to speak to specific issues. In particular, he addressed the higher incarceration rates and longer sentences that African-American men face. African-American men have received sentences that are nearly 20% longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes, said Holder, citing the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Black men are also more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated, according to the Pew Research Center. While schools may no longer be segregated legally, some districts have moved in that direction, said Holder, also arguing that disciplinary policies often unfairly target young black men. "In too many of our school districts, significant divisions persist and desegregation has reoccurred - including zero-tolerance school discipline practices that, while well-intentioned and aimed at promoting school safety, affect black males at a rate three times higher than their white peers," he said. Laws may forbid racism, but "there are other policies that too easily escape such scrutiny because they have the appearance of being race-neutral. Their impacts, however, are anything but," he said. To Holder, voter identification laws exemplify the problem best. "In too many jurisdictions, new types of restrictions are justified as attempts to curb an epidemic of voter fraud that - in reality - has never been shown to exist," he said, and instead they "disproportionately disenfranchise African-Americans, Hispanics, other communities of color, and vulnerable populations such as the elderly." Holder even went after Chief Justice John Roberts. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions. Last June, the court struck down a key provision of the historic Civil Rights Act. At the time, Roberts said that the section was no longer necessary because "our country has changed" for the better. Holder disagrees. "Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether. This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it doesn't need to be actively confronted," he said. Holder concluded by calling for a national conversation about race. More dialogue, he argued, can lead to more progress. –CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

XsDnqOJFCiQozbKP

test

6HLrtJuVgyKAWJEH

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/05/cnn-pulled-investigative-team-off-trump-russia-coverage/

CNN Pulled Investigative Team Off Trump-Russia Coverage

2017-09-05

CNN executives explicitly told their investigative team to stop looking into potential ties between the Trump administration and Russia following a series of high profile reporting errors led that to the resignation of three journalists in June . Executives transferred all reporting duties associated with the Trump-Russia narrative to CNN ’ s Washington , D.C. team in the wake of a retracted June report , members of the CNN staff told The New York Times . The report in question was removed from CNN ’ s website after the network admitted it could not stand by information that tied then Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment bank under Senate sanctions . CNN ’ s president , Jeffrey A. Zucker , led an investigation into the mishap and found that the story , written by Pulitzer finalist Thomas Frank , was published over the concerns of CNN ’ s legal team . The investigation revealed that key aspects of Frank ’ s reporting were based on one source , who expressed trepidation with how the information was presented before the story went to print , a fact Frank failed to relay to his colleagues . The report came after a serious of embarrassments for the network , including the firing of hosts Reza Aslan and Kathy Griffin in response to inappropriate , and in Griffin ’ s case threatening , public messages directed at President Donald Trump . The story also came after CNN issued a correction on an article that inaccurately predicted details of former FBI Director James Comey ’ s congressional testimony . The error was also particularly damaging to CNN ’ s brand as it occurred as Trump was harshly criticizing the network over charges of biased coverage . Despite the retraction , CNN has never said the story was incorrect . The network merely states that it “ did not meet CNN ’ s editorial standards . ”

CNN executives explicitly told their investigative team to stop looking into potential ties between the Trump administration and Russia following a series of high profile reporting errors led that to the resignation of three journalists in June. Executives transferred all reporting duties associated with the Trump-Russia narrative to CNN’s Washington, D.C. team in the wake of a retracted June report, members of the CNN staff told The New York Times. The report in question was removed from CNN’s website after the network admitted it could not stand by information that tied then Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment bank under Senate sanctions. CNN’s president, Jeffrey A. Zucker, led an investigation into the mishap and found that the story, written by Pulitzer finalist Thomas Frank, was published over the concerns of CNN’s legal team. The investigation revealed that key aspects of Frank’s reporting were based on one source, who expressed trepidation with how the information was presented before the story went to print, a fact Frank failed to relay to his colleagues. The report came after a serious of embarrassments for the network, including the firing of hosts Reza Aslan and Kathy Griffin in response to inappropriate, and in Griffin’s case threatening, public messages directed at President Donald Trump. The story also came after CNN issued a correction on an article that inaccurately predicted details of former FBI Director James Comey’s congressional testimony. The error was also particularly damaging to CNN’s brand as it occurred as Trump was harshly criticizing the network over charges of biased coverage. Despite the retraction, CNN has never said the story was incorrect. The network merely states that it “did not meet CNN’s editorial standards.” Follow Jack on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

6HLrtJuVgyKAWJEH

test

xJ4tYeL65FxfiSoq

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/mueller-and-the-media-represent-the-ancien-regime/

Mueller and the Media Represent the Ancien Régime

David Catron, Greg Jones, Jed Babbin, Debra J. Saunders, Geoff Shepard, Stuart Schwartz

The Mueller probe , with its indictments of Trump associates for offenses unrelated to its ostensible mandate , combined with mendacious media coverage of President Trump , is an obvious attempt to restore the old order that the electorate rejected in 2016 . It seeks to annul the will of the voters and return us to the incipient authoritarianism that germinated during the Obama era , and which the ruling class expected to blossom under Clinton . The bureaucrats who support the restoration of Beltway despotism call themselves public servants , yet despise the public . The politicians who support it call themselves Democrats , yet despise democracy . The most important fact to absorb about all this is counterintuitive : The primary target isn ’ t really the President . Mueller and his apologists know Trump is the voice of a nationwide rebellion against their authority , and realize that the threat can ’ t be neutralized until he is silenced . The end game is to crush what they see as a peasant ’ s revolt . Mueller ’ s function is to provide a legal pretext for removing the President from office . The role of the media is to misrepresent everything he does in order to trick independent voters into giving the Democrats a majority in the House . This will prevent Trump from continuing to act on his 2016 mandate . The Democrats will impeach the President if they gain a majority in the House , regardless of their chances of securing a conviction in the Senate . Impeachment will effectively shut down his Presidency either way . Fighting it would involve so much White House time that virtually nothing else would get done . And this is an important Democratic goal . Moreover , if Senate Republicans are as weak-kneed as they were in 1974 , a conviction may not be necessary to get Trump out of the White House . If the Democrat-controlled House had impeached President Nixon in August of 1974 , the Democrat-dominated Senate would not have been able to convict him without six Republican votes . Twenty months earlier , Nixon had won a second term in a landslide victory against Democrat George McGovern , garnering 49 of 50 states , and 502 of 538 Electoral College votes . By June of 1974 , having been relentlessly hounded by the media and the Democrats over the Watergate scandal , less than 50 percent of the public thought he should leave office . Nonetheless , the Democrats held a large majority in the House and were determined to impeach him . The Republicans controlled 40 Senate seats , meaning they could endure six defections and still avoid conviction . But Richard Nixon , like Trump , was never part of the club . The GOP caved : Republicans in the Senate had nominated an elder statesman to deliver to Nixon the news that he could no longer avoid impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate . Senator Barry Goldwater… along with House Republican Leader John Jacob Rhodes and Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott , entered the Oval Office around 5 p.m . The Arizona senator sat directly in front of Nixon ’ s desk , the others to the side . Goldwater told Nixon he had perhaps 16 to 18 Senate supporters left — too few to avoid ouster . If the voters are crazy enough to give the Democrats a majority in the House , they will ( for the third time ) begin drawing up articles of impeachment . The most recent impeachment bill , introduced at the end of last year and voted on in January , received only 66 Democratic votes . Because it ’ s an election year and impeachment is not popular among the voters who are likely to show up in November , the rest of the Democrats stayed well away from the C-Span cameras . Those poltroons will quickly come out of the closet on November 7th if the midterms produce a Democratic majority in the House . As Roger Kimball points out in that other Spectator across the pond : It is a foregone conclusion , at any rate , that should the Democrats take the House by more than a narrow margin , Donald Trump will be impeached . He would not , I am convinced , be convicted by the Senate , but the impeachment itself would be messy . Kimball ’ s assumption that Senate Republicans will be stronger than they were in 1974 is open to question . The Ancien Régime includes a lot of Republicans , and more than one has speculated about impeaching him : South Carolina ’ s Lindsay Graham has said that firing Mueller would be an impeachable offense . ( Arizona ’ s Jeff Flake , who is retiring , said the same thing . ) There are a lot of GOP Senators who disapprove of Trump , including Nebraska ’ s Ben Sasse , Colorado ’ s Cory Gardner , Maine ’ s Susan Collins , Utah ’ s Mike Lee , Alaska ’ s Dan Sullivan , Nevada ’ s Dean Heller , et al . Can these people , and other less vocal Republicans , be counted on to hold the line for Trump ? One doubts it . All of which brings us back to the point of the collusion between Mueller , the Media , and the Democrats . They are out to get Trump only because they want to crush the populist revolt and restore the Ancien Régime . They have no respect for democracy and even less for the voters . They want to disenfranchise 63 million “ deplorable ” Trump supporters and go back to business as usual — fundamentally transforming the U.S. into a Venezuela . There ’ s only one way to stop these creeps from impeaching the President and ruining the country . Every Trump voter who came out in 2016 must go to the polls on November 6 and drown the Democrats in a red wave .

The Mueller probe, with its indictments of Trump associates for offenses unrelated to its ostensible mandate, combined with mendacious media coverage of President Trump, is an obvious attempt to restore the old order that the electorate rejected in 2016. It seeks to annul the will of the voters and return us to the incipient authoritarianism that germinated during the Obama era, and which the ruling class expected to blossom under Clinton. The bureaucrats who support the restoration of Beltway despotism call themselves public servants, yet despise the public. The politicians who support it call themselves Democrats, yet despise democracy. The most important fact to absorb about all this is counterintuitive: The primary target isn’t really the President. Mueller and his apologists know Trump is the voice of a nationwide rebellion against their authority, and realize that the threat can’t be neutralized until he is silenced. The end game is to crush what they see as a peasant’s revolt. Mueller’s function is to provide a legal pretext for removing the President from office. The role of the media is to misrepresent everything he does in order to trick independent voters into giving the Democrats a majority in the House. This will prevent Trump from continuing to act on his 2016 mandate. The Democrats will impeach the President if they gain a majority in the House, regardless of their chances of securing a conviction in the Senate. Impeachment will effectively shut down his Presidency either way. Fighting it would involve so much White House time that virtually nothing else would get done. And this is an important Democratic goal. Moreover, if Senate Republicans are as weak-kneed as they were in 1974, a conviction may not be necessary to get Trump out of the White House. If the Democrat-controlled House had impeached President Nixon in August of 1974, the Democrat-dominated Senate would not have been able to convict him without six Republican votes. Twenty months earlier, Nixon had won a second term in a landslide victory against Democrat George McGovern, garnering 49 of 50 states, and 502 of 538 Electoral College votes. By June of 1974, having been relentlessly hounded by the media and the Democrats over the Watergate scandal, less than 50 percent of the public thought he should leave office. Nonetheless, the Democrats held a large majority in the House and were determined to impeach him. The Republicans controlled 40 Senate seats, meaning they could endure six defections and still avoid conviction. But Richard Nixon, like Trump, was never part of the club. The GOP caved: Republicans in the Senate had nominated an elder statesman to deliver to Nixon the news that he could no longer avoid impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. Senator Barry Goldwater… along with House Republican Leader John Jacob Rhodes and Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott, entered the Oval Office around 5 p.m. The Arizona senator sat directly in front of Nixon’s desk, the others to the side. Goldwater told Nixon he had perhaps 16 to 18 Senate supporters left — too few to avoid ouster. If the voters are crazy enough to give the Democrats a majority in the House, they will (for the third time) begin drawing up articles of impeachment. The most recent impeachment bill, introduced at the end of last year and voted on in January, received only 66 Democratic votes. Because it’s an election year and impeachment is not popular among the voters who are likely to show up in November, the rest of the Democrats stayed well away from the C-Span cameras. Those poltroons will quickly come out of the closet on November 7th if the midterms produce a Democratic majority in the House. As Roger Kimball points out in that other Spectator across the pond: It is a foregone conclusion, at any rate, that should the Democrats take the House by more than a narrow margin, Donald Trump will be impeached. He would not, I am convinced, be convicted by the Senate, but the impeachment itself would be messy. Kimball’s assumption that Senate Republicans will be stronger than they were in 1974 is open to question. The Ancien Régime includes a lot of Republicans, and more than one has speculated about impeaching him: South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham has said that firing Mueller would be an impeachable offense. (Arizona’s Jeff Flake, who is retiring, said the same thing.) There are a lot of GOP Senators who disapprove of Trump, including Nebraska’s Ben Sasse, Colorado’s Cory Gardner, Maine’s Susan Collins, Utah’s Mike Lee, Alaska’s Dan Sullivan, Nevada’s Dean Heller, et al. Can these people, and other less vocal Republicans, be counted on to hold the line for Trump? One doubts it. All of which brings us back to the point of the collusion between Mueller, the Media, and the Democrats. They are out to get Trump only because they want to crush the populist revolt and restore the Ancien Régime. They have no respect for democracy and even less for the voters. They want to disenfranchise 63 million “deplorable” Trump supporters and go back to business as usual — fundamentally transforming the U.S. into a Venezuela. There’s only one way to stop these creeps from impeaching the President and ruining the country. Every Trump voter who came out in 2016 must go to the polls on November 6 and drown the Democrats in a red wave.

www.spectator.org

right

xJ4tYeL65FxfiSoq

test

gx4NouIeS8VvyLXO

lgbt_rights

Reason

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/17/now-that-gorsuch-is-seated-will-supreme

Now That Gorsuch Is Seated, Will Supreme Court Take Up Gay Wedding Cake Case?

2017-04-17

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

Today is newly seated Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch 's first day at the office hearing cases . He is apparently not going to be a quiet , Clarence Thomas-style justice and asked several questions during the first case before the court . Before this morning 's case—which is a procedurally-oriented matter about the processes required appeal federal work discrimination complaints—the Supreme Court released its list of orders from last week 's conference and decided not to take any new cases as yet . Gorsuch did not participate in this last conference but will for the next one . This matters because the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to make a decision whether to take a high-profile case about businesses declining to serve gay weddings and has been bumping it to future conferences since last December . It rescheduled the case yet again this morning . That case is Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission . This is a case about wedding cakes , gay marriage , and whether businesses can decline to provide their goods and services on the basis of religious beliefs . Jack Phillips , owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood , Colorado , declined ( all the way back in 2013 ) to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple 's wedding . This decision ran him afoul of Colorado 's public accommodation laws , which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation . Phillips ' response , as we have seen in many of these cases , is that he 's not refusing to serve gay people , but he has religious objections to gay marriage and sees being obligated to make a wedding cake as being compelled to put his stamp of approval on it . Courts across the country have disagreed with Phillips and other businesses that serve weddings , like florists and photographers . Courts have thus far declined to accept the argument that refusing to serve gay weddings is somehow different from refusing to serve gay people . Furthermore courts have declined to accept the claim that floral arrangements or wedding cakes are a form of protected expression and that compliance with law compels speech or forces people to compromise their religious beliefs . That the Supreme Court kept pushing back a decision on whether to take this case until now is significant because they 've already previously rejected to hear a similar fight . A photographer in New Mexico tried to get the court in 2014 to hear their case where the state told them they could n't refuse to provide their services for a gay couple 's wedding . The photography company , like Masterpiece Cakeshop , lost their challenge to the law , and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case . Now , three years later , the court appears to be delaying a decision at least until Gorsuch has been seated . There have n't been any cases where higher courts have accepted the arguments of the religious shop owners , so there 's no `` split '' that requires the Supreme Court to resolve . Most recently , a florist in Washington State lost her challenge just like the bakery and photographer had before her . It 's possibly significant that the Supreme Court did n't again simply refuse to certify a case that 's very similar to one they 've rejected before . Damon Root has carefully analyzed what Gorsuch is likely to be bringing to the court here . On Wednesday , the Supreme Court will be hearing a case connected to the boundaries of separation between church and state . The question at hand is whether it 's constitutional for Missouri to withhold grants from a state program funding playground equipment from religious schools . Missouri 's state constitution forbids it ; the religious schools say this counts as religiously motivated discrimination . The only real fundamental overlap here with the bakery case is the invocation of religious freedom , so be wary of reading too much into any questions Gorsuch might ask in that case . Nevertheless , it 's worthy of noting that the court held on to the bakery case long enough for a ninth justice to be seated before deciding whether to take it . We may find out next Monday .

Today is newly seated Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's first day at the office hearing cases. He is apparently not going to be a quiet, Clarence Thomas-style justice and asked several questions during the first case before the court. Before this morning's case—which is a procedurally-oriented matter about the processes required appeal federal work discrimination complaints—the Supreme Court released its list of orders from last week's conference and decided not to take any new cases as yet. Gorsuch did not participate in this last conference but will for the next one. This matters because the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to make a decision whether to take a high-profile case about businesses declining to serve gay weddings and has been bumping it to future conferences since last December. It rescheduled the case yet again this morning. That case is Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This is a case about wedding cakes, gay marriage, and whether businesses can decline to provide their goods and services on the basis of religious beliefs. Jack Phillips, owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, declined (all the way back in 2013) to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. This decision ran him afoul of Colorado's public accommodation laws, which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips' response, as we have seen in many of these cases, is that he's not refusing to serve gay people, but he has religious objections to gay marriage and sees being obligated to make a wedding cake as being compelled to put his stamp of approval on it. Courts across the country have disagreed with Phillips and other businesses that serve weddings, like florists and photographers. Courts have thus far declined to accept the argument that refusing to serve gay weddings is somehow different from refusing to serve gay people. Furthermore courts have declined to accept the claim that floral arrangements or wedding cakes are a form of protected expression and that compliance with law compels speech or forces people to compromise their religious beliefs. That the Supreme Court kept pushing back a decision on whether to take this case until now is significant because they've already previously rejected to hear a similar fight. A photographer in New Mexico tried to get the court in 2014 to hear their case where the state told them they couldn't refuse to provide their services for a gay couple's wedding. The photography company, like Masterpiece Cakeshop, lost their challenge to the law, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Now, three years later, the court appears to be delaying a decision at least until Gorsuch has been seated. There haven't been any cases where higher courts have accepted the arguments of the religious shop owners, so there's no "split" that requires the Supreme Court to resolve. Most recently, a florist in Washington State lost her challenge just like the bakery and photographer had before her. It's possibly significant that the Supreme Court didn't again simply refuse to certify a case that's very similar to one they've rejected before. Damon Root has carefully analyzed what Gorsuch is likely to be bringing to the court here. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will be hearing a case connected to the boundaries of separation between church and state. The question at hand is whether it's constitutional for Missouri to withhold grants from a state program funding playground equipment from religious schools. Missouri's state constitution forbids it; the religious schools say this counts as religiously motivated discrimination. The only real fundamental overlap here with the bakery case is the invocation of religious freedom, so be wary of reading too much into any questions Gorsuch might ask in that case. Nevertheless, it's worthy of noting that the court held on to the bakery case long enough for a ninth justice to be seated before deciding whether to take it. We may find out next Monday.

www.reason.com

right

gx4NouIeS8VvyLXO

test

bWp845JHqmKgTN78

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/17/the_white_fragility_complex_why_white_people_gets_so_defensive_about_their_privilege_partner/

America’s white fragility complex: Why white people get so defensive about their privilege

2015-03-17

Last year , a white male Princeton undergraduate was asked by a classmate to “ check his privilege. ” Offended by this suggestion , he shot off a 1,300-word essay to the Tory , a right-wing campus newspaper . In it , he wrote about his grandfather who fled the Nazis to Siberia , his grandmother who survived a concentration camp in Germany , about the humble wicker basket business they started in America . He railed against his classmates for “ diminishing everything [ he ’ d ] accomplished , all the hard work [ he ’ d ] done . ” His missive was reprinted by Time . He was interviewed by the New York Times and appeared on Fox News . He became a darling of white conservatives across the country . What he did not do , at any point , was consider whether being white and male might have given him—if not his ancestors—some advantage in achieving incredible success in America . He did not , in other words , check his privilege . To Robin DiAngelo , professor of multicutural education at Westfield State University and author of What Does it Mean to Be White ? Developing White Racial Literacy , Tal Fortgang ’ s essay—indignant , defensive , beside-the-point , somehow both self-pitying and self-aggrandizing—followed a familiar script . As an anti-racist educator for more than two decades , DiAngelo has heard versions of it recited hundreds of times by white men and women in her workshops . She ’ s heard it so many times , in fact , that she came up with a term for it : `` white fragility , '' which she defined in a 2011 journal article as “ a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable , triggering a range of defensive moves . These moves include outward display of emotions such as anger , fear and guilt , and behaviors such as argumentation , silence and leaving the stress-inducing situation . ” When the Black Lives Matter movement marched in the streets , holding up traffic , disrupting commerce , and refusing to allow `` normal life '' to resume—insofar as normalcy means a system that permits police and vigilantes to murder black men and women with impunity—white people found themselves in tense conversations online , with friends and in the media about privilege , white supremacy and racism . You could say white fragility was at an all-time high . I spoke with DiAngelo about how to deal with all the fragile white people , and why it ’ s worth doing so . Sam Adler-Bell : How did you come to write about `` white fragility '' ? Robin DiAngelo : To be honest , I wanted to take it on because it ’ s a frustrating dynamic that I encounter a lot . I don ’ t have a lot of patience for it . And I wanted to put a mirror to it . I do atypical work for a white person , which is that I lead primarily white audiences in discussions on race every day , in workshops all over the country . That has allowed me to observe very predictable patterns . And one of those patterns is this inability to tolerate any kind of challenge to our racial reality . We shut down or lash out or in whatever way possible block any reflection from taking place . Of course , it functions as means of resistance , but I think it ’ s also useful to think about it as fragility , as inability to handle the stress of conversations about race and racism Sometimes it ’ s strategic , a very intentional push back and rebuttal . But a lot of the time , the person simply can not function . They regress into an emotional state that prevents anybody from moving forward . SAB : Carla Murphy recently referenced `` white fragility '' in an article for Colorlines , and I ’ ve seen it referenced on Twitter and Facebook a lot lately . It seems like it ’ s having a moment . Why do you think that is ? RD : I think we get tired of certain terms . What I do used to be called `` diversity training , '' then `` cultural competency '' and now , `` anti-racism . '' These terms are really useful for periods of time , but then they get coopted , and people build all this baggage around them , and you have to come up with new terms or else people won ’ t engage . And I think `` white privilege '' has reached that point . It rocked my world when I first really got it , when I came across Peggy McIntosh . It ’ s a really powerful start for people . But unfortunately it 's been played so much now that it turns people off . RD : For white people , their identities rest on the idea of racism as about good or bad people , about moral or immoral singular acts , and if we ’ re good , moral people we can ’ t be racist – we don ’ t engage in those acts . This is one of the most effective adaptations of racism over time—that we can think of racism as only something that individuals either are or are not “ doing . ” In large part , white fragility—the defensiveness , the fear of conflict—is rooted in this good/bad binary . If you call someone out , they think to themselves , “ What you just said was that I am a bad person , and that is intolerable to me. ” It ’ s a deep challenge to the core of our identity as good , moral people . The good/bad binary is also what leads to the very unhelpful phenomenon of un-friending on Facebook . SAB : Right , because the instinct is to un-friend , to dissociate from those bad white people , so that I ’ m not implicated in their badness . RD : When I ’ m doing a workshop with white people , I ’ ll often say , “ If we don ’ t work with each other , if we give in to that pull to separate , who have we left to deal with the white person that we ’ ve given up on and won ’ t address ? RD : Exactly . And white fragility also comes from a deep sense of entitlement . Think about it like this : from the time I opened my eyes , I have been told that as a white person , I am superior to people of color . There ’ s never been a space in which I have not been receiving that message . From what hospital I was allowed to be born in , to how my mother was treated by the staff , to who owned the hospital , to who cleaned the rooms and took out the garbage . We are born into a racial hierarchy , and every interaction with media and culture confirms it—our sense that , at a fundamental level , we are superior . And , the thing is , it feels good . Even though it contradicts our most basic principles and values . So we know it , but we can never admit it . It creates this kind of dangerous internal stew that gets enacted externally in our interactions with people of color , and is crazy-making for people of color . We have set the world up to preserve that internal sense of superiority and also resist challenges to it . All while denying that anything is going on and insisting that race is meaningless to us . SAB : Something that amazes me is the sophistication of some white people ’ s defensive maneuvers . I have a black friend who was accused of `` online harassment '' by a white friend after he called her out in a harsh way . What do you see going on there ? RD : First of all , whites often confuse comfort with safety . We say we don ’ t feel safe , when what we mean is that we don ’ t feel comfortable . Secondly , no white person looks at a person of color through objective eyes . There ’ s been a lot of research in this area . Cross-racially , we do not see with objective eyes . Now you add that he ’ s a black man . It ’ s not a fluke that she picked the word `` harassed . '' In doing that , she ’ s reinforcing a really classic , racist paradigm : White women and black men . White women ’ s frailty and black men ’ s aggressiveness and danger . But even if she is feeling that , which she very well may be , we should be suspicious of our feelings in these interactions . There ’ s no such thing as pure feeling . You have a feeling because you ’ ve filtered the experience through a particular lens . The feeling is the outcome . It probably feels natural , but of course it ’ s shaped by what you believe . RD : Yes . One of the things I try to work with white people on is letting go of our criteria about how people of color give us feedback . We have to build our stamina to just be humble and bear witness to the pain we ’ ve caused . In my workshops , one of the things I like to ask white people is , “ What are the rules for how people of color should give us feedback about our racism ? What are the rules , where did you get them , and whom do they serve ? ” Usually those questions alone make the point . It ’ s like if you ’ re standing on my head and I say , “ Get off my head , ” and you respond , “ Well , you need to tell me nicely. ” I ’ d be like , “ No . Fuck you . Get off my fucking head . ” In the course of my work , I ’ ve had many people of color give me feedback in ways that might be perceived as intense or emotional or angry . And on one level , it ’ s personal—I did do that thing that triggered the response , but at the same time it isn ’ t onlypersonal . I represent a lifetime of people that have hurt them in the same way that I just did . And , honestly , the fact that they are willing to show me demonstrates , on some level , that they trust me . RD : If people of color went around showing the pain they feel in every moment that they feel it , they could be killed . It is dangerous . They can not always share their outrage about the injustice of racism . White people can ’ t tolerate it . And we punish it severely—from job loss , to violence , to murder . For them to take that risk and show us , that is a moment of trust . I say , bring it on , thank you . When I ’ m doing a workshop , I ’ ll often ask the people of color in the room , somewhat facetiously , “ How often have you given white people feedback about our inevitable and often unconscious racist patterns and had that go well for you ? ” And they laugh . Because it just doesn ’ t go well . And so one time I asked , “ What would your daily life be like if you could just simply give us feedback , have us receive it graciously , reflect on it and work to change the behavior ? What would your life be like ? ” And this one man of color looked at me and said , “ It would be revolutionary . ” SAB : I notice as we ’ ve been talking that you almost always use the word `` we '' when describing white people ’ s tendencies . Can you tell me why you do that ? RD : Well , for one , I ’ m white ( and you ’ re white ) . And even as committed as I am , I ’ m not outside of anything that I ’ m talking about here . If I went around saying white people this and white people that , it would be a distancing move . I don ’ t want to reinforce the idea that there are some whites who are done , and others that still need work . There ’ s no being finished . Plus , in my work , I ’ m usually addressing white audiences , and the `` we '' diminishes defensiveness somewhat . It makes them more comfortable . They see that I ’ m not just pointing fingers outward . RD : Well , yes . I continually struggle with that reality . By standing up there as an authority on whiteness , I ’ m necessarily reinforcing my authority as a white person . It goes with the territory . For example , you ’ re interviewing me now , on whiteness , and people of color have been saying these things for a very long time . On the one hand , I know that in many ways , white people can hear me in a way that they can ’ t hear people of color . They listen . So by god , I ’ m going to use my voice to challenge racism . The only alternative I can see is to not speak up and challenge racism . And that is not acceptable to me . SAB : Yes , and racism is something that everyone thinks they ’ re an authority on . RD : That drives me crazy . I ’ ll run into someone I haven ’ t seen in 20 years in the grocery store , and they ’ ll say , “ Hi ! What ’ ve you been doing ? ” And they ’ ll go “ Oh , well you know . People just need to— ” As if they ’ re going to give me the one-sentence answer to arguably the most challenging social dynamic of our time . Like , hey , why did I knock myself out for 20 years studying , researching , and challenging this within myself and others ? I should have just come to you ! And the answer is so simple ! I ’ ve never heard that one before ! Imagine if I was an astronomer . Everybody has a basic understanding of the sky , but they would not debate an astronomer on astronomy . The arrogance of white people faced with questions of race is unbelievable .

Stop me if you’ve heard this one. Last year, a white male Princeton undergraduate was asked by a classmate to “check his privilege.” Offended by this suggestion, he shot off a 1,300-word essay to the Tory, a right-wing campus newspaper. In it, he wrote about his grandfather who fled the Nazis to Siberia, his grandmother who survived a concentration camp in Germany, about the humble wicker basket business they started in America. He railed against his classmates for “diminishing everything [he’d] accomplished, all the hard work [he’d] done.” Advertisement: His missive was reprinted by Time. He was interviewed by the New York Times and appeared on Fox News. He became a darling of white conservatives across the country. What he did not do, at any point, was consider whether being white and male might have given him—if not his ancestors—some advantage in achieving incredible success in America. He did not, in other words, check his privilege. To Robin DiAngelo, professor of multicutural education at Westfield State University and author of What Does it Mean to Be White? Developing White Racial Literacy, Tal Fortgang’s essay—indignant, defensive, beside-the-point, somehow both self-pitying and self-aggrandizing—followed a familiar script. As an anti-racist educator for more than two decades, DiAngelo has heard versions of it recited hundreds of times by white men and women in her workshops. Advertisement: She’s heard it so many times, in fact, that she came up with a term for it: "white fragility," which she defined in a 2011 journal article as “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include outward display of emotions such as anger, fear and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence and leaving the stress-inducing situation.” When the Black Lives Matter movement marched in the streets, holding up traffic, disrupting commerce, and refusing to allow "normal life" to resume—insofar as normalcy means a system that permits police and vigilantes to murder black men and women with impunity—white people found themselves in tense conversations online, with friends and in the media about privilege, white supremacy and racism. You could say white fragility was at an all-time high. I spoke with DiAngelo about how to deal with all the fragile white people, and why it’s worth doing so. Advertisement: Sam Adler-Bell: How did you come to write about "white fragility"? Robin DiAngelo: To be honest, I wanted to take it on because it’s a frustrating dynamic that I encounter a lot. I don’t have a lot of patience for it. And I wanted to put a mirror to it. Advertisement: I do atypical work for a white person, which is that I lead primarily white audiences in discussions on race every day, in workshops all over the country. That has allowed me to observe very predictable patterns. And one of those patterns is this inability to tolerate any kind of challenge to our racial reality. We shut down or lash out or in whatever way possible block any reflection from taking place. Of course, it functions as means of resistance, but I think it’s also useful to think about it as fragility, as inability to handle the stress of conversations about race and racism Sometimes it’s strategic, a very intentional push back and rebuttal. But a lot of the time, the person simply cannot function. They regress into an emotional state that prevents anybody from moving forward. Advertisement: SAB: Carla Murphy recently referenced "white fragility" in an article for Colorlines, and I’ve seen it referenced on Twitter and Facebook a lot lately. It seems like it’s having a moment. Why do you think that is? RD: I think we get tired of certain terms. What I do used to be called "diversity training," then "cultural competency" and now, "anti-racism." These terms are really useful for periods of time, but then they get coopted, and people build all this baggage around them, and you have to come up with new terms or else people won’t engage. And I think "white privilege" has reached that point. It rocked my world when I first really got it, when I came across Peggy McIntosh. It’s a really powerful start for people. But unfortunately it's been played so much now that it turns people off. Advertisement: SAB: What causes white fragility to set in? RD: For white people, their identities rest on the idea of racism as about good or bad people, about moral or immoral singular acts, and if we’re good, moral people we can’t be racist – we don’t engage in those acts. This is one of the most effective adaptations of racism over time—that we can think of racism as only something that individuals either are or are not “doing.” In large part, white fragility—the defensiveness, the fear of conflict—is rooted in this good/bad binary. If you call someone out, they think to themselves, “What you just said was that I am a bad person, and that is intolerable to me.” It’s a deep challenge to the core of our identity as good, moral people. Advertisement: The good/bad binary is also what leads to the very unhelpful phenomenon of un-friending on Facebook. SAB: Right, because the instinct is to un-friend, to dissociate from those bad white people, so that I’m not implicated in their badness. RD: When I’m doing a workshop with white people, I’ll often say, “If we don’t work with each other, if we give in to that pull to separate, who have we left to deal with the white person that we’ve given up on and won’t address? SAB: A person of color. Advertisement: RD: Exactly. And white fragility also comes from a deep sense of entitlement. Think about it like this: from the time I opened my eyes, I have been told that as a white person, I am superior to people of color. There’s never been a space in which I have not been receiving that message. From what hospital I was allowed to be born in, to how my mother was treated by the staff, to who owned the hospital, to who cleaned the rooms and took out the garbage. We are born into a racial hierarchy, and every interaction with media and culture confirms it—our sense that, at a fundamental level, we are superior. And, the thing is, it feels good. Even though it contradicts our most basic principles and values. So we know it, but we can never admit it. It creates this kind of dangerous internal stew that gets enacted externally in our interactions with people of color, and is crazy-making for people of color. We have set the world up to preserve that internal sense of superiority and also resist challenges to it. All while denying that anything is going on and insisting that race is meaningless to us. SAB: Something that amazes me is the sophistication of some white people’s defensive maneuvers. I have a black friend who was accused of "online harassment" by a white friend after he called her out in a harsh way. What do you see going on there? RD: First of all, whites often confuse comfort with safety. We say we don’t feel safe, when what we mean is that we don’t feel comfortable. Secondly, no white person looks at a person of color through objective eyes. There’s been a lot of research in this area. Cross-racially, we do not see with objective eyes. Now you add that he’s a black man. It’s not a fluke that she picked the word "harassed." In doing that, she’s reinforcing a really classic, racist paradigm: White women and black men. White women’s frailty and black men’s aggressiveness and danger. Advertisement: But even if she is feeling that, which she very well may be, we should be suspicious of our feelings in these interactions. There’s no such thing as pure feeling. You have a feeling because you’ve filtered the experience through a particular lens. The feeling is the outcome. It probably feels natural, but of course it’s shaped by what you believe. SAB: There’s also the issue of "tone-policing" here, right? RD: Yes. One of the things I try to work with white people on is letting go of our criteria about how people of color give us feedback. We have to build our stamina to just be humble and bear witness to the pain we’ve caused. In my workshops, one of the things I like to ask white people is, “What are the rules for how people of color should give us feedback about our racism? What are the rules, where did you get them, and whom do they serve?” Usually those questions alone make the point. Advertisement: It’s like if you’re standing on my head and I say, “Get off my head,” and you respond, “Well, you need to tell me nicely.” I’d be like, “No. Fuck you. Get off my fucking head.” In the course of my work, I’ve had many people of color give me feedback in ways that might be perceived as intense or emotional or angry. And on one level, it’s personal—I did do that thing that triggered the response, but at the same time it isn’t onlypersonal. I represent a lifetime of people that have hurt them in the same way that I just did. And, honestly, the fact that they are willing to show me demonstrates, on some level, that they trust me. SAB: What do you mean? RD: If people of color went around showing the pain they feel in every moment that they feel it, they could be killed. It is dangerous. They cannot always share their outrage about the injustice of racism. White people can’t tolerate it. And we punish it severely—from job loss, to violence, to murder. For them to take that risk and show us, that is a moment of trust. I say, bring it on, thank you. When I’m doing a workshop, I’ll often ask the people of color in the room, somewhat facetiously, “How often have you given white people feedback about our inevitable and often unconscious racist patterns and had that go well for you?” And they laugh. Because it just doesn’t go well. And so one time I asked, “What would your daily life be like if you could just simply give us feedback, have us receive it graciously, reflect on it and work to change the behavior? What would your life be like?” And this one man of color looked at me and said, “It would be revolutionary.” SAB: I notice as we’ve been talking that you almost always use the word "we" when describing white people’s tendencies. Can you tell me why you do that? RD: Well, for one, I’m white (and you’re white). And even as committed as I am, I’m not outside of anything that I’m talking about here. If I went around saying white people this and white people that, it would be a distancing move. I don’t want to reinforce the idea that there are some whites who are done, and others that still need work. There’s no being finished. Plus, in my work, I’m usually addressing white audiences, and the "we" diminishes defensiveness somewhat. It makes them more comfortable. They see that I’m not just pointing fingers outward. SAB: Do you ever worry about re-centering whiteness? RD: Well, yes. I continually struggle with that reality. By standing up there as an authority on whiteness, I’m necessarily reinforcing my authority as a white person. It goes with the territory. For example, you’re interviewing me now, on whiteness, and people of color have been saying these things for a very long time. On the one hand, I know that in many ways, white people can hear me in a way that they can’t hear people of color. They listen. So by god, I’m going to use my voice to challenge racism. The only alternative I can see is to not speak up and challenge racism. And that is not acceptable to me. It’s sort of a master’s tools dilemma. SAB: Yes, and racism is something that everyone thinks they’re an authority on. RD: That drives me crazy. I’ll run into someone I haven’t seen in 20 years in the grocery store, and they’ll say, “Hi! What’ve you been doing?” And I say, “I got my Ph.D.” And they say, “Oh wow, what in?” “Race relations and white racial identity.” And they’ll go “Oh, well you know. People just need to—” As if they’re going to give me the one-sentence answer to arguably the most challenging social dynamic of our time. Like, hey, why did I knock myself out for 20 years studying, researching, and challenging this within myself and others? I should have just come to you! And the answer is so simple! I’ve never heard that one before! Imagine if I was an astronomer. Everybody has a basic understanding of the sky, but they would not debate an astronomer on astronomy. The arrogance of white people faced with questions of race is unbelievable.

www.salon.com

left

bWp845JHqmKgTN78

test

gaCgTUG91XhvmNhG

nuclear_weapons

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/23/soros-backed-j-street-received-500000-push-iran-nuclear-deal-pro-israel-community/

Soros-Backed J Street Received Over $500,000 To Push Iran Nuclear Deal To Pro-Israel Community

2016-05-23

Aaron Klein

TEL AVIV – The pro-Palestinian lobby group J Street stated that it was “ proud ” of its role in pushing the controversial Iran nuclear agreement amid reports that it received $ 576,500 to promote the deal from a group tied to White House efforts to sell the agreement to the public . “ J Street worked to advance the nuclear agreement with Iran out of the belief that this is an important agreement which contributes mightily to Israel ’ s security , ” J Street said , without denying that it received the funds . “ This is a belief that is shared with many officials in both the Obama administration as well as the Israeli defense establishment and among many in the American Jewish community , most of which supports the agreement , ” the organization said . “ The nuclear agreement with Iran blocked Iran ’ s pathways to a nuclear weapon for years to come , ” J Street added . “ As of now , Iran has abided by the terms of the deal . ” J Street ’ s financing to advocate for the deal came from the Ploughshares Fund , a group that advocates a nuclear-free world and was identified earlier this month by the White House as central in helping to market the Iran nuclear deal to the news media . On Friday , the Associated Press reported that Ploughshares has also funded National Public Radio since 2005 , and has provided financing to U.S.-based foreign policy think tanks . Unmentioned by the AP is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros ’ Open Society Institute . Soros is also a top donor to J Street . The Jerusalem Post summarized the extent of the Ploughshares funding to J Street , reportedly to lobby for the deal within the pro-Israel community . J Street was the single largest beneficiary last year of the Ploughshares Fund , a group that seeks to eliminate the world ’ s nuclear stockpiles , with over $ 575,000 in grants that funded advocacy for the Iran nuclear deal . Ploughshares ’ annual report , first reported last week by the Associated Press , emphasizes the foundation ’ s role in helping to bring about support for sanctions relief for the nuclear rollback deal last year . … The amount of funding for J Street underscores the significance deal proponents attached to garnering American Jewish support for the deal . J Street and J Street Education Fund received a total of $ 576,500 , making it by far the largest recipient of funds . One goal of the funding was “ to mobilize Jewish support for a final deal . ” The involvement of Ploughshares in selling the Iran agreement to the public was revealed in an extensive New York Times Magazine profile of Obama ’ s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes titled , “ The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama ’ s Foreign-Policy Guru. ” The article contains interviews with Rhodes and scores of top Obama administration officials . Robert Malley , senior director at the National Security Council , explained the genesis and execution of the marketing plan to sell the Iran deal . Malley said “ experts ” were utilized to create an “ echo chamber ” that disseminated administration claims about Iran to “ hundreds of often-clueless reporters ” in the news media . In the spring of last year , legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media , and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters . “ We created an echo chamber , ” he admitted , when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal . “ They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say . ” Rhodes told Times reporter David Samuels that the marketing strategy took advantage of the “ absence of rational discourse ” and utilized outside groups , including Ploughshares . When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America ’ s future role in the world , Rhodes nodded . “ In the absence of rational discourse , we are going to discourse the [ expletive ] out of this , ” he said . “ We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively , and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares , the Iran Project , and whomever else . So we knew the tactics that worked. ” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal . “ We drove them crazy , ” he said of the deal ’ s opponents . Now the AP has revealed the extent of Ploughshares funding to NPR and to influential foreign policy U.S. think tanks . Ploughshares has funded NPR ’ s coverage of national security since 2005 , the radio network said . Ploughshares reports show at least $ 700,000 in funding over that time . All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran . “ It ’ s a valued partnership , without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting , beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security , nuclear policy , and nonproliferation , ” NPR said in an emailed statement . “ As with all support received , we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests . ” Another who appeared on NPR is Joseph Cirincione , Ploughshares ’ president . He spoke about the negotiations on air at least twice last year . The station identified Ploughshares as an NPR funder one of those times ; the other time , it didn ’ t . Cirincione was an adviser on nuclear issues to Obama ’ s 2008 presidential campaign . Ploughshares documents show funding last year to other groups to “ advance its nonproliferation agenda , ” according to the AP . The Arms Control Association got $ 282,500 ; the Brookings Institution , $ 225,000 ; and the Atlantic Council , $ 182,500 . They received money for Iran-related analysis , briefings , and media outreach , and non-Iran nuclear work . Other groups , less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise , also secured grants . J Street , the liberal Jewish political action group , received $ 576,500 to advocate for the deal . More than $ 281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council . Princeton University got $ 70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian ’ s “ analysis , publications , and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran ’ s nuclear program . ” Ploughshares says it has awarded hundreds of grants “ whose aggregate value exceeded $ 60 million . ” A previous investigation by this reporter showed Ploughshares has partnered with a who ’ s who of the radical left , including Code Pink , the pro-Palestinian J Street , United for Peace & Justice , the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation , and Demo , a progressive economic advisory group where President Obama ’ s controversial former green jobs czar , Van Jones , has served on the board . The group says its mission is to support the “ smartest minds and most effective organizations to reduce nuclear stockpiles , prevent new nuclear states , and increase global security . ” Ploughshares is in turn financed by Soros ’ Open Society Institute , the Buffett Foundation , the Carnegie Corporation of New York , the Ford Foundation , the Rockefeller Brothers Fund , and the Rockefeller Foundation . Another Ploughshares donor is the Tides Foundation , which is one of the largest funders of the radical left . Tides is funded by Soros . Ploughshares has donated to the Institute for Policy Studies , which calls for massive slashes in the U.S. defense budget . It has also financed the International Crisis Group , a small organization that boasts Soros on its board . Aaron Klein is Breitbart ’ s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter . He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program , “ Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. ” Follow him on Twitter @ AaronKleinShow . Follow him on Facebook .

TEL AVIV – The pro-Palestinian lobby group J Street stated that it was “proud” of its role in pushing the controversial Iran nuclear agreement amid reports that it received $576,500 to promote the deal from a group tied to White House efforts to sell the agreement to the public. “J Street worked to advance the nuclear agreement with Iran out of the belief that this is an important agreement which contributes mightily to Israel’s security,” J Street said, without denying that it received the funds. “This is a belief that is shared with many officials in both the Obama administration as well as the Israeli defense establishment and among many in the American Jewish community, most of which supports the agreement,” the organization said. “The nuclear agreement with Iran blocked Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon for years to come,” J Street added. “As of now, Iran has abided by the terms of the deal.” J Street’s financing to advocate for the deal came from the Ploughshares Fund, a group that advocates a nuclear-free world and was identified earlier this month by the White House as central in helping to market the Iran nuclear deal to the news media. On Friday, the Associated Press reported that Ploughshares has also funded National Public Radio since 2005, and has provided financing to U.S.-based foreign policy think tanks. Unmentioned by the AP is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Soros is also a top donor to J Street. The Jerusalem Post summarized the extent of the Ploughshares funding to J Street, reportedly to lobby for the deal within the pro-Israel community. J Street was the single largest beneficiary last year of the Ploughshares Fund, a group that seeks to eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles, with over $575,000 in grants that funded advocacy for the Iran nuclear deal. Ploughshares’ annual report, first reported last week by the Associated Press, emphasizes the foundation’s role in helping to bring about support for sanctions relief for the nuclear rollback deal last year. … The amount of funding for J Street underscores the significance deal proponents attached to garnering American Jewish support for the deal. J Street and J Street Education Fund received a total of $576,500, making it by far the largest recipient of funds. One goal of the funding was “to mobilize Jewish support for a final deal.” The involvement of Ploughshares in selling the Iran agreement to the public was revealed in an extensive New York Times Magazine profile of Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes titled, “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.” The article contains interviews with Rhodes and scores of top Obama administration officials. Robert Malley, senior director at the National Security Council, explained the genesis and execution of the marketing plan to sell the Iran deal. Malley said “experts” were utilized to create an “echo chamber” that disseminated administration claims about Iran to “hundreds of often-clueless reporters” in the news media. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” Rhodes told Times reporter David Samuels that the marketing strategy took advantage of the “absence of rational discourse” and utilized outside groups, including Ploughshares. When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project, and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents. Now the AP has revealed the extent of Ploughshares funding to NPR and to influential foreign policy U.S. think tanks. Besides $100,000 to NPR last year, the AP reports: Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio network said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran. “It’s a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation,” NPR said in an emailed statement. “As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests.” Ploughshare’s president was interviewed on NPR, the AP reports: Another who appeared on NPR is Joseph Cirincione, Ploughshares’ president. He spoke about the negotiations on air at least twice last year. The station identified Ploughshares as an NPR funder one of those times; the other time, it didn’t. Cirincione was an adviser on nuclear issues to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Ploughshares documents show funding last year to other groups to “advance its nonproliferation agenda,” according to the AP. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500. They received money for Iran-related analysis, briefings, and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work. Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council. Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications, and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.” Ploughshares says it has awarded hundreds of grants “whose aggregate value exceeded $60 million.” A previous investigation by this reporter showed Ploughshares has partnered with a who’s who of the radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and Demo, a progressive economic advisory group where President Obama’s controversial former green jobs czar, Van Jones, has served on the board. The group says its mission is to support the “smartest minds and most effective organizations to reduce nuclear stockpiles, prevent new nuclear states, and increase global security.” Ploughshares is in turn financed by Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Buffett Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Another Ploughshares donor is the Tides Foundation, which is one of the largest funders of the radical left. Tides is funded by Soros. Ploughshares has donated to the Institute for Policy Studies, which calls for massive slashes in the U.S. defense budget. It has also financed the International Crisis Group, a small organization that boasts Soros on its board. Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

www.breitbart.com

right

gaCgTUG91XhvmNhG

test

OsCQqf3H3r8CDw4N

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/25/reuters-ipsos-poll-reparations-2020-george-floyd-protests-racism/

Poll: Large Majority Of Americans Don’t Support Using Taxpayer Money For Reparations, But Half Of Black People Do

2020-06-25

A large majority of Americans don ’ t believe taxpayer money should be used to pay reparations to black Americans , but the data collected in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in June is split along racial and partisan lines . While polling data following the death of George Floyd has revealed that a significant majority of Americans support criminal justice reform , reparations do not have a comparable degree of support , the new poll shows . The poll shows that one in ten white respondents supported the idea of reparations , while half of black respondents to the survey supported it . Each demographic makes up 76.5 % and 13.4 % of the U.S. population , respectively , according to the U.S. Census . Republicans opposed the idea of reparations at nearly 80 % , while one in three Democrats supported it , according to the poll . The poll , conducted Monday and Tuesday , included 1,115 adults who were surveyed about their feelings on slavery . It also included 4,426 adults ’ responses in a separate survey about racial issues conducted June 10 to 16 . William A. Darity Jr. , an economist at Duke University , told The New York Times that hypothetical reparations should be distributed to people who fall under two suggested qualifying conditions : having at least one ancestor who was enslaved in the U.S. , and having identified oneself as African-American on a legal document for at least a decade before the approval of any reparations . The reparations would be acknowledgment of the forced , unpaid labor , brutality and dispossession that slavery caused , supporters say . Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in February that he supports a study on slavery reparations and said that following results of the study , a decision should be made going forward . ( RELATED : Biden Supports Slavery Reparations Study , Wants Immediate Action On ‘ Institutional Racism ’ ) H.R . 40 was introduced in the House in 2019 . If passed it would “ study and develop reparation proposals for African-Americans ” and explore if the U.S. governed would need to issue a formal apology for “ the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants . ”

A large majority of Americans don’t believe taxpayer money should be used to pay reparations to black Americans, but the data collected in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in June is split along racial and partisan lines. While polling data following the death of George Floyd has revealed that a significant majority of Americans support criminal justice reform, reparations do not have a comparable degree of support, the new poll shows. The poll shows that one in ten white respondents supported the idea of reparations, while half of black respondents to the survey supported it. Each demographic makes up 76.5% and 13.4% of the U.S. population, respectively, according to the U.S. Census. Republicans opposed the idea of reparations at nearly 80%, while one in three Democrats supported it, according to the poll. The poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday, included 1,115 adults who were surveyed about their feelings on slavery. It also included 4,426 adults’ responses in a separate survey about racial issues conducted June 10 to 16. William A. Darity Jr., an economist at Duke University, told The New York Times that hypothetical reparations should be distributed to people who fall under two suggested qualifying conditions: having at least one ancestor who was enslaved in the U.S., and having identified oneself as African-American on a legal document for at least a decade before the approval of any reparations. The reparations would be acknowledgment of the forced, unpaid labor, brutality and dispossession that slavery caused, supporters say. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in February that he supports a study on slavery reparations and said that following results of the study, a decision should be made going forward. (RELATED: Biden Supports Slavery Reparations Study, Wants Immediate Action On ‘Institutional Racism’) H.R. 40 was introduced in the House in 2019. If passed it would “study and develop reparation proposals for African-Americans” and explore if the U.S. governed would need to issue a formal apology for “the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

OsCQqf3H3r8CDw4N

test

8FzlK3X1Mm7lKEUk

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-prosecutors-explainer/explainer-probes-spawned-by-mueller-target-trump-business-others-idUSKCN1S60UY

Explainer: Probes spawned by Mueller target Trump business, others

2019-04-30

( ███ ) - Numerous investigations spun out of U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe are still alive and kicking , presenting potential ongoing legal and political risk for President Donald Trump , some of his former advisers and others . Even though Trump avoided a knockout blow from the April 18 Mueller report , the special counsel disclosed more than a dozen active criminal inquiries that will play out for months to come , some possibly into the 2020 election campaign season . Details on most of these cases are unclear as they were redacted in the 448-page report . Only two were not blacked out : one case versus former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen ; and one versus Greg Craig , a former White House counsel in the Obama administration . The following are some of the topics likely being examined in spun-off probes by federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere : Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have been investigating the spending and fundraising of Trump ’ s inaugural committee . They are also probing the Trump Organization ’ s role in payments made to silence two women about alleged sexual encounters with Trump before the 2016 election . Both probes emanated from the Cohen case . In August , Cohen pleaded guilty to his role in the hush-money payments . Prosecutors effectively named Trump an unindicted co-conspirator in the scheme , which they say was aimed at influencing the election in violation of campaign finance laws . In February public testimony , Cohen gave Congress copies of checks signed by Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr. , the president ’ s eldest son , reimbursing Cohen for the payments . The Mueller report shows Cohen , slated to start a three-year prison sentence on May 6 , was interviewed by federal authorities as recently as March 19 on topics ranging from negotiations during the campaign about building a Trump tower in Moscow to talks concerning a potential presidential pardon for Cohen . A Mueller probe mystery is why prosecutors in late 2018 sent right-wing author Jerome Corsi a draft plea agreement . It asked him to admit to lying to investigators about his communications with Trump adviser Roger Stone on WikiLeaks . Prosecutors never followed through on the threat to charge Corsi . Corsi , who said he rejected the plea offer and maintains his innocence , told ███ on Friday he was confident he would not be charged . If he is not , he would avoid the fate of Stone , who was indicted by Mueller in January for allegedly lying to Congress about his pursuit of information on stolen Democratic Party emails that were made public by Russia and Wikileaks . Stone , who was not charged with conspiring with Russians or WikiLeaks , pleaded not guilty and is preparing for trial . Mueller ’ s report blacked out significant passages related to WikiLeaks , perhaps indicating that WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange are under ongoing scrutiny related to dissemination of emails during the 2016 election . Earlier this month , U.S. prosecutors unsealed charges against Assange alleging he conspired with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010 to gain access to a U.S. government network used for classified documents . The U.S. is seeking Assange ’ s extradition from London . Mueller ’ s investigation ensnared several people for failing to register with the Justice Department as foreign agents . Among them were Paul Manafort and Rick Gates , formerly Trump ’ s campaign chairman and deputy chairman , for their lobbying work in the United States for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine . These cases reflected a new Justice Department focus on the Foreign Agents Registration Act , which requires people advocating on behalf of a foreign power to disclose that work . Craig ’ s case involves one of the Ukrainian-related projects that formed the basis of Mueller ’ s probe of Manafort . Sources familiar with the matter told ███ that federal prosecutors in Manhattan are also examining prominent Washington lobbyists Vin Weber and Tony Podesta for Ukrainian-related work directed by Manafort . Congressional committees probing Russia ’ s 2016 election meddling encouraged Mueller to look at the veracity of the past testimony of witnesses . Mueller already charged Stone and Cohen with lying to Congress . It is possible that other potential cases have been referred elsewhere in the Justice Department . For instance , the Mueller report showed that Erik Prince , founder of the now defunct security firm Blackwater USA and a Trump supporter , may have misled Congress on details of contact he had with a Russian banker in January 2017 .

(Reuters) - Numerous investigations spun out of U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe are still alive and kicking, presenting potential ongoing legal and political risk for President Donald Trump, some of his former advisers and others. FILE PHOTO: FILE PHOTO: Robert Mueller, as FBI director, testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington March 12, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/File Photo Even though Trump avoided a knockout blow from the April 18 Mueller report, the special counsel disclosed more than a dozen active criminal inquiries that will play out for months to come, some possibly into the 2020 election campaign season. Details on most of these cases are unclear as they were redacted in the 448-page report. Only two were not blacked out: one case versus former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen; and one versus Greg Craig, a former White House counsel in the Obama administration. The following are some of the topics likely being examined in spun-off probes by federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere: MANHATTAN PROSECUTORS Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have been investigating the spending and fundraising of Trump’s inaugural committee. They are also probing the Trump Organization’s role in payments made to silence two women about alleged sexual encounters with Trump before the 2016 election. Both probes emanated from the Cohen case. In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to his role in the hush-money payments. Prosecutors effectively named Trump an unindicted co-conspirator in the scheme, which they say was aimed at influencing the election in violation of campaign finance laws. Trump has denied the affairs and any wrongdoing. In February public testimony, Cohen gave Congress copies of checks signed by Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, reimbursing Cohen for the payments. The Mueller report shows Cohen, slated to start a three-year prison sentence on May 6, was interviewed by federal authorities as recently as March 19 on topics ranging from negotiations during the campaign about building a Trump tower in Moscow to talks concerning a potential presidential pardon for Cohen. WIKILEAKS A Mueller probe mystery is why prosecutors in late 2018 sent right-wing author Jerome Corsi a draft plea agreement. It asked him to admit to lying to investigators about his communications with Trump adviser Roger Stone on WikiLeaks. Prosecutors never followed through on the threat to charge Corsi. Corsi, who said he rejected the plea offer and maintains his innocence, told Reuters on Friday he was confident he would not be charged. If he is not, he would avoid the fate of Stone, who was indicted by Mueller in January for allegedly lying to Congress about his pursuit of information on stolen Democratic Party emails that were made public by Russia and Wikileaks. Stone, who was not charged with conspiring with Russians or WikiLeaks, pleaded not guilty and is preparing for trial. Mueller’s report blacked out significant passages related to WikiLeaks, perhaps indicating that WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange are under ongoing scrutiny related to dissemination of emails during the 2016 election. Earlier this month, U.S. prosecutors unsealed charges against Assange alleging he conspired with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010 to gain access to a U.S. government network used for classified documents. The U.S. is seeking Assange’s extradition from London. FOREIGN AGENTS Mueller’s investigation ensnared several people for failing to register with the Justice Department as foreign agents. Among them were Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, formerly Trump’s campaign chairman and deputy chairman, for their lobbying work in the United States for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. These cases reflected a new Justice Department focus on the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires people advocating on behalf of a foreign power to disclose that work. Craig’s case involves one of the Ukrainian-related projects that formed the basis of Mueller’s probe of Manafort. Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that federal prosecutors in Manhattan are also examining prominent Washington lobbyists Vin Weber and Tony Podesta for Ukrainian-related work directed by Manafort. CONGRESS Congressional committees probing Russia’s 2016 election meddling encouraged Mueller to look at the veracity of the past testimony of witnesses. Mueller already charged Stone and Cohen with lying to Congress. It is possible that other potential cases have been referred elsewhere in the Justice Department. For instance, the Mueller report showed that Erik Prince, founder of the now defunct security firm Blackwater USA and a Trump supporter, may have misled Congress on details of contact he had with a Russian banker in January 2017.

www.reuters.com

center

8FzlK3X1Mm7lKEUk

test

dkAxBETB52BSBxey

media_bias

Tucker Carlson

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/07/child-rape-stories-too-stupid-abc-news-cover/

Child Rape Stories Are Too ‘Stupid’ For ABC News To Cover

2019-11-07

In case you missed it , a video came out this week that makes it look like ABC News affirmatively protected billionaire alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein . This came on top of allegations from journalist Ronan Farrow that NBC News killed his reporting on alleged rapist Harvey Weinstein to protect their own in-house sexual abuser , morning anchor Matt Lauer . In case anyone ’ s still wondering why people don ’ t trust the press , this is a pretty good place to start . Amy Robach , anchor at ABC , was caught on the recording saying that , under pressure from the British royal family , ABC executives killed her story that would have exposed sex offender Epstein : “ I ’ ve had the story for three years , ” Robach said . “ I ’ ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts . We would not put it on the air . First of all , I was told , ‘ Who ’ s Jeffrey Epstein ? No one knows who that is . This is a stupid story. ’ Then the palace found out we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways . We were so afraid we wouldn ’ t be able to interview Kate and Will that we — that also quashed the story . And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes. ” ( RELATED : NBC , ABC And CBS Appear To Have Run Cover For World ’ s Most Powerful Rape Rings ) “ ( Roberts ) told me everything . She had pictures . She had everything . She was in hiding for 12 years . We convinced her to come out . We convinced her to talk to us . It was unbelievable what we had . ( Bill ) Clinton . We had everything . I tried for three years to get it on , to no avail , and now it ’ s all coming out . And it ’ s , like , these ‘ new revelations , ’ and I freaking had all of it . I am so pissed right now . … What we had was unreal . ” The story that ABC News told Robach was too “ stupid ” to cover was both appalling and important . Epstein , an extremely wealthy money manager with close relations to many of the top establishment figures in our country — most notably Bill and Hillary Clinton — had allegedly sexually abused scores of underage girls . He was indicted for it in 2007 . However , with assistance from top-flight lawyers such as Ken Starr , Jay Lefkowitz and Alan Dershowitz , Epstein negotiated an insanely light 13-month sentence with former U.S. Attorney and later Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta . The Epstein case resonates as a shining example of the growing chasm between our society ’ s elites and everyone else . If the super wealthy and super connected can even get away with raping young girls with almost no punishment , our system is beyond broken . After the footage came out , Robach released a statement , presumably at ABC ’ s request , saying her past commentary was “ a private moment of frustration. ” ABC said they didn ’ t run the interview because they “ could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC ’ s editorial standards about her allegations . ” ABC ’ s claims that the story didn ’ t run because of a lack of “ corroborating evidence ” are hard to accept after the same network chose to run outlandish and completely uncorroborated reports about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh , peddled at the time by now disgraced Democratic activist and lawyer Michael Avenatti . There ’ s no explanation for such disparate treatment besides pure bias . Actually , there is one further explanation : politically partisan bias . Avenatti ’ s claims were made against Kavanaugh , a Republican . The claims against Epstein potentially implicated former President Bill Clinton . ABC killed the story when Hillary Clinton was running for president . ABC ’ s lead news anchor is George Stephanopoulos , Bill Clinton ’ s former staffer . ( RELATED : Katie Pavlich Ties ABC ’ s Epstein Cover-Up To Clintons , Stephanopoulos ) CBS News , MSNBC and CNN responded to the shocking Robach video by largely ignoring it . ABC News , in addition to their clearly bogus statement , responded by searching for the whistleblower who released the video . Reports indicate that ABC found the whistleblower was working at CBS . The same reports indicate that ABC informed CBS of this and CBS followed up by firing the whistleblower . Taken together , we have all three major U.S. television broadcast networks implicated to some degree in covering for rapists : First , Farrow in his new book says NBC killed his report on alleged rapist Weinstein , another Clinton confidant , after Weinstein threatened to disclose NBC ’ s cover-up of sexual misconduct allegations against Matt Lauer , its own anchor . Then we have ABC anchor Robach claiming that ABC News killed her report on alleged child rapist Epstein . And finally , according to the New York Post , CBS News has now fired the woman who released the Robach video . ( RELATED : ABC Responds To Video Of Anchor ’ s Rant Accusing Network Of Quashing Epstein Coverage ) A recent Gallup poll found that 69 % of Americans have lost trust in the news media over the past decade . Based on these sordid events of the past couple of months , that number may now be closer to 100 % . ███ and Neil Patel co-founded The Daily Caller , one of America ’ s fastest growing online news outlets , which regularly breaks news and distributes it to over 15 million monthly readers . Carlson and Patel also co-founded The Daily Caller News Foundation , a nonprofit news company that trains journalists , produces fact-checks and conducts longer-term investigative reporting . The Daily Caller News Foundation licenses its content free of charge to over 300 news outlets , reaching potentially hundreds of millions of people per month . To find out more about ███ and Neil Patel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com . Copyright 2019 creators.com

In case you missed it, a video came out this week that makes it look like ABC News affirmatively protected billionaire alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This came on top of allegations from journalist Ronan Farrow that NBC News killed his reporting on alleged rapist Harvey Weinstein to protect their own in-house sexual abuser, morning anchor Matt Lauer. In case anyone’s still wondering why people don’t trust the press, this is a pretty good place to start. Amy Robach, anchor at ABC, was caught on the recording saying that, under pressure from the British royal family, ABC executives killed her story that would have exposed sex offender Epstein: “I’ve had the story for three years,” Robach said. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.’ Then the palace found out we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we — that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes.” (RELATED: NBC, ABC And CBS Appear To Have Run Cover For World’s Most Powerful Rape Rings) “(Roberts) told me everything. She had pictures. She had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had. (Bill) Clinton. We had everything. I tried for three years to get it on, to no avail, and now it’s all coming out. And it’s, like, these ‘new revelations,’ and I freaking had all of it. I am so pissed right now. … What we had was unreal.” The story that ABC News told Robach was too “stupid” to cover was both appalling and important. Epstein, an extremely wealthy money manager with close relations to many of the top establishment figures in our country — most notably Bill and Hillary Clinton — had allegedly sexually abused scores of underage girls. He was indicted for it in 2007. However, with assistance from top-flight lawyers such as Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz and Alan Dershowitz, Epstein negotiated an insanely light 13-month sentence with former U.S. Attorney and later Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. The Epstein case resonates as a shining example of the growing chasm between our society’s elites and everyone else. If the super wealthy and super connected can even get away with raping young girls with almost no punishment, our system is beyond broken. After the footage came out, Robach released a statement, presumably at ABC’s request, saying her past commentary was “a private moment of frustration.” ABC said they didn’t run the interview because they “could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations.” ABC’s claims that the story didn’t run because of a lack of “corroborating evidence” are hard to accept after the same network chose to run outlandish and completely uncorroborated reports about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, peddled at the time by now disgraced Democratic activist and lawyer Michael Avenatti. There’s no explanation for such disparate treatment besides pure bias. Actually, there is one further explanation: politically partisan bias. Avenatti’s claims were made against Kavanaugh, a Republican. The claims against Epstein potentially implicated former President Bill Clinton. ABC killed the story when Hillary Clinton was running for president. ABC’s lead news anchor is George Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s former staffer. (RELATED: Katie Pavlich Ties ABC’s Epstein Cover-Up To Clintons, Stephanopoulos) CBS News, MSNBC and CNN responded to the shocking Robach video by largely ignoring it. ABC News, in addition to their clearly bogus statement, responded by searching for the whistleblower who released the video. Reports indicate that ABC found the whistleblower was working at CBS. The same reports indicate that ABC informed CBS of this and CBS followed up by firing the whistleblower. Taken together, we have all three major U.S. television broadcast networks implicated to some degree in covering for rapists: First, Farrow in his new book says NBC killed his report on alleged rapist Weinstein, another Clinton confidant, after Weinstein threatened to disclose NBC’s cover-up of sexual misconduct allegations against Matt Lauer, its own anchor. Then we have ABC anchor Robach claiming that ABC News killed her report on alleged child rapist Epstein. And finally, according to the New York Post, CBS News has now fired the woman who released the Robach video. (RELATED: ABC Responds To Video Of Anchor’s Rant Accusing Network Of Quashing Epstein Coverage) A recent Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans have lost trust in the news media over the past decade. Based on these sordid events of the past couple of months, that number may now be closer to 100%. Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel co-founded The Daily Caller, one of America’s fastest growing online news outlets, which regularly breaks news and distributes it to over 15 million monthly readers. Carlson and Patel also co-founded The Daily Caller News Foundation, a nonprofit news company that trains journalists, produces fact-checks and conducts longer-term investigative reporting. The Daily Caller News Foundation licenses its content free of charge to over 300 news outlets, reaching potentially hundreds of millions of people per month. To find out more about Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. Copyright 2019 creators.com

www.dailycaller.com

right

dkAxBETB52BSBxey

test

G0d9xmCwkinVOdel

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45285585

Trump: Impeach me and the market crashes

US President Donald Trump has responded to speculation that he might be impeached by warning that any such move would damage the economy . In an interview with Fox & Friends , he said the market would crash and `` everybody would be very poor '' . He was speaking after Michael Cohen , his ex-lawyer , pleaded guilty to violating election laws and said he had been directed to do so by Mr Trump . Mr Trump has rarely spoken about the prospect of being impeached . Correspondents say it is unlikely Mr Trump 's opponents would try to impeach him before November 's mid-term elections . `` I do n't know how you can impeach somebody who 's done a great job , '' Mr Trump told Fox and Friends . `` I tell you what , if I ever got impeached , I think the market would crash , I think everybody would be very poor . '' Pointing to his head , he said : `` Because without this thinking , you would see numbers that you would n't believe in reverse . '' Cohen says he handled hush money payments to two women during the 2016 presidential campaign . The two women , thought to be porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal , both claimed they had affairs with Mr Trump , Under oath , Cohen said he had paid the money `` at the direction '' of Mr Trump , `` for the principal purpose of influencing the election '' . However , Mr Trump insisted the two payments had not broken election campaign rules . He said that the payments had come from him personally , not from the campaign , but he had not known about them until `` later on '' . In July , Cohen released audio tapes of him and Mr Trump allegedly discussing one of the payments before the election . The president also accused Cohen of making up stories to receive a lighter sentence . He added : `` And by the way , he pled to two counts that are n't a crime , which nobody understands . `` In fact , I watched a number of [ TV ] shows . Sometimes you get some pretty good information by watching shows . Those two counts are n't even a crime . They were n't campaign finance . '' Later , US media reported that prosecutors in the Cohen case had granted federal immunity to the chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer tabloid , David Pecker . In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election , Ms McDougal sold her story to the Enquirer , which is owned by a personal friend of Mr Trump . She says the $ 150,000 ( £115,000 ) agreement gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair . The Enquirer did not publish her kiss-and-tell , and she says she was tricked . The hush money payments were not reported to the Federal Election Commission during the campaign . The question is whether the payments were made to protect Mr Trump 's personal reputation or to protect his image as a presidential candidate . Under US election rules , any payments made with the aim of influencing a vote must be reported . If Mr Trump were to be prosecuted over the money - not through the normal courts , because he is the sitting president , but conceivably in Congress , through an impeachment process - investigators would have to prove that he had indeed given the money to Cohen for electoral reasons . In his first public comments , back in April , about his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels , Mr Trump denied knowing about the $ 130,000 ( £100,000 ) payment made to the actress via Cohen . Ms Daniels , whose real name is Stephanie Clifford , alleges that she and Mr Trump had sex in a hotel room in 2006 . Asked by a reporter in the press cabin of Air Force One if he had any knowledge about where Cohen had got the money to pay Ms Daniels , the president responded at the time : `` I do n't know . '' The following month , Mr Trump officially disclosed a payment to Cohen of between $ 100,001 and $ 250,000 for expenses incurred in 2016 . A president who often seems defiant and even dismissive is for the moment on the defensive . It is a sign of the pressure on Donald Trump that he is not only having to answer questions about the possibility of impeachment , but having to make economic arguments against it . Control of Congress has now become a crucial issue because the House of Representatives would need to vote to impeach a sitting president . For the moment he is protected by the dominance of the Republicans in Congress , but the party looks nervous and unsettled after a week that has truly rocked Washington . Two former members of the president 's inner circle being convicted of serious crimes would be scandal enough , but to have one of them point a finger of blame directly at Mr Trump makes this a truly trying time . Some of his answers in the Fox and Friends interview were less than convincing , particularly as he tried to distance himself from his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen and the payments he arranged . However , past experience has shown that it takes a lot to shake the belief and devotion of Mr Trump 's supporters .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption A law professor outlines President Trump's perilous legal situation US President Donald Trump has responded to speculation that he might be impeached by warning that any such move would damage the economy. In an interview with Fox & Friends, he said the market would crash and "everybody would be very poor". He was speaking after Michael Cohen, his ex-lawyer, pleaded guilty to violating election laws and said he had been directed to do so by Mr Trump. Mr Trump has rarely spoken about the prospect of being impeached. Correspondents say it is unlikely Mr Trump's opponents would try to impeach him before November's mid-term elections. Why does Trump say the market would crash? "I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job," Mr Trump told Fox and Friends. "I tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor." Pointing to his head, he said: "Because without this thinking, you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe in reverse." What did he say about hush money? Cohen says he handled hush money payments to two women during the 2016 presidential campaign. The two women, thought to be porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, both claimed they had affairs with Mr Trump, Under oath, Cohen said he had paid the money "at the direction" of Mr Trump, "for the principal purpose of influencing the election". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump voter: "Everybody lies" However, Mr Trump insisted the two payments had not broken election campaign rules. He said that the payments had come from him personally, not from the campaign, but he had not known about them until "later on". In July, Cohen released audio tapes of him and Mr Trump allegedly discussing one of the payments before the election. The president also accused Cohen of making up stories to receive a lighter sentence. He added: "And by the way, he pled to two counts that aren't a crime, which nobody understands. "In fact, I watched a number of [TV] shows. Sometimes you get some pretty good information by watching shows. Those two counts aren't even a crime. They weren't campaign finance." Later, US media reported that prosecutors in the Cohen case had granted federal immunity to the chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer tabloid, David Pecker. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Ms McDougal sold her story to the Enquirer, which is owned by a personal friend of Mr Trump. She says the $150,000 (£115,000) agreement gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair. The Enquirer did not publish her kiss-and-tell, and she says she was tricked. So did the payments break campaign rules? The hush money payments were not reported to the Federal Election Commission during the campaign. The question is whether the payments were made to protect Mr Trump's personal reputation or to protect his image as a presidential candidate. Under US election rules, any payments made with the aim of influencing a vote must be reported. For more on this story: If Mr Trump were to be prosecuted over the money - not through the normal courts, because he is the sitting president, but conceivably in Congress, through an impeachment process - investigators would have to prove that he had indeed given the money to Cohen for electoral reasons. How has Trump contradicted himself? In his first public comments, back in April, about his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels, Mr Trump denied knowing about the $130,000 (£100,000) payment made to the actress via Cohen. Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges that she and Mr Trump had sex in a hotel room in 2006. Asked by a reporter in the press cabin of Air Force One if he had any knowledge about where Cohen had got the money to pay Ms Daniels, the president responded at the time: "I don't know." The following month, Mr Trump officially disclosed a payment to Cohen of between $100,001 and $250,000 for expenses incurred in 2016. What happens next? Analysis by Chris Buckler, BBC News, Washington A president who often seems defiant and even dismissive is for the moment on the defensive. It is a sign of the pressure on Donald Trump that he is not only having to answer questions about the possibility of impeachment, but having to make economic arguments against it. Control of Congress has now become a crucial issue because the House of Representatives would need to vote to impeach a sitting president. For the moment he is protected by the dominance of the Republicans in Congress, but the party looks nervous and unsettled after a week that has truly rocked Washington. Two former members of the president's inner circle being convicted of serious crimes would be scandal enough, but to have one of them point a finger of blame directly at Mr Trump makes this a truly trying time. Some of his answers in the Fox and Friends interview were less than convincing, particularly as he tried to distance himself from his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen and the payments he arranged. However, past experience has shown that it takes a lot to shake the belief and devotion of Mr Trump's supporters.

www.bbc.com

center

G0d9xmCwkinVOdel

test

7WehACSZhePppkcU

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/14/lindsay_grahams_big_scare_how_an_ex_con_reality_star_could_ruin_his_life/

Lindsay Graham's big scare: How an ex-con reality star could ruin his life

2014-05-14

Heather Digparton

These are tough times for the Republican maverick.Where once this was a celebrated archetype among the conservative tribe ( as long as it included a devotion to low taxes and global military dominance ) today there is just no room for deviation from the party line in even the smallest of ways . Take , for example , the plight of Sen. Lindsey Graham -- who just suffered an epic humiliation at the hands of his own party in Charleston County , South Carolina , for being a RINO turncoat : Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) was censured Monday night by Republicans in Charleston County who do n't believe he 's conservative enough . According to The Post and Courier of Charleston , South Carolina , the vote to censure Graham was 39-32 , `` done by secret ballot and with limited discussion . '' `` I want my politicians to be more conservative , '' said Tom Sheridan , one of the supporters of the resolution . The censure document covered about 30 points , including disapproval of Graham 's support for President Barack Obama 's Supreme Court nominees and of his cooperation with Democrats . The Graham campaign issued a feisty rebuttal insisting that they were going to take their campaign to all 20,000 Republicans in Charleston County and then see who comes out on top . The problem for Lindsey Graham is that the most liberal Republicans in the whole state live in Charleston County . The rest of the state is much more conservative . The latest polling is n't great news for him : 40 percent approve and 38 percent disapprove . And that 's actually an improvement over previous polls . Still , he is being challenged by six other Republicans for the GOP nomination and there is little reason to believe that he wo n't be the nominee . All the political wags thinks he 'll make it over the 50 percent threshold . But that is not to say that he 's a total shoo-in for another term . If he gets through the primary he has a a rival on his hands who could turn the race into a circus : former Republican Thomas Ravenel , millionaire scion of a famous political family , ex-state treasurer , drug felon -- and reality TV star . He 'll be running as a libertarian , naturally . ( What else could a drug felon ex-Republican do ? ) So , to the extent that Lindsey Graham will be depending on the kindness of `` moderate '' Republicans ( and to the extent they even exist ) he may have a run for his money . Ravenel is a very familiar name in South Carolina -- - the Arthur Ravenel Jr. bridge that crosses the Cooper River is named for his father . And if voters are worried that the younger Ravenel does n't represent the proper South Carolina values , they may be soothed by the father 's deep South bona fides : Ex-congressman Arthur Ravenel is best known for his quip calling the NAACP the `` national association for retarded people . '' Thomas Ravenel 's comeback , if there is one , is based upon his starring role in the Bravo reality series `` Southern Charm , '' a portrait of a group of wealthy Charleston socialites , drinking and gossiping and sleeping their way through everyone in the group . Only two of them work for a living and it 's so anomalous that they all comment on it constantly . They play polo and go to their country houses to drink and hunt and spend a lot of time on their yachts . ( The country houses have been in their families for centuries -- at one time they were undoubtedly more familiarly known as `` plantations . '' ) They are antebellum society -- 1 percenters going all the way back . In fact , the 21-year-old woman the 50-year-old Thomas Ravenel is dating on the show is spoken of as `` a Calhoun '' in the hushed tones usually reserved for royalty . They are true blue Southern Aristocrats and that 's got currency in South Carolina . It 's hard to imagine that a conservative state like South Carolina would elect someone with Ravenel 's past , but Lindsey Graham is fairly eccentric himself . His Republican opponents are n't sparing him their worst and the worst in South Carolina is very bad indeed , particularly for mavericks . It 's possible that Thomas Ravenel wearing his foibles on his sleeve in front of the whole country may just inoculate him from the usual attacks . What rumors can the GOP establishment whisper about that he has n't shouted to the whole world ? And it must be remembered that before his `` troubles '' Ravenel came within 1 point of beating Jim DeMint . He 's a real politician . It 's unlikely that South Carolina wo n't end up reelecting Lindsey Graham . But it could be a very interesting race and one that Ravenel seems willing to wage just to make Graham 's life miserable . And he has a specific reason , according to this letter to the editor from last February : Shortly after the federal government ’ s domestic spy network was exposed last spring , U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham went on national television to say he was “ glad ” the National Security Agency was monitoring , collecting and storing our personal information . “ I ’ m a Verizon customer , ” Graham said . “ I don ’ t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States . I don ’ t think you ’ re talking to the terrorists . I know you ’ re not . I know I ’ m not. ” I ’ m curious : Other than the Fourth Amendment ( which Graham is explicitly rejecting ) , what indispensible American liberties would he sacrifice ? That 's an unusual comment coming from a South Carolina Republican . But then Ravenel is not a Republican . As he says , `` having gone to prison , I was emancipated from the Republican Party . '' Is n't there an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who 's been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who 's been arrested ? It 's hard to think of a better reason to put some Republican crooks in jail than that . I 'd keep my eye on Thomas Ravenel . He may be a clown , but he is n't a fool . He 's got money and he 's fine with being a spoiler .

These are tough times for the Republican maverick.Where once this was a celebrated archetype among the conservative tribe (as long as it included a devotion to low taxes and global military dominance) today there is just no room for deviation from the party line in even the smallest of ways. Take, for example, the plight of Sen. Lindsey Graham -- who just suffered an epic humiliation at the hands of his own party in Charleston County, South Carolina, for being a RINO turncoat: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was censured Monday night by Republicans in Charleston County who don't believe he's conservative enough. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, the vote to censure Graham was 39-32, "done by secret ballot and with limited discussion." "I want my politicians to be more conservative," said Tom Sheridan, one of the supporters of the resolution. The censure document covered about 30 points, including disapproval of Graham's support for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominees and of his cooperation with Democrats. The Graham campaign issued a feisty rebuttal insisting that they were going to take their campaign to all 20,000 Republicans in Charleston County and then see who comes out on top. The problem for Lindsey Graham is that the most liberal Republicans in the whole state live in Charleston County. The rest of the state is much more conservative. Advertisement: The latest polling isn't great news for him: 40 percent approve and 38 percent disapprove. And that's actually an improvement over previous polls. Still, he is being challenged by six other Republicans for the GOP nomination and there is little reason to believe that he won't be the nominee. All the political wags thinks he'll make it over the 50 percent threshold. But that is not to say that he's a total shoo-in for another term. If he gets through the primary he has a a rival on his hands who could turn the race into a circus: former Republican Thomas Ravenel, millionaire scion of a famous political family, ex-state treasurer, drug felon -- and reality TV star. He'll be running as a libertarian, naturally. (What else could a drug felon ex-Republican do?) So, to the extent that Lindsey Graham will be depending on the kindness of "moderate" Republicans (and to the extent they even exist) he may have a run for his money. Ravenel is a very familiar name in South Carolina --- the Arthur Ravenel Jr. bridge that crosses the Cooper River is named for his father. And if voters are worried that the younger Ravenel doesn't represent the proper South Carolina values, they may be soothed by the father's deep South bona fides: Ex-congressman Arthur Ravenel is best known for his quip calling the NAACP the "national association for retarded people." Advertisement: Thomas Ravenel's comeback, if there is one, is based upon his starring role in the Bravo reality series "Southern Charm," a portrait of a group of wealthy Charleston socialites, drinking and gossiping and sleeping their way through everyone in the group. Only two of them work for a living and it's so anomalous that they all comment on it constantly. They play polo and go to their country houses to drink and hunt and spend a lot of time on their yachts. (The country houses have been in their families for centuries -- at one time they were undoubtedly more familiarly known as "plantations.") They are antebellum society -- 1 percenters going all the way back. In fact, the 21-year-old woman the 50-year-old Thomas Ravenel is dating on the show is spoken of as "a Calhoun" in the hushed tones usually reserved for royalty. They are true blue Southern Aristocrats and that's got currency in South Carolina. It's hard to imagine that a conservative state like South Carolina would elect someone with Ravenel's past, but Lindsey Graham is fairly eccentric himself. His Republican opponents aren't sparing him their worst and the worst in South Carolina is very bad indeed, particularly for mavericks. It's possible that Thomas Ravenel wearing his foibles on his sleeve in front of the whole country may just inoculate him from the usual attacks. What rumors can the GOP establishment whisper about that he hasn't shouted to the whole world? And it must be remembered that before his "troubles" Ravenel came within 1 point of beating Jim DeMint. He's a real politician. It's unlikely that South Carolina won't end up reelecting Lindsey Graham. But it could be a very interesting race and one that Ravenel seems willing to wage just to make Graham's life miserable. And he has a specific reason, according to this letter to the editor from last February: Advertisement: Shortly after the federal government’s domestic spy network was exposed last spring, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham went on national television to say he was “glad” the National Security Agency was monitoring, collecting and storing our personal information. “I’m a Verizon customer,” Graham said. “I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not.” I’m curious: Other than the Fourth Amendment (which Graham is explicitly rejecting), what indispensible American liberties would he sacrifice? That's an unusual comment coming from a South Carolina Republican. But then Ravenel is not a Republican. As he says, "having gone to prison, I was emancipated from the Republican Party." Isn't there an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested? It's hard to think of a better reason to put some Republican crooks in jail than that. I'd keep my eye on Thomas Ravenel. He may be a clown, but he isn't a fool. He's got money and he's fine with being a spoiler.

www.salon.com

left

7WehACSZhePppkcU

test

7RrIClN38k0LjYO3

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/deficit-tops-publics-priorities-the-note/

Deficit Tops Public’s Priorities

Michael Falcone

SEQUESTER SHOWDOWN : There were no signs at the White House yesterday that both sides are actively talking to avert the sequester . But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said yesterday there 's a `` great deal of activity '' behind the scenes to get something done , reports ABC 's Devin Dwyer . At his briefing , Carney pointed fingers at the GOP : `` This is an indefensible position . The choice that Republicans are making is …throw these people out of work in order to protect these special tax breaks for corporate jet owners and oil and gas companies . It 's just - it makes no sense , and it 's bad policy . '' OBAMA WEIGHS IN : In an interview with WJZ , the CBS affiliate in Baltimore , President Obama expressed exasperation with Congress on the sequester : `` This is a problem Congress can solve . These automatic spending cuts that were put in place back in 2011 were designed to get Congress to actually avoid them by coming up with more sensible approaches to deficit reduction . … I do n't know why it is that this town leaves stuff until the last minute . There 's no other profession , no other industry , where people wait until the 11th hour to solve these big problems . Obviously it creates a lot of uncertainty in the economy . '' ON THE AGENDA : President Obama spends the day behind closed-doors at the White House . ABC 's Mary Bruce notes that the president records three radio interviews with Al Sharpton , Joe Madison and Yolanda Adams . At 12:30 pm ET Vice President Biden delivers the keynote address at a conference on the federal response to gun violence in Danbury , Conn. , just miles from the Newtown shooting at Sandy Hook elementary . TUNE IN - ROBIN ROBERTS SITS DOWN WITH MICHELLE OBAMA : `` Good Morning America '' co-anchor Robin Roberts will interview First Lady Michelle Obama to discuss the third anniversary of Let 's Move ! and a new partnership that makes finding healthy , reliable recipes easy for busy parents , among other topics . This will be Mrs. Obama 's first morning show interview and will air on `` Good Morning America '' on Tuesday , Feb. 26. http : //abcn.ws/XkrnUH ABC 's RICK KLEIN : It 's not that President Obama is on the wrong side . But he 's going to have to convince the public that he 's got the timing right . The new USA Today-Pew Research Center poll out today shows broad support for the president 's approach on the top issues of the day - the deficit , gun control , immigration , and climate change . But when it comes to questions of urgency , the only issue with overwhelming consensus that it needs to be dealt with this year is the deficit , where 70 percent find it `` essential '' to tackle this year . That , of course , is the only one of the four issues being championed by Republican leaders . Read the full poll : http : //usat.ly/11WwuPl ABC 's Z. BYRON WOLF : The news that former Sen. Pete Domenici fathered a child with former Sen. Paul Laxalt 's daughter in the late 1970s was , to say the least , weird . The details of what happened have been blurred by time and the fact that both men are now out of office diminishes its importance as a piece of news today . But it should be noted that opponents of gridlock often complain that comity and deal-making on Capitol Hill have diminished as lawmakers have less frequently moved to the nation 's capital . Their families do n't spend as much time together goes the argument . Who knows if the Domenicis and the Laxalts were friendly before this episode or what happened in their personal drama after . But one can only imagine what it was like in the dozen years they served together in the Senate afterward . ABC 's SHUSHANNAH WALSHE : Just one day after we learned Mitt Romney will make his first public appearance since the election when he speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference next month , several of his former staffers who work with Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez are out with a new video , the first of his new campaign . The video shows Gomez and his family collecting signatures ahead of next week 's deadline at both a shipyard and a diner . The contrast between the two candidates is stark . Gomez is relaxed , comfortable greeting voters in both English and Spanish noting his work as a Navy SEAL , add in his cute kids asking commuters to support their dad and it 's a very well done spot . One thing is clear , despite sharing a few staffers , they want the state to know Gomez is more Scott Brown than Mitt Romney . There 's no pickup truck yet , but maybe his run will feature a boat . OBAMA : IMMIGRATION LEAK WO N'T BLOCK REFORM . President Barack Obama on Wednesday confidently promised that Congress will pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill , saying that a leaked copy of a White House proposal wo n't jeopardize the effort to overhaul the nation 's immigration laws , reports ABC-Univision 's Jordan Fabian . A draft White House immigration plan leaked to the press over the weekend , which frustrated some Republicans working on a bill , since Obama pledged to withhold his plan while lawmakers crafted their own . The White House claimed this week that the leak was unintentional and the president phoned GOP senators to reiterate that he supports the negotiations in Congress . `` It certainly did not jeopardize the entire process . The negotiations are still moving forward , '' Obama said during an interview with Univision San Antonio affiliate KWEX . `` Information floats out of Washington all the time ; that should n't prevent anybody from moving forward . '' http : //abcn.ws/W4HKGM WHITE HOUSE UNVEILS STRATEGY TO STEM TRADE SECRET THEFT . The White House announced its strategy to protect against trade secret theft Wednesday , just one day after a report indicated a Chinese military unit may be responsible for a string of cyber attacks on American infrastructure and corporations , reports ABC 's Arlette Saenz . `` The theft of trade secrets impacts national security , undermines our global competitiveness , diminishes U.S. exports process and puts American jobs at risk , '' Victoria Espinel , U.S . Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator , said at a White House meeting on Wednesday . `` As an administration , we will be vigilant in addressing threats including corporate and state sponsored trade secret theft that jeopardize our status as the world 's leader for innovation . We will act vigorously to combat theft of U.S. trade secrets that could be used by foreign companies or by foreign governments to gain an unfair economic edge . '' Attorney General Eric Holder echoed the sentiment , saying the U.S. needs to increase cooperation and coordination `` between partners at every level of government [ and ] improve engagement with the corporations represented in this room today . '' He added that `` continuing technological expansion and accelerating globalization '' will only lead to a dramatic `` increase in the threat posed by trade secret theft in the years ahead . '' http : //abcn.ws/Xm0P5u SECRETARY KERRY MAKES CASE FOR FOREIGN AID . In his first major foreign policy speech as Secretary of State , John Kerry 's message was clear : America can not afford to treat foreign policy as foreign . He stressed throughout the one hour speech that even in these economically challenging times , foreign aid is an investment in America 's national security and economic prosperity , notes ABC 's Dana Hughes . The former senator , who called himself a `` recovering politician , '' said that he understands why foreign aid makes an easy political target for members of Congress , whose constituents expect them to focus on domestic policies that benefit the everyday lives of Americans . But Kerry said foreign policy has to rise above partisan politics . `` We need to say no to the politics of the lowest common denominator and simple slogans , and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country , '' said Kerry to applause . `` Unfortunately , the State Department does n't have our own Grover Norquist pushing a pledge to protect it . We do n't have millions of A.A.R.P . seniors who send in their dues and rally to protect America 's investments overseas , '' he said . http : //abcn.ws/W4l0XB MITT ROMNEY TO MAKE FIRST POST-ELECTION SPEECH . Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will making his first public appearance since losing his presidential bid last November when he speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March , reports ABC 's Shushannah Walshe . `` I look forward to saying thank you to the many friends and supporters who were instrumental in helping my campaign , '' Romney said in a statement . An advisor to Romney told ███ the speech is `` an opportunity for him to express his appreciation to supporters and friends . '' American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas said `` the thousands gathered at CPAC this year are eager to hear '' from Romney . `` We look forward to hearing Governor Romney 's comments on the current state of affairs in America and the world , and his perspective on the future of the conservative movement , '' Cardenas said in a statement . The gathering of conservative activists will be held in mid-March at the Gaylord National hotel in Prince George 's County , Maryland . http : //abcn.ws/YGV4fx -ENERGY GROUP BLASTS LIKELY EPA PICK . A GOP strategist passes along this statement from Benjamin Cole of the American Energy Alliance on President Obama 's likely pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency : `` For those who were in doubt , the president 's decision to replace Lisa Jackson with Gina McCarthy allays all concern . The EPA will continue its anti-fossil fuel crusade undeterred , and the administration will continue to avoid normal democratic means to legislate the president 's climate change agenda through the regulatory agencies . The EPA will look as different under Gina McCarthy as Cuba looked when Uncle Fidel passed the hammer and sickle to his little brother Raul . '' @ JesseFFerguson : The Hill : `` DCCC places sequestration blame on Republicans with new ads '' http : //thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/284151-dccc-places-sequestration-blame-on-republicans-with-new-ads … @ ezraklein : Why Republican governors are saying yes to Medicaid , no to Obamacare 's exchanges http : //wapo.st/13lWgaU @ aterkel : Laura Bush wants out of marriage equality ad campaign http : //bit.ly/YoOKJ4 @ jasondhorowitz : `` It does hurt , '' McCain said softly . `` …and I wish that it did n't . But it does . '' http : //www.washingtonpost.com/politics/john-mccain-republican-senator-is-still-raising-questions-and-hackles/2013/02/20/32500cf6-7b84-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html ? wpmk=MK0000205 … @ ThePlumLineGS : Most impt finding in new Pew poll : On every major issue , GOP position is held by 1/3 or fewer Americans : http : //www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/21/the-morning-plum-on-issues-gop-is-badly-out-of-step-with-america/ …

Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo By MICHAEL FALCONE ( @michaelpfalcone ) NOTABLES SEQUESTER SHOWDOWN: There were no signs at the White House yesterday that both sides are actively talking to avert the sequester. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said yesterday there's a "great deal of activity" behind the scenes to get something done, reports ABC's Devin Dwyer. At his briefing, Carney pointed fingers at the GOP: "This is an indefensible position. The choice that Republicans are making is …throw these people out of work in order to protect these special tax breaks for corporate jet owners and oil and gas companies. It's just - it makes no sense, and it's bad policy." OBAMA WEIGHS IN: In an interview with WJZ, the CBS affiliate in Baltimore, President Obama expressed exasperation with Congress on the sequester: "This is a problem Congress can solve. These automatic spending cuts that were put in place back in 2011 were designed to get Congress to actually avoid them by coming up with more sensible approaches to deficit reduction. … I don't know why it is that this town leaves stuff until the last minute. There's no other profession, no other industry, where people wait until the 11th hour to solve these big problems. Obviously it creates a lot of uncertainty in the economy." ON THE AGENDA: President Obama spends the day behind closed-doors at the White House. ABC's Mary Bruce notes that the president records three radio interviews with Al Sharpton, Joe Madison and Yolanda Adams. At 12:30 pm ET Vice President Biden delivers the keynote address at a conference on the federal response to gun violence in Danbury, Conn., just miles from the Newtown shooting at Sandy Hook elementary. TUNE IN - ROBIN ROBERTS SITS DOWN WITH MICHELLE OBAMA: "Good Morning America" co-anchor Robin Roberts will interview First Lady Michelle Obama to discuss the third anniversary of Let's Move! and a new partnership that makes finding healthy, reliable recipes easy for busy parents, among other topics. This will be Mrs. Obama's first morning show interview and will air on "Good Morning America" on Tuesday, Feb. 26. http://abcn.ws/XkrnUH THE ROUNDTABLE ABC's RICK KLEIN: It's not that President Obama is on the wrong side. But he's going to have to convince the public that he's got the timing right. The new USA Today-Pew Research Center poll out today shows broad support for the president's approach on the top issues of the day - the deficit, gun control, immigration, and climate change. But when it comes to questions of urgency, the only issue with overwhelming consensus that it needs to be dealt with this year is the deficit, where 70 percent find it "essential" to tackle this year. That, of course, is the only one of the four issues being championed by Republican leaders. Read the full poll: http://usat.ly/11WwuPl ABC's Z. BYRON WOLF: The news that former Sen. Pete Domenici fathered a child with former Sen. Paul Laxalt's daughter in the late 1970s was, to say the least, weird. The details of what happened have been blurred by time and the fact that both men are now out of office diminishes its importance as a piece of news today. But it should be noted that opponents of gridlock often complain that comity and deal-making on Capitol Hill have diminished as lawmakers have less frequently moved to the nation's capital. Their families don't spend as much time together goes the argument. Who knows if the Domenicis and the Laxalts were friendly before this episode or what happened in their personal drama after. But one can only imagine what it was like in the dozen years they served together in the Senate afterward. ABC's SHUSHANNAH WALSHE: Just one day after we learned Mitt Romney will make his first public appearance since the election when he speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference next month, several of his former staffers who work with Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez are out with a new video, the first of his new campaign. The video shows Gomez and his family collecting signatures ahead of next week's deadline at both a shipyard and a diner. The contrast between the two candidates is stark. Gomez is relaxed, comfortable greeting voters in both English and Spanish noting his work as a Navy SEAL, add in his cute kids asking commuters to support their dad and it's a very well done spot. One thing is clear, despite sharing a few staffers, they want the state to know Gomez is more Scott Brown than Mitt Romney. There's no pickup truck yet, but maybe his run will feature a boat. BUZZ OBAMA: IMMIGRATION LEAK WON'T BLOCK REFORM. President Barack Obama on Wednesday confidently promised that Congress will pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, saying that a leaked copy of a White House proposal won't jeopardize the effort to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, reports ABC-Univision's Jordan Fabian. A draft White House immigration plan leaked to the press over the weekend, which frustrated some Republicans working on a bill, since Obama pledged to withhold his plan while lawmakers crafted their own. The White House claimed this week that the leak was unintentional and the president phoned GOP senators to reiterate that he supports the negotiations in Congress. "It certainly did not jeopardize the entire process. The negotiations are still moving forward," Obama said during an interview with Univision San Antonio affiliate KWEX. "Information floats out of Washington all the time; that shouldn't prevent anybody from moving forward." http://abcn.ws/W4HKGM WHITE HOUSE UNVEILS STRATEGY TO STEM TRADE SECRET THEFT. The White House announced its strategy to protect against trade secret theft Wednesday, just one day after a report indicated a Chinese military unit may be responsible for a string of cyber attacks on American infrastructure and corporations, reports ABC's Arlette Saenz. "The theft of trade secrets impacts national security, undermines our global competitiveness, diminishes U.S. exports process and puts American jobs at risk," Victoria Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, said at a White House meeting on Wednesday. "As an administration, we will be vigilant in addressing threats including corporate and state sponsored trade secret theft that jeopardize our status as the world's leader for innovation. We will act vigorously to combat theft of U.S. trade secrets that could be used by foreign companies or by foreign governments to gain an unfair economic edge." Attorney General Eric Holder echoed the sentiment, saying the U.S. needs to increase cooperation and coordination "between partners at every level of government [and] improve engagement with the corporations represented in this room today." He added that "continuing technological expansion and accelerating globalization" will only lead to a dramatic "increase in the threat posed by trade secret theft in the years ahead." http://abcn.ws/Xm0P5u SECRETARY KERRY MAKES CASE FOR FOREIGN AID. In his first major foreign policy speech as Secretary of State, John Kerry's message was clear: America cannot afford to treat foreign policy as foreign. He stressed throughout the one hour speech that even in these economically challenging times, foreign aid is an investment in America's national security and economic prosperity, notes ABC's Dana Hughes. The former senator, who called himself a "recovering politician," said that he understands why foreign aid makes an easy political target for members of Congress, whose constituents expect them to focus on domestic policies that benefit the everyday lives of Americans. But Kerry said foreign policy has to rise above partisan politics. "We need to say no to the politics of the lowest common denominator and simple slogans, and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country," said Kerry to applause. "Unfortunately, the State Department doesn't have our own Grover Norquist pushing a pledge to protect it. We don't have millions of A.A.R.P. seniors who send in their dues and rally to protect America's investments overseas," he said. http://abcn.ws/W4l0XB MITT ROMNEY TO MAKE FIRST POST-ELECTION SPEECH. Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will making his first public appearance since losing his presidential bid last November when he speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, reports ABC's Shushannah Walshe. "I look forward to saying thank you to the many friends and supporters who were instrumental in helping my campaign," Romney said in a statement. An advisor to Romney told ABC News the speech is "an opportunity for him to express his appreciation to supporters and friends." American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas said "the thousands gathered at CPAC this year are eager to hear" from Romney. "We look forward to hearing Governor Romney's comments on the current state of affairs in America and the world, and his perspective on the future of the conservative movement," Cardenas said in a statement. The gathering of conservative activists will be held in mid-March at the Gaylord National hotel in Prince George's County, Maryland. http://abcn.ws/YGV4fx IN THE NOTE'S INBOX: -HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER HONORS ROSA PARKS. Less than a week before the unveiling of a statue of Rosa Parks in the U.S. Capitol, House Speaker John Boehner is out with a new video previewing the event. "Next week, we're going to do something special in the Capitol. We're going to dedicate a statue of civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who changed the world one December evening in 1955 without getting up from her seat," Boehner says from the balcony of the chamber where the ceremony will take place next Wednesday. "All of the statues in this building are important, but none honor an African-American woman … that is, until next week, when Mrs. Parks takes her rightful place alongside the inventors, war heroes, freedom fighters, and doers who represent the heart of the American story. It's another breakthrough for someone who has made so many of them possible. … I hope you'll tune in and watch this historic ceremony live at Speaker.gov, starting at 11 am next Wednesday, the 27th." WATCH: http://bit.ly/11XdYqc -ENERGY GROUP BLASTS LIKELY EPA PICK. A GOP strategist passes along this statement from Benjamin Cole of the American Energy Alliance on President Obama's likely pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency: "For those who were in doubt, the president's decision to replace Lisa Jackson with Gina McCarthy allays all concern. The EPA will continue its anti-fossil fuel crusade undeterred, and the administration will continue to avoid normal democratic means to legislate the president's climate change agenda through the regulatory agencies. The EPA will look as different under Gina McCarthy as Cuba looked when Uncle Fidel passed the hammer and sickle to his little brother Raul." WHO'S TWEETING? @JesseFFerguson: The Hill: "DCCC places sequestration blame on Republicans with new ads" http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/284151-dccc-places-sequestration-blame-on-republicans-with-new-ads … @ezraklein: Why Republican governors are saying yes to Medicaid, no to Obamacare's exchanges http://wapo.st/13lWgaU @aterkel: Laura Bush wants out of marriage equality ad campaign http://bit.ly/YoOKJ4 @jasondhorowitz: "It does hurt," McCain said softly. "…and I wish that it didn't. But it does." http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/john-mccain-republican-senator-is-still-raising-questions-and-hackles/2013/02/20/32500cf6-7b84-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205 … @ThePlumLineGS: Most impt finding in new Pew poll: On every major issue, GOP position is held by 1/3 or fewer Americans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/21/the-morning-plum-on-issues-gop-is-badly-out-of-step-with-america/ …

www.abcnews.go.com

left

7RrIClN38k0LjYO3

test

rmTKNsJWctrgSlzw

national_defense

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-declassifies-navy-videos-purportedly-show-ufos/story?id=70364183

Pentagon declassifies Navy videos that purportedly show UFOs

Luis Martinez

Pentagon declassifies Navy videos that purportedly show UFOs The Navy videos have been leaked in recent years . Pentagon declassifies 3 ‘ UFO ’ videos To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science The Pentagon has declassified three previously leaked top secret U.S. Navy videos that show `` unexplained aerial phenomena '' and that some believe could show Unidentified Flying Objects ( UFOs ) in an effort `` to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real or whether or not there is more to the videos , '' said a Pentagon spokesperson . `` The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as 'unidentified ' '' , the spokesperson added . The videos , previously acknowledged by the Navy as being real , captured what Navy fighter pilots saw on their video sensors during training flights in 2004 and 2015 . They were published by the New York Times in 2017 . `` The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos , one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015 , which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017 , '' said Susan Gough , a Defense Department spokesperson in a statement released Monday . Video footage released by the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science purportedly shows pilots observing a UFO while aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft . To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science `` After a thorough review , the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems , and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena , '' said Gough . Two of the videos were included in a December 2017 New York Times article that explained how the U.S. government ran a program for investigating reports of unidentified flying objects until 2012 . The third video was released in March 2018 by To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science , a private scientific research and media group . Video footage released by the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science purportedly shows pilots observing a UFO while aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft . To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science The releases triggered renewed interest in what the U.S. military may have learned from the videos and whether they were proof of the existence of UFOs . `` I can tell you , I think it was not from this world , '' retired Cmdr . David Fravor told ███ in 2017 of what he saw during a routine training mission on Nov. 14 , 2004 off the coast of California . `` I 'm not crazy , have n't been drinking . It was -- after 18 years of flying , I 've seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm , and this was nothing close . '' Video footage released by the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science purportedly shows pilots observing a UFO while aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft . To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science `` I have never seen anything in my life , in my history of flying that has the performance , the acceleration -- keep in mind this thing had no wings , '' Fravor said . In April , 2019 the Navy acknowledged that the release of the videos had prompted the development of new guidelines for how pilots should report sightings of `` unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft . '' This report was featured in the Tuesday , April 28 , 2020 , episode of “ Start Here , ” ███ ’ daily news podcast . `` Start Here '' offers a straightforward look at the day 's top stories in 20 minutes . Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , the ███ app or wherever you get your podcasts .

Pentagon declassifies Navy videos that purportedly show UFOs The Navy videos have been leaked in recent years. To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science Pentagon declassifies 3 ‘UFO’ videos To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science The Pentagon has declassified three previously leaked top secret U.S. Navy videos that show "unexplained aerial phenomena" and that some believe could show Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) in an effort "to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real or whether or not there is more to the videos," said a Pentagon spokesperson. "The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as 'unidentified'", the spokesperson added. The videos, previously acknowledged by the Navy as being real, captured what Navy fighter pilots saw on their video sensors during training flights in 2004 and 2015. They were published by the New York Times in 2017. "The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos, one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015, which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017," said Susan Gough, a Defense Department spokesperson in a statement released Monday. Video footage released by the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science purportedly shows pilots observing a UFO while aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft. To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science "After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena," said Gough. Two of the videos were included in a December 2017 New York Times article that explained how the U.S. government ran a program for investigating reports of unidentified flying objects until 2012. The third video was released in March 2018 by To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science, a private scientific research and media group. Video footage released by the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science purportedly shows pilots observing a UFO while aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft. To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science The releases triggered renewed interest in what the U.S. military may have learned from the videos and whether they were proof of the existence of UFOs. "I can tell you, I think it was not from this world," retired Cmdr. David Fravor told ABC News in 2017 of what he saw during a routine training mission on Nov. 14, 2004 off the coast of California. "I'm not crazy, haven't been drinking. It was -- after 18 years of flying, I've seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close." Video footage released by the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science purportedly shows pilots observing a UFO while aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft. To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science "I have never seen anything in my life, in my history of flying that has the performance, the acceleration -- keep in mind this thing had no wings," Fravor said. In April, 2019 the Navy acknowledged that the release of the videos had prompted the development of new guidelines for how pilots should report sightings of "unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft." This report was featured in the Tuesday, April 28, 2020, episode of “Start Here,” ABC News’ daily news podcast. "Start Here" offers a straightforward look at the day's top stories in 20 minutes. Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, the ABC News app or wherever you get your podcasts.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

rmTKNsJWctrgSlzw

test

XFGKEbrn5DXjtcB1

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-clinton-statements

Donald Trump Jr was told of Russian efforts to help campaign – report

2017-07-10

David Smith, Jon Swaine, Shaun Walker, Ben Jacobs, Lawrence Douglas

Donald Trump Jr was informed in an email ahead of a meeting with a Russian lawyer that damaging information about Hillary Clinton to be handed over was part of an effort by the Russian government to help the Trump campaign , the New York Times has reported . Rob Goldstone : who is the man who set up Trump Jr 's meeting with a Russian lawyer ? Read more The Times did not publish the email – sent by Rob Goldstone , the intermediary who set up the meeting – but reported that three different people had described it to them . Trump Jr ’ s meeting is the first “ clear evidence ” in public of senior Trump campaign members meeting with Russians while looking for such material , a leading Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee said on Monday . Mark Corallo , a spokesman for Marc Kasowitz , the president ’ s private attorney handling the Russia investigation , said simply : “ The president was not aware of and did not attend the meeting . ” A spokeswoman for the DNC said : “ Donald Jr was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign government to sway the election . In the ensuing months , the Trump family watched as news of the Kremlin ’ s hacking campaign developed and they did nothing but celebrate and encourage it to continue . ” Alan Futerfas , appointed Trump Jr ’ s lawyer to represent him in the Russian investigations , described the New York Times report as “ much ado about nothing ” . In a statement issued on Monday evening , Futerfas said May and June 2016 had been “ an intensely busy time for Don Jr ” . “ During this busy period , Robert Goldstone contacted Don Jr in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic party front-runner , Hillary Clinton , in her dealings with Russia , ” the statement said . “ Don Jr had no knowledge as to what specific information , if any , would be discussed . … The meeting lasted about 20-30 minutes , and nothing came of it . His father knew nothing about it . The bottom line is that Don , Jr. did nothing wrong . ” Mark Warner of Virginia , the top Democrat on the intelligence committee , said he “ absolutely ” wanted to speak to the president ’ s son about the meeting . “ This is the first time that the public has seen clear evidence of senior-level members of the Trump campaign meeting with Russians ” to obtain information damaging to Clinton , Warner said . Trump Jr attended the meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower in New York – allegedly brokered by Goldstone , a British music publicist – with Veselnitskaya , a lawyer who reportedly has ties to the Kremlin ; Paul Manafort , who was the Trump campaign ’ s chairman at the time , and Donald Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner . The revelation , first reported by the New York Times , was the first public evidence that members of the Trump campaign were willing to accept Russian assistance . Donald Trump Jr 's message to Russian operatives ? I 'm open for business | Richard Wolffe Read more Susan Collins of Maine told reporters that “ our intelligence committee needs to interview him and others who attended the meeting ” as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election . Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee , has made a similar demand . At the White House press briefing on Monday , the spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted “ the only thing inappropriate ” about Trump Jr ’ s meeting was “ the people who leaked ” the details . She added that she did not know of any other meetings between Trump Jr and Russian nationals and that Donald Trump had only learned of the meeting “ in the last several days ” . Alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow is the subject of an investigation by a special counsel . The president , who met his Russian counterpart , Vladimir Putin , for the first time last week , has dismissed the claims as “ fake news ” . Trump Jr has come under particular scrutiny as he appeared to offer shifting explanations for the meeting . On Monday , the 39-year-old businessman tweeted sarcastically : “ Obviously I ’ m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent … went nowhere but had to listen ” . That appeared at odds with his first statement on Saturday when he omitted any mention of Clinton , saying the discussion focused on a defunct programme that had allowed American adoptions of Russian children . Then , on Sunday , as the New York Times broke fresh details , Trump Jr admitted that Veselnitskaya told him “ she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee [ DNC ] and supporting Ms Clinton ” . He added : “ No details or supporting information was provided or even offered . It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information . ” He said he concluded that claims of information on Clinton had been a “ pretext ” for setting up the meeting to talk about adoptions , and that his father had been unaware of the meeting . On Monday , he posted on Twitter : “ No inconsistency in statements , meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions . In response to further Q ’ s I simply provided more details . ” Veselnitskaya is a Russian criminal defence lawyer who has had a number of clients with links to Russian government officials . Her highest-profile case was the defence of Denis Katsyv , a Russian businessman accused of laundering a portion of the proceeds from a $ 230m tax fraud uncovered by the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky , who later died in jail . What does Robert Mueller 's team tell us about the Russia investigation ? Read more The US imposed sanctions on officials considered complicit in Magnitsky ’ s death , which caused so much anger in Moscow that the Kremlin banned US adoptions of Russian children in response . Veselnitskaya ’ s defence of Katsyv also fed into other parts of a campaign to discredit Magnitsky and Hermitage Capital , the investment fund that had retained him . She was involved in promoting a dubious film that attacked Magnitsky , attempting to organise its showing in the European parliament , and securing a screening in Washington last June , shortly after the meeting at Trump Tower . Veselnitskaya told NBC on Tuesday that she had no Kremlin ties and only wanted to discuss US sanctions on Russian officials , not Clinton . Goldstone , a British music publicist and former tabloid journalist , told the Associated Press he had set up the meeting on behalf of a client named Emin Agalarov , the son of a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project . Donald Trump appeared in a music video with Agalarov in 2013 that featured several Miss Universe contestants . In November that year , Trump tweeted to Agalarov : “ I had a great weekend with you and your family . You have done a FANTASTIC job . TRUMP TOWER-MOSCOW is next . EMIN was WOW ! ” In March , Trump Jr told the New York Times that he had never met Russians in a campaign capacity . Other senior figures have repeatedly said there were no contacts between the campaign and Russians . On Monday , the White House vehemently denied that Trump Jr ’ s meeting was improper . Kellyanne Conway insisted that “ there ’ s no evidence of collusion ” between Trump Jr and Veselnitskaya . “ No information was received that was meaningful or helpful and no action was taken , ” she said on ABC television ’ s Good Morning America . “ There was no follow-up whatsoever . ” Putin ’ s spokesman , Dmitry Peskov , said the Kremlin did not know Veselnitskaya and “ can not keep track ” of every Russian lawyer who holds meetings in Russia or abroad .

Donald Trump Jr was informed in an email ahead of a meeting with a Russian lawyer that damaging information about Hillary Clinton to be handed over was part of an effort by the Russian government to help the Trump campaign, the New York Times has reported. Rob Goldstone: who is the man who set up Trump Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer? Read more The Times did not publish the email – sent by Rob Goldstone, the intermediary who set up the meeting – but reported that three different people had described it to them. Trump Jr’s meeting is the first “clear evidence” in public of senior Trump campaign members meeting with Russians while looking for such material, a leading Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee said on Monday. Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Marc Kasowitz, the president’s private attorney handling the Russia investigation, said simply: “The president was not aware of and did not attend the meeting.” A spokeswoman for the DNC said: “Donald Jr was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign government to sway the election. In the ensuing months, the Trump family watched as news of the Kremlin’s hacking campaign developed and they did nothing but celebrate and encourage it to continue.” Sign up for the Minute email. Catch up on today’s US politics news in 60 seconds Alan Futerfas, appointed Trump Jr’s lawyer to represent him in the Russian investigations, described the New York Times report as “much ado about nothing”. In a statement issued on Monday evening, Futerfas said May and June 2016 had been “an intensely busy time for Don Jr”. “During this busy period, Robert Goldstone contacted Don Jr in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia,” the statement said. “Don Jr had no knowledge as to what specific information, if any, would be discussed. … The meeting lasted about 20-30 minutes, and nothing came of it. His father knew nothing about it. The bottom line is that Don, Jr. did nothing wrong.” Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, said he “absolutely” wanted to speak to the president’s son about the meeting. “This is the first time that the public has seen clear evidence of senior-level members of the Trump campaign meeting with Russians” to obtain information damaging to Clinton, Warner said. Trump Jr attended the meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower in New York – allegedly brokered by Goldstone, a British music publicist – with Veselnitskaya, a lawyer who reportedly has ties to the Kremlin; Paul Manafort, who was the Trump campaign’s chairman at the time, and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The revelation, first reported by the New York Times, was the first public evidence that members of the Trump campaign were willing to accept Russian assistance. Donald Trump Jr's message to Russian operatives? I'm open for business | Richard Wolffe Read more Susan Collins of Maine told reporters that “our intelligence committee needs to interview him and others who attended the meeting” as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, has made a similar demand. At the White House press briefing on Monday, the spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted “the only thing inappropriate” about Trump Jr’s meeting was “the people who leaked” the details. She added that she did not know of any other meetings between Trump Jr and Russian nationals and that Donald Trump had only learned of the meeting “in the last several days”. Alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow is the subject of an investigation by a special counsel. The president, who met his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, for the first time last week, has dismissed the claims as “fake news”. Trump Jr has come under particular scrutiny as he appeared to offer shifting explanations for the meeting. On Monday, the 39-year-old businessman tweeted sarcastically: “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent … went nowhere but had to listen”. That appeared at odds with his first statement on Saturday when he omitted any mention of Clinton, saying the discussion focused on a defunct programme that had allowed American adoptions of Russian children. Then, on Sunday, as the New York Times broke fresh details, Trump Jr admitted that Veselnitskaya told him “she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee [DNC] and supporting Ms Clinton”. He added: “No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” He said he concluded that claims of information on Clinton had been a “pretext” for setting up the meeting to talk about adoptions, and that his father had been unaware of the meeting. On Monday, he posted on Twitter: “No inconsistency in statements, meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions. In response to further Q’s I simply provided more details.” Veselnitskaya is a Russian criminal defence lawyer who has had a number of clients with links to Russian government officials. Her highest-profile case was the defence of Denis Katsyv, a Russian businessman accused of laundering a portion of the proceeds from a $230m tax fraud uncovered by the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who later died in jail. What does Robert Mueller's team tell us about the Russia investigation? Read more The US imposed sanctions on officials considered complicit in Magnitsky’s death, which caused so much anger in Moscow that the Kremlin banned US adoptions of Russian children in response. Veselnitskaya’s defence of Katsyv also fed into other parts of a campaign to discredit Magnitsky and Hermitage Capital, the investment fund that had retained him. She was involved in promoting a dubious film that attacked Magnitsky, attempting to organise its showing in the European parliament, and securing a screening in Washington last June, shortly after the meeting at Trump Tower. Veselnitskaya told NBC on Tuesday that she had no Kremlin ties and only wanted to discuss US sanctions on Russian officials, not Clinton. Goldstone, a British music publicist and former tabloid journalist, told the Associated Press he had set up the meeting on behalf of a client named Emin Agalarov, the son of a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project. Donald Trump appeared in a music video with Agalarov in 2013 that featured several Miss Universe contestants. In November that year, Trump tweeted to Agalarov: “I had a great weekend with you and your family. You have done a FANTASTIC job. TRUMP TOWER-MOSCOW is next. EMIN was WOW!” In March, Trump Jr told the New York Times that he had never met Russians in a campaign capacity. Other senior figures have repeatedly said there were no contacts between the campaign and Russians. On Monday, the White House vehemently denied that Trump Jr’s meeting was improper. Kellyanne Conway insisted that “there’s no evidence of collusion” between Trump Jr and Veselnitskaya. “No information was received that was meaningful or helpful and no action was taken,” she said on ABC television’s Good Morning America. “There was no follow-up whatsoever.” Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the Kremlin did not know Veselnitskaya and “cannot keep track” of every Russian lawyer who holds meetings in Russia or abroad.

www.theguardian.com

left

XFGKEbrn5DXjtcB1

test

9AJKaM0qxEMFEztz

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/perfidious-obamas-last-betrayal/

Perfidious Obama’s Last Betrayal

Jed Babbin, Brian Mcnicoll, George Neumayr, Dov Fischer, Paul Miller, Scott Mckay, John C. Wohlstetter

My college roommate Ed Atkins and I were commissioned second lieutenants in the US Air Force the day before we graduated in June 1970 . My eyes were lousy and Ed ’ s weren ’ t , so our paths diverged . I went to law school and he went to flight school , the lucky dog . After all , the mission of the Air Force is “ to fly and to fight. ” He was going to do it , and I was being trained to risk only paper cuts in the law library . I was ( and still am ) jealous as hell . Fresh from a combat tour in Vietnam , during which he accumulated a slew of Air Medals and a Distinguished Flying Cross , Ed was stationed in Germany when the 1973 Yom Kippur War broke out . Israeli forces were caught on the ground on the highest holy day of the Jewish year , and things went badly for the first few days . At that point the Soviet Union was moving to intervene on the Arabs ’ side . President Nixon ordered our nuclear forces to DefCon 3 and our Air Force to prepare to fly into the fight . Ed and his squadron were arming and fueling their F-4 Phantoms to fly to Israel and engage anything — Soviet or Arab — that stood in their way when Israel turned the tide and won without our help . That ’ s the way it ’ s been since 1948 , when Israel became a nation . We ’ ve always been the big brother willing to deter or defeat Islamic aggression against the only democracy in the Middle East . That lasted until January 2009 , when President Obama came into office and began shunning Israel . Then came last Friday , when Barack Obama ordered our UN ambassador to abstain rather than veto a UN Security Council resolution that declared Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank illegal , and those territories illegally “ occupied. ” Israel was thus delegitimized and ordered to return to the borders it had before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war . President Obama ’ s enmity toward Israel , though often denied , has been obvious since his inauguration . Through many meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , his attempt to force a false peace between Israel and the Palestinians , and his nuclear weapons deal with Iran , Obama has made it clear to anyone who wanted to see that his hatred of Israel coincided with his intention to diminish our national security as well as that of the Jewish state . The Friday resolution , first offered by Egypt , was withdrawn as a result of hard lobbying by Israel and the statement by President-elect Trump that it should be vetoed . New Zealand , Senegal , Venezuela , and Malaysia picked it up and offered it for a vote . The Obama administration denies orchestrating the resolution and vote , but the Israelis accuse it of doing precisely that . And therein lies an important lie . Secretary of State John Kerry visited New Zealand in mid-November . In a meeting with New Zealand ’ s foreign minister , Murray McCulley , Kerry told him that the New Zealand government could play an important role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process . McCulley said , “ It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we ’ ve spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the U.S. might go on this . It is something that is still in play. ” He added , “ I think there are some very important decisions that the Obama administration is going to have to make in its lame-duck period on this issue. ” That was the preliminary to Friday . The resolution , apparently orchestrated by Obama , passed only because the U.S. didn ’ t veto it to protect Israel as it has on similar resolutions on countless occasions . It was a huge victory for the Palestinians and the Muslim nations — and terrorist networks — which have Israel ’ s destruction as their principal foreign policy goal . We were surprised by Obama ’ s perfidious action , but we shouldn ’ t have been . Obama is not just pro-Palestinian , he is anti-Israel . Set aside the issue of whether he and Kerry are anti-Semitic . They probably are . More importantly , to the narcissistic Obama , opposition to Israel and Netanyahu is a very personal fight . Obama has always seen his presidency as a vehicle for the accommodation of Islamic nations . This is the president who ordered his director of NASA to make his primary mission an outreach to the Islamic world , rather than other planets . In his June 2009 speech in Cairo , Obama told the Islamic world that part of the job of America ’ s president is to fight against negative stereotypes of Muslims . There was no mention of the need to fight against Islamic nations ’ aggression against our allies . Beginning about that time , Obama formulated a policy designed to drive Israel back behind its pre-1967 borders . Israel has said those borders are indefensible , but that ’ s no concern to Obama . Weakening Israel in that manner would also weaken the United States because Israel is seen by the Islamic nations as a surrogate for America : if they can weaken Israel , they are implicitly weakening us . With Obama in the Oval Office , talks with Israel and the Palestinians have always been aimed at forcing the Israelis to give up land relinquished by the Arabs in the 1967 war , including East Jerusalem ( though Jerusalem is Israel ’ s capital ) and the entire West Bank area . Obama brought Netanyahu to Washington in March 2010 to drive home that point . When Netanyahu demurred , Obama left him to stew while Obama went to have dinner with his wife and daughters . Leaving the room , he reportedly told Netanyahu to consider the error of his ways , saying “ I ’ m still around . Let me know if there is anything new. ” Obama treated the prime minister of our only real ally in the Middle East as if he were a disobedient child . Obama ’ s personal conflict with Israel and Netanyahu got steadily worse . It was worsened ( in Obama ’ s view ) by Netanyahu ’ s annual addresses to the United Nations General Assembly on the dangers of Iran ’ s nuclear weapons program . Year after year , Netanyahu warned against Iran ’ s nuclear weapon development , pleading that the “ international community ” stand up to Iran . He knew that the UN was primarily comprised of a cacophony of dictators , despots , rogues , and terrorists but he made his case again and again . At the same time , Obama had Kerry engaged in eighteen months of pointless negotiations , trying to force an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on a land-for-peace deal which , as usual , would have forced Israel to give up East Jerusalem and the West Bank . Obama ’ s approach was historically ignorant . Three times since 2000 , Israeli prime ministers have offered land for peace and been rebuffed . Ehud Barak offered up East Jerusalem , the Gaza Strip , and the West Bank in a plan designed by Bill Clinton , but Yassir Arafat , then Palestinian “ president , ” walked out of the talks . In 2005 , Ariel Sharon withdrew all Israelis from the Gaza Strip and pulled Israel back across the pre-1967 borders . The Palestinians answered by raining missiles on Israel from Gaza . In 2008 , Ehud Olmert offered essentially 100 percent of the West Bank , all of Gaza , and a divided Jerusalem to be the capital of both the still non-existent nation of Palestine and Israel . Mahmoud Abbas took the offer to study it and left never returned to the negotiations . In 2009 , Obama promised to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear weapons without preconditions . In 2011 , with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still in power , Obama began secret negotiations . Netanyahu continued to warn the UN against Iran . In March 2015 , Netanyahu did something Obama never forgave . He addressed a joint session of Congress , at then-Speaker John Boehner ’ s invitation , forcefully warning against the Iran nuclear deal . Obama made that deal later in the year . As President-elect Trump has said many times , it was an awful deal . And , as this column has detailed many times , it is a deal that drastically diminishes America ’ s national security . Instead of properly submitting the Iran deal to the Senate for ratification ( as every preceding nuclear deal had been ) , Obama took it to the UN , obtaining a Security Council resolution blessing it . But it remains unratified , so Trump can void it any time he wishes . The Friday vote was Obama ’ s revenge against Israel and Netanyahu , and an effort to block Trump ’ s moves on Iran and Israel . Because UN Security Council resolutions supposedly establish international law , Israel was branded an outlaw by Obama ’ s refusal to veto it . Netanyahu has stood bravely against Obama and the UN ’ s action , declaring that Israel will ignore it . Trump has said that things at the UN will be different after January 20 . But the damage to Israel has been done , and won ’ t be undone easily . There is every reason to believe that Trump will re-establish our friendship with Israel . There is no reason for him not to do so . But he has to do more . When I was researching my 2004 book , Inside the Asylum : Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think , I was welcomed into the London home of British historian Paul Johnson . Over tea and biscuits , Johnson told me , “ The UN is now a central problem for the world because we take too much notice of it . ” Ronald Reagan was a conservative internationalist . He wanted to engage with the world , but chose wisely not to do so through the UN . Trump must pursue our foreign policy on those grounds . The UN is only a danger because Obama has allowed it to govern our foreign policy for the past eight years . Some in Congress have advocated diminishing our funding of the UN which accounts for at least 22 percent of its annual revenue . Trump should demand that Congress drastically reduce our payments to the UN . We await his decision to press Congress to do so . We ’ ll see if he does . Part of history ’ s judgment of his presidency will be rendered on it . It ’ s time to walk Reagan ’ s path again and not let the anti-American , anti-Israel United Nations decide our policies . Was this Obama ’ s last betrayal of our national security interests ? There are still 25 days left . What more damage will he do ?

My college roommate Ed Atkins and I were commissioned second lieutenants in the US Air Force the day before we graduated in June 1970. My eyes were lousy and Ed’s weren’t, so our paths diverged. I went to law school and he went to flight school, the lucky dog. After all, the mission of the Air Force is “to fly and to fight.” He was going to do it, and I was being trained to risk only paper cuts in the law library. I was (and still am) jealous as hell. Fresh from a combat tour in Vietnam, during which he accumulated a slew of Air Medals and a Distinguished Flying Cross, Ed was stationed in Germany when the 1973 Yom Kippur War broke out. Israeli forces were caught on the ground on the highest holy day of the Jewish year, and things went badly for the first few days. At that point the Soviet Union was moving to intervene on the Arabs’ side. President Nixon ordered our nuclear forces to DefCon 3 and our Air Force to prepare to fly into the fight. Ed and his squadron were arming and fueling their F-4 Phantoms to fly to Israel and engage anything — Soviet or Arab — that stood in their way when Israel turned the tide and won without our help. That’s the way it’s been since 1948, when Israel became a nation. We’ve always been the big brother willing to deter or defeat Islamic aggression against the only democracy in the Middle East. That lasted until January 2009, when President Obama came into office and began shunning Israel. Then came last Friday, when Barack Obama ordered our UN ambassador to abstain rather than veto a UN Security Council resolution that declared Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank illegal, and those territories illegally “occupied.” Israel was thus delegitimized and ordered to return to the borders it had before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. President Obama’s enmity toward Israel, though often denied, has been obvious since his inauguration. Through many meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his attempt to force a false peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and his nuclear weapons deal with Iran, Obama has made it clear to anyone who wanted to see that his hatred of Israel coincided with his intention to diminish our national security as well as that of the Jewish state. The Friday resolution, first offered by Egypt, was withdrawn as a result of hard lobbying by Israel and the statement by President-elect Trump that it should be vetoed. New Zealand, Senegal, Venezuela, and Malaysia picked it up and offered it for a vote. The Obama administration denies orchestrating the resolution and vote, but the Israelis accuse it of doing precisely that. And therein lies an important lie. Secretary of State John Kerry visited New Zealand in mid-November. In a meeting with New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murray McCulley, Kerry told him that the New Zealand government could play an important role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. McCulley said, “It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we’ve spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the U.S. might go on this. It is something that is still in play.” He added, “I think there are some very important decisions that the Obama administration is going to have to make in its lame-duck period on this issue.” That was the preliminary to Friday. The resolution, apparently orchestrated by Obama, passed only because the U.S. didn’t veto it to protect Israel as it has on similar resolutions on countless occasions. It was a huge victory for the Palestinians and the Muslim nations — and terrorist networks — which have Israel’s destruction as their principal foreign policy goal. We were surprised by Obama’s perfidious action, but we shouldn’t have been. Obama is not just pro-Palestinian, he is anti-Israel. Set aside the issue of whether he and Kerry are anti-Semitic. They probably are. More importantly, to the narcissistic Obama, opposition to Israel and Netanyahu is a very personal fight. Obama has always seen his presidency as a vehicle for the accommodation of Islamic nations. This is the president who ordered his director of NASA to make his primary mission an outreach to the Islamic world, rather than other planets. In his June 2009 speech in Cairo, Obama told the Islamic world that part of the job of America’s president is to fight against negative stereotypes of Muslims. There was no mention of the need to fight against Islamic nations’ aggression against our allies. Beginning about that time, Obama formulated a policy designed to drive Israel back behind its pre-1967 borders. Israel has said those borders are indefensible, but that’s no concern to Obama. Weakening Israel in that manner would also weaken the United States because Israel is seen by the Islamic nations as a surrogate for America: if they can weaken Israel, they are implicitly weakening us. With Obama in the Oval Office, talks with Israel and the Palestinians have always been aimed at forcing the Israelis to give up land relinquished by the Arabs in the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem (though Jerusalem is Israel’s capital) and the entire West Bank area. Obama brought Netanyahu to Washington in March 2010 to drive home that point. When Netanyahu demurred, Obama left him to stew while Obama went to have dinner with his wife and daughters. Leaving the room, he reportedly told Netanyahu to consider the error of his ways, saying “I’m still around. Let me know if there is anything new.” Obama treated the prime minister of our only real ally in the Middle East as if he were a disobedient child. Obama’s personal conflict with Israel and Netanyahu got steadily worse. It was worsened (in Obama’s view) by Netanyahu’s annual addresses to the United Nations General Assembly on the dangers of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Year after year, Netanyahu warned against Iran’s nuclear weapon development, pleading that the “international community” stand up to Iran. He knew that the UN was primarily comprised of a cacophony of dictators, despots, rogues, and terrorists but he made his case again and again. At the same time, Obama had Kerry engaged in eighteen months of pointless negotiations, trying to force an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on a land-for-peace deal which, as usual, would have forced Israel to give up East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Obama’s approach was historically ignorant. Three times since 2000, Israeli prime ministers have offered land for peace and been rebuffed. Ehud Barak offered up East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank in a plan designed by Bill Clinton, but Yassir Arafat, then Palestinian “president,” walked out of the talks. In 2005, Ariel Sharon withdrew all Israelis from the Gaza Strip and pulled Israel back across the pre-1967 borders. The Palestinians answered by raining missiles on Israel from Gaza. In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered essentially 100 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a divided Jerusalem to be the capital of both the still non-existent nation of Palestine and Israel. Mahmoud Abbas took the offer to study it and left never returned to the negotiations. In 2009, Obama promised to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear weapons without preconditions. In 2011, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still in power, Obama began secret negotiations. Netanyahu continued to warn the UN against Iran. In March 2015, Netanyahu did something Obama never forgave. He addressed a joint session of Congress, at then-Speaker John Boehner’s invitation, forcefully warning against the Iran nuclear deal. Obama made that deal later in the year. As President-elect Trump has said many times, it was an awful deal. And, as this column has detailed many times, it is a deal that drastically diminishes America’s national security. Instead of properly submitting the Iran deal to the Senate for ratification (as every preceding nuclear deal had been), Obama took it to the UN, obtaining a Security Council resolution blessing it. But it remains unratified, so Trump can void it any time he wishes. The Friday vote was Obama’s revenge against Israel and Netanyahu, and an effort to block Trump’s moves on Iran and Israel. Because UN Security Council resolutions supposedly establish international law, Israel was branded an outlaw by Obama’s refusal to veto it. Netanyahu has stood bravely against Obama and the UN’s action, declaring that Israel will ignore it. Trump has said that things at the UN will be different after January 20. But the damage to Israel has been done, and won’t be undone easily. There is every reason to believe that Trump will re-establish our friendship with Israel. There is no reason for him not to do so. But he has to do more. When I was researching my 2004 book, Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think, I was welcomed into the London home of British historian Paul Johnson. Over tea and biscuits, Johnson told me, “The UN is now a central problem for the world because we take too much notice of it.” Ronald Reagan was a conservative internationalist. He wanted to engage with the world, but chose wisely not to do so through the UN. Trump must pursue our foreign policy on those grounds. The UN is only a danger because Obama has allowed it to govern our foreign policy for the past eight years. Some in Congress have advocated diminishing our funding of the UN which accounts for at least 22 percent of its annual revenue. Trump should demand that Congress drastically reduce our payments to the UN. We await his decision to press Congress to do so. We’ll see if he does. Part of history’s judgment of his presidency will be rendered on it. It’s time to walk Reagan’s path again and not let the anti-American, anti-Israel United Nations decide our policies. Was this Obama’s last betrayal of our national security interests? There are still 25 days left. What more damage will he do?

www.spectator.org

right

9AJKaM0qxEMFEztz

test

u9tg3HJnexxiuFbi

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/january/tough-times-ahead-for-white-house-media-relations

Tough Times ahead for White House-Media Relations?

2017-01-12

President-elect Donald Trump has responded to news reports that Russia obtained compromising personal and financial information about him . In his first press conference in months , he called the reports a `` tremendous blot '' on the record of the intelligence community if such material had been leaked . For President-elect Donald Trump , his relationship with the media is complicated at best . `` It 's very familiar territory , news conferences , because we used to give them on an almost daily basis . I think we probably , maybe won the nomination because of news conferences , '' Trump said . He woke up to learn BuzzFeed had published an unverified report full of errors that suggests Moscow has incriminating evidence against him . `` The fact that BuzzFeed and CNN made the decision to run with this unsubstantiated claim is a sad and pathetic attempt to get clicks , '' Sean Spicer , the Trump administration 's White House press secretary , said . `` You know , I have long been a supporter of a free and independent press and I always will be , but with freedom comes responsibility , '' Vice President-elect Mike Pence said . It 's a sign of the relationship to come between the future president and the press . Trump does n't think the mainstream media treats him with respect . He believes they 're in the tank for Democrats and do n't appreciate the American movement he 's tapped into . Trump 's animosity toward the media was on display during a contentious exchange Wednesday with CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump 's first press conference . `` Mr. President-elect since you are attacking our news organization , '' began Acosta . `` No , not you , '' Trump interrupted . `` Your organization is terrible . Your organization is terrible . Let 's go ahead . Quiet . '' Despite this love-hate relationship , Trump was n't rattled at Wednesday 's press conference . He admitted Russia is responsible for the cyber hack of the DNC but says that 's not where all the focus should be since other countries , like China , hack the U.S. too . He 's appointing a special committee to come up with ways to make America 's cyberspace more secure in his first 100 days . Trump also answered how he 'll separate himself from his vast business holdings . Dozens of folders hold documents he 's signed to turn his companies over to a trust to be managed by his two sons . `` I hope at the end of eight years I 'll come back and I 'll say , 'Oh , you did a good job , ' '' he said . `` Otherwise , if they do a bad job , I 'll say , 'You 're fired . ' '' While in office , Trump will also donate profits from his international hotels to the U.S. Treasury . The president-elect is also moving forward with one of the greatest responsibilities of his new job -- appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court . `` It 'll be a decision , which I very strongly believe in . I think it 's one of the reasons I got elected . I think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the Supreme Court , '' Trump said . Now he 's looking forward to his inauguration and celebrating with the Americans who put him in office . `` Because we have a movement . It 's a movement like the world has never seen before . It 's a movement that a lot of people did n't expect , '' Trump added .

President-elect Donald Trump has responded to news reports that Russia obtained compromising personal and financial information about him. In his first press conference in months, he called the reports a "tremendous blot" on the record of the intelligence community if such material had been leaked. For President-elect Donald Trump, his relationship with the media is complicated at best. "It's very familiar territory, news conferences, because we used to give them on an almost daily basis. I think we probably, maybe won the nomination because of news conferences," Trump said. He woke up to learn BuzzFeed had published an unverified report full of errors that suggests Moscow has incriminating evidence against him. Team Trump piled on. "The fact that BuzzFeed and CNN made the decision to run with this unsubstantiated claim is a sad and pathetic attempt to get clicks," Sean Spicer, the Trump administration's White House press secretary, said. "You know, I have long been a supporter of a free and independent press and I always will be, but with freedom comes responsibility," Vice President-elect Mike Pence said. It's a sign of the relationship to come between the future president and the press. Trump doesn't think the mainstream media treats him with respect. He believes they're in the tank for Democrats and don't appreciate the American movement he's tapped into. Trump's animosity toward the media was on display during a contentious exchange Wednesday with CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump's first press conference. "Mr. President-elect since you are attacking our news organization," began Acosta. "No, not you," Trump interrupted. "Your organization is terrible. Your organization is terrible. Let's go ahead. Quiet." Despite this love-hate relationship, Trump wasn't rattled at Wednesday's press conference. He admitted Russia is responsible for the cyber hack of the DNC but says that's not where all the focus should be since other countries, like China, hack the U.S. too. He's appointing a special committee to come up with ways to make America's cyberspace more secure in his first 100 days. Trump also answered how he'll separate himself from his vast business holdings. Dozens of folders hold documents he's signed to turn his companies over to a trust to be managed by his two sons. "I hope at the end of eight years I'll come back and I'll say, 'Oh, you did a good job,'" he said. "Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I'll say, 'You're fired.'" While in office, Trump will also donate profits from his international hotels to the U.S. Treasury. The president-elect is also moving forward with one of the greatest responsibilities of his new job--appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court. "It'll be a decision, which I very strongly believe in. I think it's one of the reasons I got elected. I think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the Supreme Court," Trump said. Now he's looking forward to his inauguration and celebrating with the Americans who put him in office. "Because we have a movement. It's a movement like the world has never seen before. It's a movement that a lot of people didn't expect," Trump added.

www1.cbn.com

right

u9tg3HJnexxiuFbi

test

AzEZ7Jq5xKfRmaiT

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/trump-election-saves-us-from-those-even-more-evil-than-you-think/

Trump Election Saves Us From the Evil Party

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

Those of us who have spent too much time following the so-called achievements of our elected “ public servants , ” especially at the federal level , are sadly aware of the adage popularized by M. Stanton Evans that “ We have two parties here… . One is the evil party and the other is the stupid party. ” Evans , who passed away in 2015 , added “ I ’ m very proud to be a member of the stupid party . ” Thanks to CNN , college professors , union leaders , New York Times columnists , and people named Streisand , Colbert , De Niro , and Dunham ( Lena , not Jeff ) you ’ d be forgiven for believing that the GOP is extremely stupid while the Democrats are barely evil at all . The truth is the reverse : the evil perpetrated on the American electorate by Democrats is truly enormous . Indeed it is so omnipresent that many Americans have become inured to it , the evil as much a part of everyday life as the sun rising in the east . In the economic sphere , the unexpected election of Donald Trump has already allowed us to understand just how evil Democratic policies truly are . When the law is one man using “ a pen and a phone , ” there is no foundation on which to build or expand a business . Instead entrepreneurs sit on a thin crust atop a pool of quicksand , afraid to move for fear of upsetting their precarious positions . Who would start a new bank , or make a loan to a small business , in the age of Dodd-Frank empowering hyperactive regulators to create and enforce any rule they like ? Thanks to Democrats , the only people who can get loans in 2016 are those who don ’ t really need them . Who would buy and develop land that has a semi-permanent puddle on it , knowing that Obama ’ s EPA might classify it as a wetland to be protected at a greater cost than the homes you were thinking of building ? Who , other than already-enormous companies , can navigate the FDA quagmire to gain the approval of a new life-saving drug — a drug which must then carry an exorbitant price tag to recover the regulatory costs of bringing it to market ? ( This is one example of why very large corporations don ’ t object to regulation as much as small companies do . ) As if the regulatory evil isn ’ t bad enough , the Democrats also crush economic growth through fiscal sins : When health care and higher education and food and housing are “ free ” for so many , the cost borne by those who have the misfortune to be productive members of society ( or , even more immorally , by our children ) , the economy struggles along with little growth or opportunity . Indeed , Barack Obama will likely be the first president since the Great Depression not to preside over a single year with at least 3 percent GDP growth . Sadly , many Americans have become partially numb to the Democrats ’ economic evil through repeated exposure to revisionist terminology such as “ the new normal. ” The left ’ s apologists tell us that we can never go back to economic freedom and the opportunities that come with it . They tell us that without regulating every aspect of our economic lives , humans will destroy the planet and each other because we are inherently bad ( and stupid ) people . They tell you that “ inequality ” and “ social justice ” require that you sacrifice your productive life , your entrepreneurial aspirations , your desire to improve your situation and that of your children , to their financially and spiritually impoverishing ideology . Far too many have come to believe the left ’ s lies and manipulations , but the election of Donald Trump may be a once-in-a-generation wake-up call to throw off the shackles of economic evil . It ’ s generally not easy to measure the impact of terrible economic policies . After all , there is no parallel universe of the same economy operating under better policies to compare with . Or at least there hasn ’ t been until now . But the 2016 election has given us a glimpse into such a universe based on the reaction of financial markets to an election result that almost nobody expected . The latter point is crucial : The fact that markets saw a Trump victory as extremely unlikely means that one can reasonably attribute almost all of the change in the prices of stocks and yields of bonds since the election to market participants ’ assessments of what Trump ’ s policies portend for economic growth ( in excess of the dismal expectations under the likely-until-Election-Day continuation of Obamanomics by Hillary “ Lurking in the Woods ” Clinton . ) Since the election , the yield on the US Government ’ s 10-year note has spiked upwards from about 1.86 % to 2.48 % as the market screams to investors “ You ’ ll finally have better things to do with your capital than loan it to the government for a decade at less than 2 percent interest per year ! ” Typically , a sharp jump in long-term rates is accompanied by serious pain in the stock market . So what has happened to equity prices since November 8th ? The widely followed S & P 500 , an index of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States , is up about 5.5 % . The Russell 2000 index of small-capitalization stocks — companies whose smaller size means that they suffer a disproportionate share of the cost of the regulatory state — is up more than twice that much . ( The massive gain among small-company stocks bodes particularly well for business formation under a Trump presidency . ) And the Wilshire 5000 index of all publicly traded American companies ( actually only about 3,700 stocks ) shows that investors in shares of American corporations have in just one month seen an increase in their aggregate asset values of approximately $ 1.75 trillion . No , that ’ s not a typo . That is nearly two trillion dollars more in the retirement accounts and investment accounts and college savings accounts of tens of millions of Americans , from the multi-millionaire demonized by Democrats to the pensions and 401 ( k ) s of teachers and auto workers and political columnists . And this is all before our next president has even taken office . Donald Trump , due no doubt to his background in business rather than politics , has demonstrated a greater understanding than any other politician in memory of the devastation caused by over-regulation and internationally non-competitive corporate tax rates . It was remarkable to hear a presidential candidate campaign against regulation with more passion than even the most free-market-oriented Tea Party candidate for Congress . Trump isn ’ t backing off that rhetoric since his election , noting often that for many companies ( or those who would like to create companies ) the burden of regulation is even more harmful than the burden of taxation . Almost every time Mr. Trump opens his mouth about economic issues ( other than trade ) , especially to announce the appointment of a person with actual experience in the actual economy to a position of influence over economic or labor policy , bond yields and stock prices simultaneously tick higher . It ’ s not so much that any one appointment makes an enormous difference to the economy ; rather , each pro-business choice reinforces the signal that Trump is dead serious about these issues . The message couldn ’ t be clearer , yet is likely still not understood : Donald Trump does not represent the imposition of new economic policies as much as he signals the end of evil Democratic policies and a return to a modicum of economic freedom and regulatory rationality . As the always insightful economist Brian Wesbury put it , “ instead of asking why the market is up , investors should be asking ‘ Why wasn ’ t it rising more before ? ’ ” It is remarkable that ( at least ) $ 1.75 trillion of suffering is explained by a one-word answer : Obama . Stan Evans was right that Republicans are too often stupid . But Democratic politicians , while they can occasionally be stunningly moronic ( see here and here for two of my favorite examples ) , suffer from a much more fatal flaw than stupidity : they , due to the policies they impose on an unwilling nation , are evil . It has taken the surprise election of a fierce and outspoken opponent of the regulatory state and its accompanying tax burden to let us measure just how evil .

Those of us who have spent too much time following the so-called achievements of our elected “public servants,” especially at the federal level, are sadly aware of the adage popularized by M. Stanton Evans that “We have two parties here…. One is the evil party and the other is the stupid party.” Evans, who passed away in 2015, added “I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party.” Thanks to CNN, college professors, union leaders, New York Times columnists, and people named Streisand, Colbert, De Niro, and Dunham (Lena, not Jeff) you’d be forgiven for believing that the GOP is extremely stupid while the Democrats are barely evil at all. The truth is the reverse: the evil perpetrated on the American electorate by Democrats is truly enormous. Indeed it is so omnipresent that many Americans have become inured to it, the evil as much a part of everyday life as the sun rising in the east. In the economic sphere, the unexpected election of Donald Trump has already allowed us to understand just how evil Democratic policies truly are. When the law is one man using “a pen and a phone,” there is no foundation on which to build or expand a business. Instead entrepreneurs sit on a thin crust atop a pool of quicksand, afraid to move for fear of upsetting their precarious positions. Who would start a new bank, or make a loan to a small business, in the age of Dodd-Frank empowering hyperactive regulators to create and enforce any rule they like? Thanks to Democrats, the only people who can get loans in 2016 are those who don’t really need them. Who would buy and develop land that has a semi-permanent puddle on it, knowing that Obama’s EPA might classify it as a wetland to be protected at a greater cost than the homes you were thinking of building? Who, other than already-enormous companies, can navigate the FDA quagmire to gain the approval of a new life-saving drug — a drug which must then carry an exorbitant price tag to recover the regulatory costs of bringing it to market? (This is one example of why very large corporations don’t object to regulation as much as small companies do.) As if the regulatory evil isn’t bad enough, the Democrats also crush economic growth through fiscal sins: When health care and higher education and food and housing are “free” for so many, the cost borne by those who have the misfortune to be productive members of society (or, even more immorally, by our children), the economy struggles along with little growth or opportunity. Indeed, Barack Obama will likely be the first president since the Great Depression not to preside over a single year with at least 3 percent GDP growth. Sadly, many Americans have become partially numb to the Democrats’ economic evil through repeated exposure to revisionist terminology such as “the new normal.” The left’s apologists tell us that we can never go back to economic freedom and the opportunities that come with it. They tell us that without regulating every aspect of our economic lives, humans will destroy the planet and each other because we are inherently bad (and stupid) people. They tell you that “inequality” and “social justice” require that you sacrifice your productive life, your entrepreneurial aspirations, your desire to improve your situation and that of your children, to their financially and spiritually impoverishing ideology. Far too many have come to believe the left’s lies and manipulations, but the election of Donald Trump may be a once-in-a-generation wake-up call to throw off the shackles of economic evil. It’s generally not easy to measure the impact of terrible economic policies. After all, there is no parallel universe of the same economy operating under better policies to compare with. Or at least there hasn’t been until now. But the 2016 election has given us a glimpse into such a universe based on the reaction of financial markets to an election result that almost nobody expected. The latter point is crucial: The fact that markets saw a Trump victory as extremely unlikely means that one can reasonably attribute almost all of the change in the prices of stocks and yields of bonds since the election to market participants’ assessments of what Trump’s policies portend for economic growth (in excess of the dismal expectations under the likely-until-Election-Day continuation of Obamanomics by Hillary “Lurking in the Woods” Clinton.) So what are the markets telling us? Since the election, the yield on the US Government’s 10-year note has spiked upwards from about 1.86% to 2.48% as the market screams to investors “You’ll finally have better things to do with your capital than loan it to the government for a decade at less than 2 percent interest per year!” Typically, a sharp jump in long-term rates is accompanied by serious pain in the stock market. So what has happened to equity prices since November 8th? The widely followed S&P 500, an index of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States, is up about 5.5%. The Russell 2000 index of small-capitalization stocks — companies whose smaller size means that they suffer a disproportionate share of the cost of the regulatory state — is up more than twice that much. (The massive gain among small-company stocks bodes particularly well for business formation under a Trump presidency.) And the Wilshire 5000 index of all publicly traded American companies (actually only about 3,700 stocks) shows that investors in shares of American corporations have in just one month seen an increase in their aggregate asset values of approximately $1.75 trillion. No, that’s not a typo. That is nearly two trillion dollars more in the retirement accounts and investment accounts and college savings accounts of tens of millions of Americans, from the multi-millionaire demonized by Democrats to the pensions and 401(k)s of teachers and auto workers and political columnists. And this is all before our next president has even taken office. Donald Trump, due no doubt to his background in business rather than politics, has demonstrated a greater understanding than any other politician in memory of the devastation caused by over-regulation and internationally non-competitive corporate tax rates. It was remarkable to hear a presidential candidate campaign against regulation with more passion than even the most free-market-oriented Tea Party candidate for Congress. Trump isn’t backing off that rhetoric since his election, noting often that for many companies (or those who would like to create companies) the burden of regulation is even more harmful than the burden of taxation. Almost every time Mr. Trump opens his mouth about economic issues (other than trade), especially to announce the appointment of a person with actual experience in the actual economy to a position of influence over economic or labor policy, bond yields and stock prices simultaneously tick higher. It’s not so much that any one appointment makes an enormous difference to the economy; rather, each pro-business choice reinforces the signal that Trump is dead serious about these issues. The message couldn’t be clearer, yet is likely still not understood: Donald Trump does not represent the imposition of new economic policies as much as he signals the end of evil Democratic policies and a return to a modicum of economic freedom and regulatory rationality. As the always insightful economist Brian Wesbury put it, “instead of asking why the market is up, investors should be asking ‘Why wasn’t it rising more before?’” It is remarkable that (at least) $1.75 trillion of suffering is explained by a one-word answer: Obama. Stan Evans was right that Republicans are too often stupid. But Democratic politicians, while they can occasionally be stunningly moronic (see here and here for two of my favorite examples), suffer from a much more fatal flaw than stupidity: they, due to the policies they impose on an unwilling nation, are evil. It has taken the surprise election of a fierce and outspoken opponent of the regulatory state and its accompanying tax burden to let us measure just how evil.

www.spectator.org

right

AzEZ7Jq5xKfRmaiT

test

maUyCunCyNOYT38d

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Bobby-Jindal-America-Next/2015/02/26/id/627077/

Bobby Jindal: Americans Ready for Outsider to Make 'Big Changes'

2015-02-26

Sandy Fitzgerald

Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal says he 's still a few months away from an announcement about his potential 2016 presidential campaign , but the Republican state leader told ███ TV Thursday that he 's convinced Americans want an outsider to come in and `` make big changes , not incremental changes . `` `` We need a president who wants to do something , not be somebody , '' said Jindal , in an interview with `` MidPoint '' host Ed Berliner before his slated appearance later in the day at the Conservative Political Action Conference Jindal said he has spent the past year with a group , America Next , to discuss policy on healthcare , education , energy and more , and admits he 's biased toward a governor becoming the next president . `` They 've run things before , they want somebody who 's bold enough to tell the truth even if you get criticized by the left and the media who will stick to their guns , stick to their conservative principles , '' said Jindal , pointing out that he 's reduced the size of government in his home state and led to budget cuts of 26 percent that resulted in `` 30,000 fewer state government employees than the day I took office . '' Get ███ TV on your cable system – Click Here Now Washington needs such fiscal leadership to restore the American Dream , noting that his parents came from India in search of it . `` This president wants to redefine the American Dream to be all about redistribution and government growth and government spending , '' he told Berliner . `` That 's not the American Dream . The American Dream is the circumstances of your birth do n't determine your outcomes as an adult . The American Dream is that we promise equality of opportunity . If you 're willing to work hard , if you want to get a great education , there 's no limit to what you can do in this great country . `` And as such , it 's important for Republicans to win the election in 2016 , he said , and he is glad the GOP has `` a deep bench '' as he hopes `` voters can vote for somebody , not against somebody . `` Meanwhile , Jindal said he expects the Supreme Court to rule `` the correct way '' and against Obamacare federal subsidies . `` That means that the individual mandate for the most part 's gone , the employer mandate is done in those states , and that 's a huge victory and a huge opportunity to get rid of this awful law , '' said Jindal.But he 's worried that there are Republicans in Washington who say Obamacare ca n't be repealed , and `` they 're already wanting to give up before the fight starts . `` `` We do n't need a cheaper Democratic Party , we do n't need two liberal parties , '' said Jindal . `` This election , this last year , was n't about getting better office space for Speaker [ John ] Boehner and Sen. [ Mitch ] McConnell , it was really about standing up for conservative principles ... We do n't need Obamacare lite , we do n't need a cheaper version of that program . `` Jindal said last year , he put out a detailed plan about how to replace Obamacare , and whether his plan or another is used , `` it 's right that we do have an obligation to show how we would replace it . `` Jindal said his plan focuses on reducing costs , protecting the vulnerable , and not raising taxes or creating a new entitlement program.But D.C. Republicans are allowing President Barack Obama to `` dictate the terms '' on taxes , entitlement and more when it comes to Obamacare . `` What the American people want is they want affordability , they do n't want government bureaucrats between doctors and their patients , '' he said . `` We really have a chance here to repeal this entire awful law . What I do n't understand is when they were campaigning , there was no asterisk in those campaign ads saying , we 're just going to repeal the easy parts . `` Jindal said that the nation needs conservative leaders willing to stand up and tell the truth not only on Obamacare , but other issues such as terrorism . `` We 've got a president whose administration is saying foolish things like , well , we 're not going to win this war by killing our enemies , '' Jindal said . `` They 're saying things like we need a jobs program , we need better governance for these terrorists . That 's nonsense . We need to hunt them down , we need to kill them . `` Obama 's words on terrorism mean he 's unfit for office , Jindal insisted . `` He 's disqualified himself and I do n't take any pleasure in saying do n't say that for partisan or ideological reasons , '' Jindal told Berliner . `` One , he wo n't identify the enemy as radical Islamic terrorism . If you do n't call it for what it is , how can we beat this enemy ? Secondly , he seems more intent on bringing up things like the crusades and criticizing America . `` Jindal said he 'd be willing to make a deal with Obama : `` I 'll keep an eye out for medieval Christians if he will as commander-in-chief take the fight to the radical Islamic terrorists , hunt them down and eliminate them . `` The war against the Islamic State wo n't be over , Jindal said , until `` we 've finished hunting them down and killing them . `` There ca n't be a political timeline to appease the left , said Jindal , but still Congress needs to give Obama more authority on ISIS than he 's asking for.Obama also does not like to say the words `` radical Islamic terrorism '' and acts like terrorists ' actions are matters for the criminal justice system , complained Jindal.Jindal said he is also concerned about long-term threats , including the potential for Iran to become a nuclear power . `` I worry that this president 's hesitancy to take on ISIS fully may be tied to his desire to get an overarching deal with Iran , '' said Jindal . `` The reason I say that , I believe Turkey would be willing to commit more ground troops , support and resources if they were convinced that America was truly committed to removing Assad in Syria . ''

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he's still a few months away from an announcement about his potential 2016 presidential campaign, but the Republican state leader told Newsmax TV Thursday that he's convinced Americans want an outsider to come in and "make big changes, not incremental changes.""We need a president who wants to do something, not be somebody," said Jindal, in an interview with "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner before his slated appearance later in the day at the Conservative Political Action Conference Jindal said he has spent the past year with a group, America Next, to discuss policy on healthcare, education, energy and more, and admits he's biased toward a governor becoming the next president."They've run things before, they want somebody who's bold enough to tell the truth even if you get criticized by the left and the media who will stick to their guns, stick to their conservative principles," said Jindal, pointing out that he's reduced the size of government in his home state and led to budget cuts of 26 percent that resulted in "30,000 fewer state government employees than the day I took office." Story continues below video. Note: Watch Newsmax TV now on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH Ch. 223 Get Newsmax TV on your cable system – Click Here Now Washington needs such fiscal leadership to restore the American Dream, noting that his parents came from India in search of it."This president wants to redefine the American Dream to be all about redistribution and government growth and government spending," he told Berliner. "That's not the American Dream. The American Dream is the circumstances of your birth don't determine your outcomes as an adult. The American Dream is that we promise equality of opportunity. If you're willing to work hard, if you want to get a great education, there's no limit to what you can do in this great country."And as such, it's important for Republicans to win the election in 2016, he said, and he is glad the GOP has "a deep bench" as he hopes "voters can vote for somebody, not against somebody."Meanwhile, Jindal said he expects the Supreme Court to rule "the correct way" and against Obamacare federal subsidies."That means that the individual mandate for the most part's gone, the employer mandate is done in those states, and that's a huge victory and a huge opportunity to get rid of this awful law," said Jindal.But he's worried that there are Republicans in Washington who say Obamacare can't be repealed, and "they're already wanting to give up before the fight starts.""We don't need a cheaper Democratic Party, we don't need two liberal parties," said Jindal. "This election, this last year, wasn't about getting better office space for Speaker [John] Boehner and Sen. [Mitch] McConnell, it was really about standing up for conservative principles...We don't need Obamacare lite, we don't need a cheaper version of that program."Jindal said last year, he put out a detailed plan about how to replace Obamacare, and whether his plan or another is used, "it's right that we do have an obligation to show how we would replace it."Jindal said his plan focuses on reducing costs, protecting the vulnerable, and not raising taxes or creating a new entitlement program.But D.C. Republicans are allowing President Barack Obama to "dictate the terms" on taxes, entitlement and more when it comes to Obamacare."What the American people want is they want affordability, they don't want government bureaucrats between doctors and their patients," he said. "We really have a chance here to repeal this entire awful law. What I don't understand is when they were campaigning, there was no asterisk in those campaign ads saying, we're just going to repeal the easy parts."Jindal said that the nation needs conservative leaders willing to stand up and tell the truth not only on Obamacare, but other issues such as terrorism."We've got a president whose administration is saying foolish things like, well, we're not going to win this war by killing our enemies," Jindal said. "They're saying things like we need a jobs program, we need better governance for these terrorists. That's nonsense. We need to hunt them down, we need to kill them."Obama's words on terrorism mean he's unfit for office, Jindal insisted."He's disqualified himself and I don't take any pleasure in saying don't say that for partisan or ideological reasons," Jindal told Berliner. "One, he won't identify the enemy as radical Islamic terrorism. If you don't call it for what it is, how can we beat this enemy? Secondly, he seems more intent on bringing up things like the crusades and criticizing America."Jindal said he'd be willing to make a deal with Obama: "I'll keep an eye out for medieval Christians if he will as commander-in-chief take the fight to the radical Islamic terrorists, hunt them down and eliminate them."The war against the Islamic State won't be over, Jindal said, until "we've finished hunting them down and killing them."There can't be a political timeline to appease the left, said Jindal, but still Congress needs to give Obama more authority on ISIS than he's asking for.Obama also does not like to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism" and acts like terrorists' actions are matters for the criminal justice system, complained Jindal.Jindal said he is also concerned about long-term threats, including the potential for Iran to become a nuclear power."I worry that this president's hesitancy to take on ISIS fully may be tied to his desire to get an overarching deal with Iran," said Jindal. "The reason I say that, I believe Turkey would be willing to commit more ground troops, support and resources if they were convinced that America was truly committed to removing Assad in Syria."

www.newsmax.com

right

maUyCunCyNOYT38d

test

rrBRgwGh62DiAq91

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/february/did-trump-give-democrats-ammunition-to-block-his-emergency-declaration

Did Trump Give Democrats Ammunition to Block His Emergency Declaration?

2019-02-18

Democrats are preparing a full-court press against President Donald Trump 's declaration of a national emergency along the US border with Mexico . Since the president made the declaration Friday , opponents in Congress and the states are lining up to fight Trump 's effort to fund the border wall . President Trump is trying to fund the border wall with Defense and Treasury Department funds , but it 's not going to happen without a fight . Democrats are lining up to oppose the president 's emergency declaration from multiple lawsuits to resolutions in both houses of Congress . Sen. Tammy Duckworth ( D-IL ) said on ABC 's `` This Week '' , `` I think there 's enough people in the Senate who are concerned that what he 's doing is robbing from the military and the DOD to go and build this wall . '' And Democrats are pointing at a particular comment the president made from the White House Friday , arguing it 's evidence that this is n't a real emergency . `` I could do the wall over a longer period of time . I did n't need to do this , but I 'd rather do it much faster , '' Trump said . Resolutions terminating the emergency declaration could pass the House and Senate , given the number of Republicans who also oppose the declaration . But key staffers say the president would certainly veto the move , and that veto would stand because there are n't enough votes to override it . `` He 's going to protect his national emergency declaration , guaranteed , '' said Stephen Miller , senior White House policy adviser , on `` Fox News Sunday '' . Even supporters who agree there needs to be a wall say it wo n't be easy . `` This is gon na be a slow process ; it 's gon na go to the courts , '' Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) said . `` But better to start that process so that we can ultimately get there than to not start it at all . '' California and other states are planning to sue in federal court , along with the ACLU . California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said , `` He himself said it , he did not need to announce or declare a crisis . He did not have to call this an emergency . '' As for the funding coming from the national defense , acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters he 's not sure the wall is a `` military necessity '' or how much funding the Pentagon would give toward it .

Democrats are preparing a full-court press against President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency along the US border with Mexico. Since the president made the declaration Friday, opponents in Congress and the states are lining up to fight Trump's effort to fund the border wall. President Trump is trying to fund the border wall with Defense and Treasury Department funds, but it's not going to happen without a fight. Democrats are lining up to oppose the president's emergency declaration from multiple lawsuits to resolutions in both houses of Congress. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said on ABC's "This Week", "I think there's enough people in the Senate who are concerned that what he's doing is robbing from the military and the DOD to go and build this wall." And Democrats are pointing at a particular comment the president made from the White House Friday, arguing it's evidence that this isn't a real emergency. "I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster," Trump said. Resolutions terminating the emergency declaration could pass the House and Senate, given the number of Republicans who also oppose the declaration. But key staffers say the president would certainly veto the move, and that veto would stand because there aren't enough votes to override it. "He's going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed," said Stephen Miller, senior White House policy adviser, on "Fox News Sunday". Even supporters who agree there needs to be a wall say it won't be easy. "This is gonna be a slow process; it's gonna go to the courts," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said. "But better to start that process so that we can ultimately get there than to not start it at all." California and other states are planning to sue in federal court, along with the ACLU. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said, "He himself said it, he did not need to announce or declare a crisis. He did not have to call this an emergency." As for the funding coming from the national defense, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters he's not sure the wall is a "military necessity" or how much funding the Pentagon would give toward it.

www1.cbn.com

right

rrBRgwGh62DiAq91

test

JQfh0VX5V0vhBiy5

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/01/forced-spending-cuts-begin-today/?hpt=hp_t1

The day that was never supposed to happen is here

2013-03-01

( CNN ) - Today is the day lawmakers have known about since August 2011 : the day those forced federal spending cuts kick in . This Friday is also a day many never expected would come . After all , the cuts known as sequestration were designed to be so draconian that lawmakers would be forced to compromise and avoid them . But they haven ’ t , and as lawmakers left Washington to begin their weekend on Thursday , so left any prospect of avoiding the cuts that President Barack Obama and his administration have warned will lead to long airport lines and fewer air traffic safety controllers ; federal government furloughs and layoffs ; cuts to food inspection and border security programs ; and education funding decreases that will shut young students out of Head Start programs . For all of the dire warnings , Obama acknowledged Wednesday that the cuts are “ not a cliff , but it is a tumble downward. ” He ’ ll set the cuts in motion on Friday with a stroke of his pen . He is required to sign an order enacting the spending cuts by 11:59 p.m. Friday and will do so privately , White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday . Before that happens , Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will meet with top congressional leaders : Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , House Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi . But Friday is seen by many as too late to reach a deal averting the cuts , especially with Congress out of town for the weekend . After Obama signs the order , the Office of Management and Budget will send to Congress a detailed accounting of the cuts – how much from which agencies and which accounts . Every `` program , project and activity '' has to be trimmed without regard for what it is , according to the OMB . Those who are employed by the government or rely on federal agencies ’ spending are expected to feel the effects first . From there , the effects of the sequester will ripple outward across the economy . The Obama administration has said the law gives them no leeway to spare one budget line at the expense of another , and insiders expect the cuts to be about 9 % for nondefense programs and 13 % for defense accounts . What agencies do have some discretion over is how they roll out the cuts . In some cases , furloughs and other cuts could be backloaded , scheduling them to take effect at a greater rate later in the year in hopes that Congress will reach a deal to replace the sequester that has so far been elusive . OMB sent affected federal agencies a letter on Wednesday reminding them to prepare for the cuts . Some agencies have already given employees their official 30-day notice of upcoming furloughs . Others are expected to follow soon , and budget uncertainty has already caused some agencies to cut back . Congress delayed the cuts from triggering in January at the time of the fiscal cliff . The two month delay from January 1 to March 1 , however , made the cuts steeper than the original 5 % for nondefense spending and 8 % for defense programs . Not everyone is convinced these forced spending cuts are a bad idea . Some deficit hawks see them as one way to reduce ballooning federal spending and others who favor reducing military spending see their virtue , too . Altogether , the cuts will amount to some $ 85 billion dollars this fiscal year , which ends September 30 . While today means the end to one fiscal showdown , fans of Washington financial wrangling have another date to anticipate : March 27 . That ’ s the deadline for Congress to extend the continuing resolution that ’ s funding the government . - CNNMoney.com ’ s Jeanne Sahadi and CNN ’ s Gregory Wallace contributed to this report

7 years ago (CNN) - Today is the day lawmakers have known about since August 2011: the day those forced federal spending cuts kick in. This Friday is also a day many never expected would come. After all, the cuts known as sequestration were designed to be so draconian that lawmakers would be forced to compromise and avoid them. But they haven’t, and as lawmakers left Washington to begin their weekend on Thursday, so left any prospect of avoiding the cuts that President Barack Obama and his administration have warned will lead to long airport lines and fewer air traffic safety controllers; federal government furloughs and layoffs; cuts to food inspection and border security programs; and education funding decreases that will shut young students out of Head Start programs. For all of the dire warnings, Obama acknowledged Wednesday that the cuts are “not a cliff, but it is a tumble downward.” He’ll set the cuts in motion on Friday with a stroke of his pen. He is required to sign an order enacting the spending cuts by 11:59 p.m. Friday and will do so privately, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday. Before that happens, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will meet with top congressional leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But Friday is seen by many as too late to reach a deal averting the cuts, especially with Congress out of town for the weekend. After Obama signs the order, the Office of Management and Budget will send to Congress a detailed accounting of the cuts – how much from which agencies and which accounts. Every "program, project and activity" has to be trimmed without regard for what it is, according to the OMB. Those who are employed by the government or rely on federal agencies’ spending are expected to feel the effects first. From there, the effects of the sequester will ripple outward across the economy. The Obama administration has said the law gives them no leeway to spare one budget line at the expense of another, and insiders expect the cuts to be about 9% for nondefense programs and 13% for defense accounts. What agencies do have some discretion over is how they roll out the cuts. In some cases, furloughs and other cuts could be backloaded, scheduling them to take effect at a greater rate later in the year in hopes that Congress will reach a deal to replace the sequester that has so far been elusive. OMB sent affected federal agencies a letter on Wednesday reminding them to prepare for the cuts. Some agencies have already given employees their official 30-day notice of upcoming furloughs. Others are expected to follow soon, and budget uncertainty has already caused some agencies to cut back. Congress delayed the cuts from triggering in January at the time of the fiscal cliff. The two month delay from January 1 to March 1, however, made the cuts steeper than the original 5% for nondefense spending and 8% for defense programs. Not everyone is convinced these forced spending cuts are a bad idea. Some deficit hawks see them as one way to reduce ballooning federal spending and others who favor reducing military spending see their virtue, too. Altogether, the cuts will amount to some $85 billion dollars this fiscal year, which ends September 30. While today means the end to one fiscal showdown, fans of Washington financial wrangling have another date to anticipate: March 27. That’s the deadline for Congress to extend the continuing resolution that’s funding the government. - CNNMoney.com’s Jeanne Sahadi and CNN’s Gregory Wallace contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

JQfh0VX5V0vhBiy5

test

9hppalCCCPmzFTJ3

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/media-curiously-incurious-about-mlk-story/

Media Curiously Incurious About MLK Story

Daniel J. Flynn, Debra J. Saunders, Geoff Shepard, Stuart Schwartz, Dov Fischer, Veronique De Rugy

The FBI investigated him under the pretext that his aides included people loyal to the Russian government rather than their own . They used electronic surveillance to spy on him . They pored over salacious material of a sexual nature . The administration that initially authorized the spying denied , denied , denied . The parallels between the peeping-tom state that surveilled Donald Trump in 2016 and Martin Luther King more than a half-century earlier appear uncanny . Those parallels diverge when it comes to the mass media covering the ill-gotten , and surely in some cases false , information . The UK ’ s Guardian commissioned David Garrow , a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Martin Luther King , to write an article detailing his shocking discoveries about the civil rights leader ’ s behind-closed-doors behavior , before pulling out with a kill fee . “ Garrow had similar experiences with the Atlantic magazine and with the Washington Post — both of which he had written for before , ” Michael Mosbacher writes at Standpoint , which publishes the controversial article on Thursday . “ Conservative magazines in the US also felt the story was too risky to run . The same response came from a web magazine whose raison d ’ être is to fight for free speech . When Standpoint decided to publish it , the longest essay we have ever run , I approached a prominent British historian to write an article putting the revelations into context . The response : ‘ No way ! I ’ ll try to think of someone else who has the guts to drink from that particular poisoned chalice . ’ ” The revelations say something unpleasant both about King and the FBI , which bugged hotel rooms where he slept and expected privacy . Surely if a private citizen acted in the way FBI agents did their names would eventually appear on a sex-offender registry . Law enforcement officers listening to what they characterized as a rape without intervening exposes the prurient nature of the investigation . “ Well , the FBI is — from J. Edgar Hoover ( why is his name still on the building ? ) to James Comey — a government unto itself , as we have been constantly reminded of late , ” Roger Simon , a 1960s civil rights activist , writes at PJMedia . “ Let us hope they , and others , get the mammoth house cleaning they deserve . ” But King ’ s antagonists remain mostly anonymous and beyond accountability ; the Baptist minister ’ s deeds appear in publications around the world — but not much in the nation King called home . A Google search shows Garrow ’ s research making headlines in India , the UK , Russia , and points beyond . In the United States , listen to the crickets . This says something about the curiously incurious American media . American journalists , who normally salivate over throwing mud on historical figures and find themselves in hysteria mode over the sexual conduct of comedians , producers , anchormen , and those far lower on the totem pole than King , balk at reporting on the finds of a writer to whom they once awarded a Pulitzer . # ThemToo . Apart from King emerging as a secular saint posthumously , making unflattering truths a sort of blasphemy , the allegations put off because they strike as so off putting . Nobody , perhaps least of all Garrow — a member of the Democratic Socialists of America — wants to write something nasty about a man responsible for so much good . The allegations make one feel ill in a literal sense . “ The FBI document says : ‘ When one of the women protested that she did not approve , the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her ’ as King watched , ” the Daily Mail reports . “ He is alleged to have ‘ looked on , laughed and offered advice ’ during the encounter . ” King allegedly participated in an orgy along with a dozen others the following day . When one female expressed skittishness , King informed her that participating “ would help your soul . ” “ I always thought there were 10-12 other women , ” the London Times quotes Garrow as saying , “ not 40-45. ” He comes to this conclusion after reading FBI summaries of audio surveillance of King . The tapes remain under lock-and-key at the National Archives until 2027 . Raw FBI reports , particularly ones that rely on informants , often relay gossip and rumors and lies told by those looking for some advantage . Because these reports come straight from audio tapes , their level of authenticity , one presumes , likely rises to a higher level than other information gathered by the bureau . Perhaps the summaries exaggerate the bad , and in some cases criminal , behavior on the tapes . But did agents really just make it all up ? Surely , some of the participants still live to refute or corroborate the allegations . Beyond this , a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian so obviously sympathetic to King and his aims vouching for the information grants it credibility . “ It poses so fundamental a challenge to his historical stature , ” Garrow says of what he saw in the archives , “ as to require the most complete and extensive historical review possible . ” Martin Luther King may or may not be , as Standpoint editorializes , “ the Harvey Weinstein of the civil rights movement. ” But he ’ s not Donald Trump , which helps explain the journalistic indifference .

The FBI investigated him under the pretext that his aides included people loyal to the Russian government rather than their own. They used electronic surveillance to spy on him. They pored over salacious material of a sexual nature. The administration that initially authorized the spying denied, denied, denied. Sound familiar? The parallels between the peeping-tom state that surveilled Donald Trump in 2016 and Martin Luther King more than a half-century earlier appear uncanny. Those parallels diverge when it comes to the mass media covering the ill-gotten, and surely in some cases false, information. The UK’s Guardian commissioned David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Martin Luther King, to write an article detailing his shocking discoveries about the civil rights leader’s behind-closed-doors behavior, before pulling out with a kill fee. “Garrow had similar experiences with the Atlantic magazine and with the Washington Post — both of which he had written for before,” Michael Mosbacher writes at Standpoint, which publishes the controversial article on Thursday. “Conservative magazines in the US also felt the story was too risky to run. The same response came from a web magazine whose raison d’être is to fight for free speech. When Standpoint decided to publish it, the longest essay we have ever run, I approached a prominent British historian to write an article putting the revelations into context. The response: ‘No way! I’ll try to think of someone else who has the guts to drink from that particular poisoned chalice.’” The revelations say something unpleasant both about King and the FBI, which bugged hotel rooms where he slept and expected privacy. Surely if a private citizen acted in the way FBI agents did their names would eventually appear on a sex-offender registry. Law enforcement officers listening to what they characterized as a rape without intervening exposes the prurient nature of the investigation. “Well, the FBI is — from J. Edgar Hoover (why is his name still on the building?) to James Comey — a government unto itself, as we have been constantly reminded of late,” Roger Simon, a 1960s civil rights activist, writes at PJMedia. “Let us hope they, and others, get the mammoth house cleaning they deserve.” But King’s antagonists remain mostly anonymous and beyond accountability; the Baptist minister’s deeds appear in publications around the world — but not much in the nation King called home. A Google search shows Garrow’s research making headlines in India, the UK, Russia, and points beyond. In the United States, listen to the crickets. This says something about the curiously incurious American media. American journalists, who normally salivate over throwing mud on historical figures and find themselves in hysteria mode over the sexual conduct of comedians, producers, anchormen, and those far lower on the totem pole than King, balk at reporting on the finds of a writer to whom they once awarded a Pulitzer. #ThemToo. Apart from King emerging as a secular saint posthumously, making unflattering truths a sort of blasphemy, the allegations put off because they strike as so off putting. Nobody, perhaps least of all Garrow — a member of the Democratic Socialists of America — wants to write something nasty about a man responsible for so much good. The allegations make one feel ill in a literal sense. “The FBI document says: ‘When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her’ as King watched,” the Daily Mail reports. “He is alleged to have ‘looked on, laughed and offered advice’ during the encounter.” King allegedly participated in an orgy along with a dozen others the following day. When one female expressed skittishness, King informed her that participating “would help your soul.” “I always thought there were 10-12 other women,” the London Times quotes Garrow as saying, “not 40-45.” He comes to this conclusion after reading FBI summaries of audio surveillance of King. The tapes remain under lock-and-key at the National Archives until 2027. Raw FBI reports, particularly ones that rely on informants, often relay gossip and rumors and lies told by those looking for some advantage. Because these reports come straight from audio tapes, their level of authenticity, one presumes, likely rises to a higher level than other information gathered by the bureau. Perhaps the summaries exaggerate the bad, and in some cases criminal, behavior on the tapes. But did agents really just make it all up? Surely, some of the participants still live to refute or corroborate the allegations. Beyond this, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian so obviously sympathetic to King and his aims vouching for the information grants it credibility. “It poses so fundamental a challenge to his historical stature,” Garrow says of what he saw in the archives, “as to require the most complete and extensive historical review possible.” Martin Luther King may or may not be, as Standpoint editorializes, “the Harvey Weinstein of the civil rights movement.” But he’s not Donald Trump, which helps explain the journalistic indifference.

www.spectator.org

right

9hppalCCCPmzFTJ3

test

gEj5U8MMbfpModnS

fbi

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/13/joe-biden-james-comey-john-brennan-unmasked-michael-flynn/

Biden, Comey, Brennan Submitted Flynn ‘Unmasking’ Requests

2020-05-13

Former Vice President Joe Biden and the directors of the three main U.S. intelligence agencies submitted so-called “ unmasking ” requests for information about Michael Flynn contained in highly classified intelligence reports , according to documents released Wednesday . The documents show that an unmasking request was made in Biden ’ s name on Jan. 12 , 2017 . Similar requests were made under the names of James Comey , John Brennan and James Clapper , the former directors of the FBI , CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence , respectively . Denis McDonough , who served as chief of staff to President Obama , also submitted a request on Jan. 5 , 2017 , the documents show . Unmasking describes the process whereby high-level U.S. government officials request information regarding American citizens mentioned in classified foreign intelligence reports . It is not illegal to make unmasking requests , but the Flynn case is unique because information about phone calls he had with Russia ’ s ambassador was leaked to the media during the presidential transition period . David Ignatius , a Washington Post columnist , mentioned the call in a Jan. 12 , 2017 , column . ( RELATED : Documents Shed Light On Media Leak Central To Michael Flynn Case ) Sens . Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released the list of names on Wednesday . Richard Grenell , the acting director of national intelligence , declassified the information last Thursday , and provided it to the senators this week . Paul Nakasone , the director of the National Security Agency ( NSA ) provided the list to Grenell on May 1 . It is not clear whether Biden or others who submitted the unmasking requests saw the information related to Flynn . The document released on Wednesday said that the unmasking requests were made under 16 different government officials ’ names for an unspecified number of intelligence reports . “ Below is a list of recipients who may have received Lt. Gen Flynn ’ s identity in response to a request processed between 8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 to unmask an identity that had been generically referred to in an NSA foreign intelligence report , ” the document stated . “ While the principals are identified below , we can not confirm they saw the unmasked information . ” The list includes several high-profile Obama administration figures , including Brennan , Clapper and Biden . But also includes lesser known officials at the Treasury Department and State Department . A flurry of requests were submitted in mid-December 2016 , the records show . Republicans have focused on the unmasking issue to try to figure out who leaked information about communications that Flynn had in late December 2016 with Sergey Kislyak , who then served as Russian ambassador to the U.S . Kislyak contacted Flynn on Dec. 28 , 2016 , the same day that the Obama administration ordered 35 Russian diplomats to leave the U.S. because of Russian hacking during the presidential campaign . The records do not settle the question of who made the unmasking request for information from Kislyak ’ s communications with Flynn . Comey suggested in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on March 2 , 2017 that someone in the FBI made the request that revealed that Flynn spoke with Kislyak . Clapper submitted an unmasking request on Dec. 28 , 2016 , according to the declassified documents . But Clapper suggested in testimony to the House Intelligence panel that the FBI submitted the request regarding the Kislyak phone calls . “ I don ’ t know the circumstances of the unmasking , you know . That ’ s a better question to direct to the FBI or the DOJ , ” Clapper told the House panel on July 17 , 2017 . The declassified records list Comey as the only FBI official to make an unmasking request for Flynn records . That request was submitted on Dec. 15 , 2016 , two weeks before Flynn spoke with Kislyak . John Bass , who served as U.S. ambassador to Turkey , submitted a request for Flynn information on Dec. 28 , 2016 . The next request was not submitted until McDonough , the White House chief of staff , did so on Jan. 5 , 2017 . McDonough did not respond to a request for comment . The Biden campaign also did not respond to a request for comment . Days after Flynn ’ s contacts with Kislyak , FBI and Justice Department officials began discussing whether Flynn violated the Logan Act , an obscure law that prohibits American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments regarding U.S. government policy . FBI officials arranged to interview Flynn regarding his contacts with Kislyak . The retired lieutenant general ended up pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI during that interview , which was conducted at the White House on Jan. 24 , 2017 . The Justice Department filed a motion to drop the case against Flynn on May 7 after the discovery of FBI documents related to the Flynn investigation . One document was an FBI memo dated Jan. 4 , 2017 that authorized the closure of a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn . The memo said that the FBI found no evidence that Flynn was working as an agent of Russia . The bureau had investigated Flynn and three other Trump associates for possible Russia ties since August 2016 . Grenell , who also serves as ambassador to Germany , took the list of names to the Justice Department last week asking for the information to be released to the public . Grenell has been behind a recent push to declassify and release documents related to the FBI ’ s investigation of Trump associates . He was involved in the process of declassifying footnotes from a Justice Department inspector general ’ s report on the investigation . Those footnotes showed that the FBI received evidence in 2017 that Russian intelligence operatives might have fed disinformation to Christopher Steele , the author of a dossier that accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Kremlin . Grenell also recently pressured House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to release 53 transcripts of interviews that the committee conducted as part of its own Russia probe . The transcripts showed that Obama officials such as James Clapper , Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes had not seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia by the time they left office .

Former Vice President Joe Biden and the directors of the three main U.S. intelligence agencies submitted so-called “unmasking” requests for information about Michael Flynn contained in highly classified intelligence reports, according to documents released Wednesday. The documents show that an unmasking request was made in Biden’s name on Jan. 12, 2017. Similar requests were made under the names of James Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper, the former directors of the FBI, CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, respectively. Denis McDonough, who served as chief of staff to President Obama, also submitted a request on Jan. 5, 2017, the documents show. Unmasking describes the process whereby high-level U.S. government officials request information regarding American citizens mentioned in classified foreign intelligence reports. It is not illegal to make unmasking requests, but the Flynn case is unique because information about phone calls he had with Russia’s ambassador was leaked to the media during the presidential transition period. David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist, mentioned the call in a Jan. 12, 2017, column. (RELATED: Documents Shed Light On Media Leak Central To Michael Flynn Case) Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released the list of names on Wednesday. Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, declassified the information last Thursday, and provided it to the senators this week. Paul Nakasone, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) provided the list to Grenell on May 1. It is not clear whether Biden or others who submitted the unmasking requests saw the information related to Flynn. The document released on Wednesday said that the unmasking requests were made under 16 different government officials’ names for an unspecified number of intelligence reports. “Below is a list of recipients who may have received Lt. Gen Flynn’s identity in response to a request processed between 8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 to unmask an identity that had been generically referred to in an NSA foreign intelligence report,” the document stated. “While the principals are identified below, we cannot confirm they saw the unmasked information.” The list includes several high-profile Obama administration figures, including Brennan, Clapper and Biden. But also includes lesser known officials at the Treasury Department and State Department. A flurry of requests were submitted in mid-December 2016, the records show. Republicans have focused on the unmasking issue to try to figure out who leaked information about communications that Flynn had in late December 2016 with Sergey Kislyak, who then served as Russian ambassador to the U.S. Kislyak contacted Flynn on Dec. 28, 2016, the same day that the Obama administration ordered 35 Russian diplomats to leave the U.S. because of Russian hacking during the presidential campaign. The records do not settle the question of who made the unmasking request for information from Kislyak’s communications with Flynn. Comey suggested in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on March 2, 2017 that someone in the FBI made the request that revealed that Flynn spoke with Kislyak. Clapper submitted an unmasking request on Dec. 28, 2016, according to the declassified documents. But Clapper suggested in testimony to the House Intelligence panel that the FBI submitted the request regarding the Kislyak phone calls. “I don’t know the circumstances of the unmasking, you know. That’s a better question to direct to the FBI or the DOJ,” Clapper told the House panel on July 17, 2017. The declassified records list Comey as the only FBI official to make an unmasking request for Flynn records. That request was submitted on Dec. 15, 2016, two weeks before Flynn spoke with Kislyak. John Bass, who served as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, submitted a request for Flynn information on Dec. 28, 2016. The next request was not submitted until McDonough, the White House chief of staff, did so on Jan. 5, 2017. McDonough did not respond to a request for comment. The Biden campaign also did not respond to a request for comment. Days after Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak, FBI and Justice Department officials began discussing whether Flynn violated the Logan Act, an obscure law that prohibits American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments regarding U.S. government policy. FBI officials arranged to interview Flynn regarding his contacts with Kislyak. The retired lieutenant general ended up pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI during that interview, which was conducted at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017. The Justice Department filed a motion to drop the case against Flynn on May 7 after the discovery of FBI documents related to the Flynn investigation. One document was an FBI memo dated Jan. 4, 2017 that authorized the closure of a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn. The memo said that the FBI found no evidence that Flynn was working as an agent of Russia. The bureau had investigated Flynn and three other Trump associates for possible Russia ties since August 2016. Grenell, who also serves as ambassador to Germany, took the list of names to the Justice Department last week asking for the information to be released to the public. Grenell has been behind a recent push to declassify and release documents related to the FBI’s investigation of Trump associates. He was involved in the process of declassifying footnotes from a Justice Department inspector general’s report on the investigation. Those footnotes showed that the FBI received evidence in 2017 that Russian intelligence operatives might have fed disinformation to Christopher Steele, the author of a dossier that accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Kremlin. Grenell also recently pressured House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to release 53 transcripts of interviews that the committee conducted as part of its own Russia probe. The transcripts showed that Obama officials such as James Clapper, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes had not seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia by the time they left office. 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

gEj5U8MMbfpModnS

test

oBrADeuqhgfOXhG4

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/18/hillary-clinton-announces-support-for-same-sex-marriage/?hpt=po_c2

Hillary Clinton announces support for same-sex marriage

2013-03-18

Washington ( CNN ) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced for the first time Monday she supports marriage rights for same-sex couples , saying that `` gay rights are human rights , and human rights are gay rights . '' `` America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being , '' Clinton said in a video produced by the Human Rights Campaign , a pro-same-sex marriage advocacy group . The former first lady , U.S. senator , and 2008 presidential candidate had previously backed civil unions and partner benefits for same-sex couples , but had stopped short of a full endorsement for marriage . That was the position of most Democratic primary candidates that year , including President Barack Obama . During her tenure as secretary of state , Clinton avoided taking political positions , as is customary for the role . Her husband , former President Bill Clinton , wrote in an opinion article last week that he supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act , the law he signed in 1996 that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman . It also denies federal benefits to same-sex couples in the nine states where same-sex couples can now legally wed . In the video released Monday , Hillary Clinton said her time traveling the world as America 's top diplomat `` inspired and challenged me to think anew about who we are , and the values we represent to the world . '' Those values , she said , must include full equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans to marry . `` Full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship , '' she said . `` That includes marriage . That 's why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples . I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law . '' Clinton had previously hinted at her support for marriage rights , speaking favorably of New York 's law permitting marriages between same-sex couples . It also brings her in line with major figures in the Democratic Party , including Obama , who came out in support of marriage rights last May . Democrats also included a plank in their party platform at last summer 's convention supporting same-sex marriage . Clinton 's public backing of same-sex marriage comes as the Supreme Court prepares to tackle the issue this spring . Last year the high court agreed to hear two constitutional challenges to state and federal laws dealing with the recognition of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed . Oral arguments will be held on March 26 and 27 , with a ruling by late June . In her video , Clinton called marriage `` a fundamental building block of our society , '' and with a knowing laugh , called marriage `` a great joy and yes , a great responsibility . '' `` A few years ago , Bill and I celebrated as our own daughter married the love of her life , and I wish every parent that same joy , '' she said .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced for the first time Monday she supports marriage rights for same-sex couples, saying that "gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights." "America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being," Clinton said in a video produced by the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-same-sex marriage advocacy group. The former first lady, U.S. senator, and 2008 presidential candidate had previously backed civil unions and partner benefits for same-sex couples, but had stopped short of a full endorsement for marriage. That was the position of most Democratic primary candidates that year, including President Barack Obama. During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton avoided taking political positions, as is customary for the role. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, wrote in an opinion article last week that he supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the law he signed in 1996 that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. It also denies federal benefits to same-sex couples in the nine states where same-sex couples can now legally wed. In the video released Monday, Hillary Clinton said her time traveling the world as America's top diplomat "inspired and challenged me to think anew about who we are, and the values we represent to the world." Those values, she said, must include full equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans to marry. "Full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship," she said. "That includes marriage. That's why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law." Clinton had previously hinted at her support for marriage rights, speaking favorably of New York's law permitting marriages between same-sex couples. It also brings her in line with major figures in the Democratic Party, including Obama, who came out in support of marriage rights last May. Democrats also included a plank in their party platform at last summer's convention supporting same-sex marriage. Clinton's public backing of same-sex marriage comes as the Supreme Court prepares to tackle the issue this spring. Last year the high court agreed to hear two constitutional challenges to state and federal laws dealing with the recognition of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed. Oral arguments will be held on March 26 and 27, with a ruling by late June. In her video, Clinton called marriage "a fundamental building block of our society," and with a knowing laugh, called marriage "a great joy and yes, a great responsibility." "A few years ago, Bill and I celebrated as our own daughter married the love of her life, and I wish every parent that same joy," she said.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

oBrADeuqhgfOXhG4

test

TXXaUbCA65ef5Gnp

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Nevada-Senate-Reid/2015/03/28/id/635044/

Nevada's Popular GOP Gov. Sandoval Leads List to Replace Reid in Senate

2015-03-28

Michael R. Blood, Kimberly Pierceall

LAS VEGAS — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid 's decision to retire next year leaves no clear successor in his home state of Nevada , where a popular Republican governor appears reluctant to change jobs and the pending loss of Reid 's clout in Washington is causing anxiety over who might replace him . As of Friday , the list of potential candidates came down to Gov . Brian Sandoval and everyone else . The political centrist who was easily re-elected last year is likely to face intense pressure from national Republicans and business interests to pick up where Reid leaves off on Capitol Hill . Sandoval did n't deliver an unequivocal `` no '' Friday but he made clear the 2016 contest was n't on his current agenda . `` My focus is in on Nevada , period . Politics can take care of itself , but right now I am absolutely laser-focused on getting my budget through and improving education in Nevada , '' he said . Reid , the longtime Senate Democratic leader , quickly blessed former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to run for his seat , while Rep. Dina Titus , another Democrat , said she would consider a bid . Among Republicans , other possibilities are Rep. Joe Heck , Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt and former Lt. Gov . Brian Krolicki . `` The major decision will be made by Brian Sandoval , '' said political scientist Eric Herzik , who teaches at the University of Nevada , Reno . `` If he jumps in , this race tips overwhelmingly to the Republicans . '' The Nevada campaign will inevitably figure in the fight for control of the Senate . In a video statement Friday , Reid said Democrats must retake the majority and `` it is inappropriate for me to soak up all those resources '' to defend his seat . Awkward in public , clumsy with words , the 75-year-old Reid never was a beloved figure at home . He survived a brutal re-election campaign in 2010 , when angry voters turned on him in the aftermath of the recession . He 's been in the Senate since the Reagan era . But he helped deliver victories for President Barack Obama , including on national health care reform , and his name is affiliated with a long string of wins in Nevada , from development on the Las Vegas Strip to Yucca Mountain , which he helped stop after it was approved by Congress as a nuclear dump in 2002 . Reid lost his role as Senate majority leader when last fall 's elections swept Republicans into power . He suffered serious eye and facial injuries on New Year 's Day while exercising at his Nevada home . Las Vegas native Daniel Bastardo , smoking a cigarette during a break from his casino security job , said it was going to be hard to replace the man who proved Sin City was worthy of political respect . `` You got ta hang up your hat at some point , '' said the 28-year-old Democrat , understanding Reid 's desire to retire . `` I 'm worried who 's going to represent us now . '' The sense of looming loss was felt around the state . With Reid 's pending departure , Nevada will be without its most experienced hand on Capitol Hill . Sen. Dean Heller , R-Nev. , has been in Washington for several years in a chamber where seniority equals influence , and the state 's House members are relative newcomers in a body where members sometimes serve decades . Sig Rogich , an influential Nevada Republican who helped Reid defend his seat in 2010 , said `` you do n't lose him and not expect to feel the void . '' The Nevada Mining Association said the state would `` miss having this native son in its corner . '' The contest will play out in a state in which Democrats hold an edge in registration but voters have long displayed an independent streak . Obama was a two-time winner , but the state also helped send Republican George W. Bush to the White House twice . Democrats are anchored in the Las Vegas region , while Republicans have an edge in rural parts of the state . A fast-growing Hispanic population is gradually reshaping the electorate , similar to other states in the West , including California . A major factor in the coming election will be the casino industry , which has a long history ignoring party labels and picking winners in Nevada politics . Jan Jones Blackhurst , an executive vice president at Caesars Entertainment , called Reid `` irreplaceable . '' Reid won broad support from the industry in his 2010 victory over tea party favorite Sharron Angle , a Republican . Finding the right successor , she said , is `` a big issue and big concern . '' With Reid 's influence , `` all of the sudden Nevada mattered , '' she added . With his exit , `` that 's going to be a challenge for the state . '' The 2016 presidential race will also intertwine with the Senate contest , potentially driving up turnout among key voter groups , including Latinos . Part of Reid 's victory in 2010 was credited to a Democratic political apparatus that ferreted out supporters , but it 's unclear if another candidate can duplicate those efforts . Betty Post , a Republican retiree in Las Vegas , said she was thrilled to see Reid stepping down . `` We need new blood in there , '' she said , adding that she considered the long-serving senator a `` bully . '' To Las Vegas attorney Elizabeth Stephens , a Democrat , Reid 's exit could be summed up succinctly . `` It 's scary , '' she said .

LAS VEGAS — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's decision to retire next year leaves no clear successor in his home state of Nevada, where a popular Republican governor appears reluctant to change jobs and the pending loss of Reid's clout in Washington is causing anxiety over who might replace him. As of Friday, the list of potential candidates came down to Gov. Brian Sandoval and everyone else. The political centrist who was easily re-elected last year is likely to face intense pressure from national Republicans and business interests to pick up where Reid leaves off on Capitol Hill. Sandoval didn't deliver an unequivocal "no" Friday but he made clear the 2016 contest wasn't on his current agenda. "My focus is in on Nevada, period. Politics can take care of itself, but right now I am absolutely laser-focused on getting my budget through and improving education in Nevada," he said. Beyond the governor, the race would be wide open. Reid, the longtime Senate Democratic leader, quickly blessed former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to run for his seat, while Rep. Dina Titus, another Democrat, said she would consider a bid. Among Republicans, other possibilities are Rep. Joe Heck, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt and former Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki. "The major decision will be made by Brian Sandoval," said political scientist Eric Herzik, who teaches at the University of Nevada, Reno. "If he jumps in, this race tips overwhelmingly to the Republicans." The Nevada campaign will inevitably figure in the fight for control of the Senate. In a video statement Friday, Reid said Democrats must retake the majority and "it is inappropriate for me to soak up all those resources" to defend his seat. Awkward in public, clumsy with words, the 75-year-old Reid never was a beloved figure at home. He survived a brutal re-election campaign in 2010, when angry voters turned on him in the aftermath of the recession. He's been in the Senate since the Reagan era. But he helped deliver victories for President Barack Obama, including on national health care reform, and his name is affiliated with a long string of wins in Nevada, from development on the Las Vegas Strip to Yucca Mountain, which he helped stop after it was approved by Congress as a nuclear dump in 2002. Reid lost his role as Senate majority leader when last fall's elections swept Republicans into power. He suffered serious eye and facial injuries on New Year's Day while exercising at his Nevada home. Las Vegas native Daniel Bastardo, smoking a cigarette during a break from his casino security job, said it was going to be hard to replace the man who proved Sin City was worthy of political respect. "You gotta hang up your hat at some point," said the 28-year-old Democrat, understanding Reid's desire to retire. "I'm worried who's going to represent us now." The sense of looming loss was felt around the state. With Reid's pending departure, Nevada will be without its most experienced hand on Capitol Hill. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., has been in Washington for several years in a chamber where seniority equals influence, and the state's House members are relative newcomers in a body where members sometimes serve decades. Sig Rogich, an influential Nevada Republican who helped Reid defend his seat in 2010, said "you don't lose him and not expect to feel the void." The Nevada Mining Association said the state would "miss having this native son in its corner." The contest will play out in a state in which Democrats hold an edge in registration but voters have long displayed an independent streak. Obama was a two-time winner, but the state also helped send Republican George W. Bush to the White House twice. Democrats are anchored in the Las Vegas region, while Republicans have an edge in rural parts of the state. A fast-growing Hispanic population is gradually reshaping the electorate, similar to other states in the West, including California. A major factor in the coming election will be the casino industry, which has a long history ignoring party labels and picking winners in Nevada politics. Jan Jones Blackhurst, an executive vice president at Caesars Entertainment, called Reid "irreplaceable." Reid won broad support from the industry in his 2010 victory over tea party favorite Sharron Angle, a Republican. Finding the right successor, she said, is "a big issue and big concern." With Reid's influence, "all of the sudden Nevada mattered," she added. With his exit, "that's going to be a challenge for the state." The 2016 presidential race will also intertwine with the Senate contest, potentially driving up turnout among key voter groups, including Latinos. Part of Reid's victory in 2010 was credited to a Democratic political apparatus that ferreted out supporters, but it's unclear if another candidate can duplicate those efforts. Betty Post, a Republican retiree in Las Vegas, said she was thrilled to see Reid stepping down. "We need new blood in there," she said, adding that she considered the long-serving senator a "bully." To Las Vegas attorney Elizabeth Stephens, a Democrat, Reid's exit could be summed up succinctly. "It's scary," she said. ___ Blood reported from Los Angeles. Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

www.newsmax.com

right

TXXaUbCA65ef5Gnp

test

QBjuQbztzJe8uDSm

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/06/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia

Ahmaud Arbery: anger mounts over killing of black jogger caught on video

2020-05-06

Khushbu Shah

Ahmaud Arbery , 25 , was on his regular run through Brunswick , Georgia , when he encountered an armed white father and son On a sun-speckled , tree-lined street on a sunny Sunday afternoon , Ahmaud Arbery ran through his neighborhood in the coastal town of Brunswick , Georgia . Neighbors had seen him run by their homes every day for years . Georgia to consider charges in killing of unarmed black jogger as video emerges Read more One of them was Lauren Bennett , 26 , who says running was what Arbery was known for around their Fancy Bluff neighborhood in Brunswick . Her security camera would ping into her phone as he raced by each day . “ Yup , there goes Ahmaud , ” she told ███ , recalling his bouts of exercise . She ’ d heard he used to wave to another neighbor on his daily runs . It should just have been another ordinary run for the 25-year-old Arbery back in February . But a series of events unfolded that ended in his brutal killing at the hands of two white men , which has caused anger across America and especially among black Americans and campaigners for social justice . Now , as Bennett watches the video of how his last run through her neighborhood ended in his death , she cries . That sorrow – and rage – has spread through Georgia and the rest of the US , and has reignited a long-running debate over the killings of young black men by white people . It was sparked by a 36-second video released online months after that late February run – a video that shed new light on how Arbery was killed . In the film , an unidentified person in a car films Arbery jogging towards a white truck parked on the road , where two men stand : one in the bed of the truck and another just to its side . One shot rings out as Arbery disappears off camera , swerving around the truck . Another shot rings out as Arbery struggles back into frame as yet another shot is heard . Finally , he falls to the ground . Before police made it to Arbery , he was already dead . According to a police report , the two men , Gregory McMichael , 64 , and his son , Travis McMichael , 34 , had grabbed their weapons , a .357 Magnum revolver and a shotgun , jumped into a truck and began following Arbery after seeing him run by . In the video , it appears Arbery is running in the moments leading up to his death . Play Video 1:17 Footage shows fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia – video report The two men involved in the incident have not been charged or arrested over Arbery ’ s death , but the case will now go to a grand jury following the release of the video and the condemnation that it produced , according to a statement from the district attorney in charge , Tom Durden . This month , the state chapter of the NAACP visited Arbery ’ s family , calling for an end to race-based discrimination in Brunswick , a majority African American city . Tuesday evening , its local chapter called for swift action , urging arrests to be made in the case and the immediate dismissal of the Glynn county police chief . “ This is murder , ” wrote Lee Merritt , a civil rights attorney who is representing Arbery ’ s mother , in a statement posted to Facebook . Arbery ’ s mother has been unable to watch the video that now has over 4 million views and has drawn condemnation from prominent figures across the country , including the former vice-president and 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden . The McMichaels , according to numerous reports , argue they were abiding by Georgia ’ s stand-your-ground statute , a similar defense to that used by security guard George Zimmerman in the killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida . Arbery ’ s death is one of dozens of killings of black boys and men across America , who have been shot in their communities often while engaging in everyday activities . Tamir Rice was killed at a playground in Ohio ; Terence Crutcher slain while being pulled over by police ; and Walter Scott shot dead in South Carolina after a traffic stop . L Chris Stewart , an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney who has represented a number of families like Arbery ’ s , has a close relationship with the lawyer representing Arbery ’ s mother . The two have spoken about what happened to Arbery . When Stewart first heard what happened , he thought to himself , “ I jog and I live in a predominantly white neighborhood now . And , you know , if someone suspects you ’ re a criminal because you ’ re black , then this is going to turn into the Wild Wild West . ” Glynn county , where Brunswick sits , has a history of controversy in its police departments . Last year , a former county police officer was indicted . Initially , the prosecutors involved with the case chose not to press charges against the elder McMichael and his son . Documents and state records show the older McMichael is a former police detective and district attorney investigator in Glynn county . On Tuesday night , more than two months after Arbery was shot in the middle of the street , the Georgia bureau of investigations announced the Glynn county police had not asked them to investigate the shooting , but rather , looked into threats against those involved in the investigation . The state ’ s governor and attorney general spoke out after the video was released on Tuesday . “ I expect justice to be carried out as swiftly as possible , ” the attorney general , Chris Carr , said in a statement . On Tuesday evening , Bennett saw dozens of people coming to and from a protest in front of the McMichaels ’ home . On Wednesday , protesters gathered in Atlanta at the state capitol . “ I don ’ t know what ’ s going on through the McMichaels ’ heads , and if they think the black community is shaken . But all races are hurt . We ’ re all upset , ” Bennett said . But she was not surprised this happened in Brunswick – or anywhere in America . “ There ’ s just racism , honestly . To me , it ’ s never gon na die . ” ███ has published an edited version of the video after Benjamin Crump , an attorney for Arbery ’ s father , said the family consented to its public dissemination . • This article was amended on 7 May 2020 . Walter Scott was shot dead in South Carolina after a traffic stop , not shot dead in Louisiana leaving a convenience store as an earlier version said . An erroneous suggestion that four shots , rather than three , had been fired at Ahmaud Arbery was also corrected .

Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was on his regular run through Brunswick, Georgia, when he encountered an armed white father and son On a sun-speckled, tree-lined street on a sunny Sunday afternoon, Ahmaud Arbery ran through his neighborhood in the coastal town of Brunswick, Georgia. Neighbors had seen him run by their homes every day for years. Georgia to consider charges in killing of unarmed black jogger as video emerges Read more One of them was Lauren Bennett, 26, who says running was what Arbery was known for around their Fancy Bluff neighborhood in Brunswick. Her security camera would ping into her phone as he raced by each day. “Yup, there goes Ahmaud,” she told the Guardian, recalling his bouts of exercise. She’d heard he used to wave to another neighbor on his daily runs. It should just have been another ordinary run for the 25-year-old Arbery back in February. But a series of events unfolded that ended in his brutal killing at the hands of two white men, which has caused anger across America and especially among black Americans and campaigners for social justice. Now, as Bennett watches the video of how his last run through her neighborhood ended in his death, she cries. That sorrow – and rage – has spread through Georgia and the rest of the US, and has reignited a long-running debate over the killings of young black men by white people. It was sparked by a 36-second video released online months after that late February run – a video that shed new light on how Arbery was killed. In the film, an unidentified person in a car films Arbery jogging towards a white truck parked on the road, where two men stand: one in the bed of the truck and another just to its side. One shot rings out as Arbery disappears off camera, swerving around the truck. Another shot rings out as Arbery struggles back into frame as yet another shot is heard. Finally, he falls to the ground. Before police made it to Arbery, he was already dead. According to a police report, the two men, Gregory McMichael, 64, and his son, Travis McMichael, 34, had grabbed their weapons, a .357 Magnum revolver and a shotgun, jumped into a truck and began following Arbery after seeing him run by. In the video, it appears Arbery is running in the moments leading up to his death. Play Video 1:17 Footage shows fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia – video report The two men involved in the incident have not been charged or arrested over Arbery’s death, but the case will now go to a grand jury following the release of the video and the condemnation that it produced, according to a statement from the district attorney in charge, Tom Durden. This month, the state chapter of the NAACP visited Arbery’s family, calling for an end to race-based discrimination in Brunswick, a majority African American city. Tuesday evening, its local chapter called for swift action, urging arrests to be made in the case and the immediate dismissal of the Glynn county police chief. “This is murder,” wrote Lee Merritt, a civil rights attorney who is representing Arbery’s mother, in a statement posted to Facebook. Arbery’s mother has been unable to watch the video that now has over 4 million views and has drawn condemnation from prominent figures across the country, including the former vice-president and 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The McMichaels, according to numerous reports, argue they were abiding by Georgia’s stand-your-ground statute, a similar defense to that used by security guard George Zimmerman in the killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. Arbery’s death is one of dozens of killings of black boys and men across America, who have been shot in their communities often while engaging in everyday activities. Tamir Rice was killed at a playground in Ohio; Terence Crutcher slain while being pulled over by police; and Walter Scott shot dead in South Carolina after a traffic stop. L Chris Stewart, an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney who has represented a number of families like Arbery’s, has a close relationship with the lawyer representing Arbery’s mother. The two have spoken about what happened to Arbery. When Stewart first heard what happened, he thought to himself, “I jog and I live in a predominantly white neighborhood now. And, you know, if someone suspects you’re a criminal because you’re black, then this is going to turn into the Wild Wild West.” Glynn county, where Brunswick sits, has a history of controversy in its police departments. Last year, a former county police officer was indicted. Initially, the prosecutors involved with the case chose not to press charges against the elder McMichael and his son. Documents and state records show the older McMichael is a former police detective and district attorney investigator in Glynn county. “It’s a really corrupt police department,” Stewart said. On Tuesday night, more than two months after Arbery was shot in the middle of the street, the Georgia bureau of investigations announced the Glynn county police had not asked them to investigate the shooting, but rather, looked into threats against those involved in the investigation. The state’s governor and attorney general spoke out after the video was released on Tuesday. “I expect justice to be carried out as swiftly as possible,” the attorney general, Chris Carr, said in a statement. On Tuesday evening, Bennett saw dozens of people coming to and from a protest in front of the McMichaels’ home. On Wednesday, protesters gathered in Atlanta at the state capitol. “I don’t know what’s going on through the McMichaels’ heads, and if they think the black community is shaken. But all races are hurt. We’re all upset,” Bennett said. But she was not surprised this happened in Brunswick – or anywhere in America. “There’s just racism, honestly. To me, it’s never gonna die.” The Guardian has published an edited version of the video after Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Arbery’s father, said the family consented to its public dissemination. • This article was amended on 7 May 2020. Walter Scott was shot dead in South Carolina after a traffic stop, not shot dead in Louisiana leaving a convenience store as an earlier version said. An erroneous suggestion that four shots, rather than three, had been fired at Ahmaud Arbery was also corrected.

www.theguardian.com

left

QBjuQbztzJe8uDSm

test

yCSpLCmJmEPc6MoI

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/whistleblowers-yesterday-and-today/

Whistleblowers, Yesterday and Today

Geoff Shepard, David Catron, Debra J. Saunders, Jeffrey Lord, Matthew Vadum, Jeffrey A. Schaler, Richard E. Vatz

I can not wait to learn more about the identity and motives of the secret whistleblower who figures so prominently in stories of Trump ’ s phone call with the newly elected Ukrainian president . The narrative that began a month ago , as an insider ’ s accusation of Trump ’ s threat to cut off U.S. military aid unless investigations were launched into his expected opponent Joe Biden , has evolved considerably . It now appears — in spite of initial denials — that the whistleblower consulted with House Intelligence Committee ( HIC ) staff before filing his complaint — and was advised immediately to obtain counsel . Somehow , the chosen counsel was part of a whistleblower search organization , whose staff had previously worked with HIC chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) . While the whistleblower ’ s complaint was based entirely on secondhand hearsay — which was explicitly precluded under existing reporting rules — those rules were changed after the complaint ’ s receipt so as to do away with the requirement of firsthand knowledge . What began as an admission that the whistleblower worked for the CIA and was a registered Democrat was accompanied by the absolute assurance that he was not an active partisan and had not worked in any current presidential campaign . That assurance now seems to be evolving into a situation in which the whistleblower had been assigned to the National Security Council , where he worked with former Vice President Biden — and may even have traveled with him on one or more trips to Ukraine . Words are being chosen quite carefully , and the truth seems more and more elusive , as Republican HIC members continue to be kept in the dark . One is reminded of Lewis Carroll ’ s Alice in Wonderland , in which Alice exclaims , “ Curiouser and curiouser ! ” While the mainstream media continues to provide breathless coverage as events unfold , they evidence a strong disinclination to ferret out more information regarding the whistleblower ’ s actual identity or motives in coming forward — almost relishing the idea that HIC hearings can feature his testimony ( whether he is actually present or not ) without his identity ever becoming known . The obvious parallel is to “ Deep Throat , ” Woodward and Bernstein ’ s alleged secret source for many of their Watergate revelations , whose identity remained not only secret but also an integral part of Georgetown cocktail conversation for the next 30 years . For those not living through the halcyon days of Watergate , Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein became famous for their series of revelations regarding the status of prosecutors ’ ongoing Watergate investigations , but it was not until their 1974 book , All the President ’ s Men , that they credited a secret source they claimed to have referred to as “ Deep Throat , ” after a popular pornographic movie character . The more recent backstory is that their publisher at Simon & Schuster had encouraged them to add more drama to their proposed book , which is how the term first came into being . In short , Deep Throat was not a term used in print or even newsroom discussions before it first appeared in their book — as their calculatedly mysterious source . Regardless , speculation about just who Deep Throat might be was a dominant feature of Washington gossip for the ensuing decades . Possible candidates were inevitably confined to those who had served on President Nixon ’ s White House staff , including his Chief of Staff Alexander Haig , one of his many lawyers ( John Dean , Fred Fielding , Len Garment , or Fred Buzhardt ) , one of his speechwriters ( Bill Safire , David Gergen , or Ben Stein ) , or one of other young White House aides ( including Diane Sawyer , Jonathan Rose , or Jeff Donfeld ) . Even Henry Kissinger ’ s name occasionally surfaced in the unending speculation . The common theme was that Deep Throat had become so disgusted with Nixon ’ s conduct that the need to reveal the wrongdoing far outweighed any idea of loyalty to the president . This was in spite of the fact that my boss and Nixon ’ s lead Watergate defense counsel thought at the time that the leaks were coming from Mark Felt at the FBI . This belief was accompanied by the recognition that we weren ’ t in a position to do much about it , since pressuring Felt might result in even more leaks . In fact , there is a humorous conversation on the White House tapes in which Haig suggests to Nixon that Felt is the one doing the leaking — and characterizes him as “ the white rat. ” Haig goes on to explain that ’ s what Felt is called behind his back at the Bureau : He has a long face and a rather sallow complexion . “ Well , Mr. President , he looks like a rat , ” is how Haig finally sums it up . For decades afterwards , when I would mention that I had worked on Nixon ’ s White House staff , people would inevitably ask if I knew who Deep Throat was . When I answered in the affirmative , they would get all excited — until I said it was Mark Felt , the white rat . Then , since this obviously was not some famous name from Nixon ’ s own White House , their interest would wane and the conversation would move on . When Felt ’ s daughter claimed he was Deep Throat in 2005 and Woodward and Bernstein rushed out a book , The Secret Man : The Story of Watergate ’ s Deep Throat , supposedly confirming it , everyone accepted it at face value . For his part , Felt was way too senile to provide any real confirmation . More significantly , it turned out that Felt had no animosity toward President Nixon ; his leaks were designed to show that Acting FBI Director Patrick Gray couldn ’ t control the FBI and should be replaced by then–Deputy Director Felt . Why , then , had all of the media been so certain for the prior three decades that Deep Throat simply had to be a disillusioned Nixon White House staffer ? Following Felt ’ s 2005 outing , I went back and re-read All the President ’ s Men and then compared the book to the subsequent movie version — only to discover tantalizing differences in Deep Throat ’ s treatment . In their book , there is no implication whatsoever that Deep Throat is a White House employee . The authors were very careful not to give any hint at all as to his place of employment . The movie version , however , differs considerably — with implied White House employment occurring in three separate scenes : First , relatively early on , Woodward ( played by Robert Redford ) and Bernstein ( played by Dustin Hoffman ) are shown on the Library of Congress steps , lamenting that they are out of leads . Redford offers up the idea that he has a contact at the Nixon White House — and their paucity of leads quickly evaporates . Second , at one point , Redford calls Deep Throat ( played by Hal Holbrook ) at work . In the movie scene , Redford is shown in a public phone booth ( remember those ? ) located on the sidewalk across the street from the Old Executive Office Building — an integral part of the White House compound — which he stares at while speaking to Holbrook , who instructs him never again to call him at work . Third , when Holbrook departs from his office on his way to deliver secret papers in a nighttime rendezvous , he is shown as driving out of the White House ’ s Northwest Gate . The result was the unspoken assurance of Deep Throat being a White House staffer . The movie audience , after all , saw this with their own eyes ! Several other Deep Throat observations : By far the best description of Deep Throat and his activities is Max Holland ’ s Leak : Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat ( 2012 ) , supplemented by Holland ’ s extensive critical review of the 2017 film Mark Felt . Separately , in a stressful FBI interview of Mark Felt , following his FBI retirement and shortly after publication of Woodward and Bernstein ’ s book , Felt is quoted by his FBI interrogators as having specifically denied that he was “ that fellow they call Deep Throat . ” In spite of the Woodward and Bernstein books , I happened to believe their Deep Throat is a composite figure , rather than their exclusive source , a view apparently shared by their boss , Ben Bradlee . In an unpublished interview cited by Jeff Himmelman in Yours in Truth : A Personal Portrait of Ben Bradlee , Legendary Editor of The Washington Post ( 2012 ) , Bradlee expressed his own doubts as to the authenticity of the Deep Throat story : You know I have a little problem with Deep Throat.… Did that potted [ plant ] incident ever happen ? … and meeting in some garage . One meeting in the garage ? Fifty meetings in the garage ? I don ’ t know how many meetings in the garage.… There ’ s a residual fear in my soul that that isn ’ t quite straight . It also is interesting to note that lead Watergate prosecutor Earl Silbert has stated that nothing in the Woodward and Bernstein articles was helpful to his team of prosecutors since their stories were only reporting what the government already knew and had under investigation . Thus , while news to the general public , it was not revealing to those actually working on the case . One wonders just how a reputation for relentlessly innovative and creative investigative reporting can be based on receiving a series of leaks from a disgruntled FBI official . Perhaps that ’ s why it was so important to keep Deep Throat ’ s identity secret long after the Watergate scandal had run its course . Finally , and most significantly , it is now clear that the American public was knowingly misled for three decades regarding Deep Throat ’ s identity and motive — all seemingly for the purpose of further undermining President Nixon and his White House staff . Just when , one might ask in light of all this , can we expect to learn the full truth about Trump ’ s whistleblower ? Geoff Shepard came to Washington , D.C. , as a White House Fellow right after graduation from Harvard Law School and spent five years on Nixon ’ s White House staff , including being deputy counsel on his Watergate defense team . See more on his website : www.geoffshepard.com .

I cannot wait to learn more about the identity and motives of the secret whistleblower who figures so prominently in stories of Trump’s phone call with the newly elected Ukrainian president. The narrative that began a month ago, as an insider’s accusation of Trump’s threat to cut off U.S. military aid unless investigations were launched into his expected opponent Joe Biden, has evolved considerably. It now appears — in spite of initial denials — that the whistleblower consulted with House Intelligence Committee (HIC) staff before filing his complaint — and was advised immediately to obtain counsel. Somehow, the chosen counsel was part of a whistleblower search organization, whose staff had previously worked with HIC chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). While the whistleblower’s complaint was based entirely on secondhand hearsay — which was explicitly precluded under existing reporting rules — those rules were changed after the complaint’s receipt so as to do away with the requirement of firsthand knowledge. What began as an admission that the whistleblower worked for the CIA and was a registered Democrat was accompanied by the absolute assurance that he was not an active partisan and had not worked in any current presidential campaign. That assurance now seems to be evolving into a situation in which the whistleblower had been assigned to the National Security Council, where he worked with former Vice President Biden — and may even have traveled with him on one or more trips to Ukraine. Words are being chosen quite carefully, and the truth seems more and more elusive, as Republican HIC members continue to be kept in the dark. One is reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, in which Alice exclaims, “Curiouser and curiouser!” While the mainstream media continues to provide breathless coverage as events unfold, they evidence a strong disinclination to ferret out more information regarding the whistleblower’s actual identity or motives in coming forward — almost relishing the idea that HIC hearings can feature his testimony (whether he is actually present or not) without his identity ever becoming known. The obvious parallel is to “Deep Throat,” Woodward and Bernstein’s alleged secret source for many of their Watergate revelations, whose identity remained not only secret but also an integral part of Georgetown cocktail conversation for the next 30 years. For those not living through the halcyon days of Watergate, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein became famous for their series of revelations regarding the status of prosecutors’ ongoing Watergate investigations, but it was not until their 1974 book, All the President’s Men, that they credited a secret source they claimed to have referred to as “Deep Throat,” after a popular pornographic movie character. The more recent backstory is that their publisher at Simon & Schuster had encouraged them to add more drama to their proposed book, which is how the term first came into being. In short, Deep Throat was not a term used in print or even newsroom discussions before it first appeared in their book — as their calculatedly mysterious source. Regardless, speculation about just who Deep Throat might be was a dominant feature of Washington gossip for the ensuing decades. Possible candidates were inevitably confined to those who had served on President Nixon’s White House staff, including his Chief of Staff Alexander Haig, one of his many lawyers (John Dean, Fred Fielding, Len Garment, or Fred Buzhardt), one of his speechwriters (Bill Safire, David Gergen, or Ben Stein), or one of other young White House aides (including Diane Sawyer, Jonathan Rose, or Jeff Donfeld). Even Henry Kissinger’s name occasionally surfaced in the unending speculation. The common theme was that Deep Throat had become so disgusted with Nixon’s conduct that the need to reveal the wrongdoing far outweighed any idea of loyalty to the president. This was in spite of the fact that my boss and Nixon’s lead Watergate defense counsel thought at the time that the leaks were coming from Mark Felt at the FBI. This belief was accompanied by the recognition that we weren’t in a position to do much about it, since pressuring Felt might result in even more leaks. In fact, there is a humorous conversation on the White House tapes in which Haig suggests to Nixon that Felt is the one doing the leaking — and characterizes him as “the white rat.” Haig goes on to explain that’s what Felt is called behind his back at the Bureau: He has a long face and a rather sallow complexion. “Well, Mr. President, he looks like a rat,” is how Haig finally sums it up. For decades afterwards, when I would mention that I had worked on Nixon’s White House staff, people would inevitably ask if I knew who Deep Throat was. When I answered in the affirmative, they would get all excited — until I said it was Mark Felt, the white rat. Then, since this obviously was not some famous name from Nixon’s own White House, their interest would wane and the conversation would move on. When Felt’s daughter claimed he was Deep Throat in 2005 and Woodward and Bernstein rushed out a book, The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate’s Deep Throat, supposedly confirming it, everyone accepted it at face value. For his part, Felt was way too senile to provide any real confirmation. More significantly, it turned out that Felt had no animosity toward President Nixon; his leaks were designed to show that Acting FBI Director Patrick Gray couldn’t control the FBI and should be replaced by then–Deputy Director Felt. Why, then, had all of the media been so certain for the prior three decades that Deep Throat simply had to be a disillusioned Nixon White House staffer? Following Felt’s 2005 outing, I went back and re-read All the President’s Men and then compared the book to the subsequent movie version — only to discover tantalizing differences in Deep Throat’s treatment. In their book, there is no implication whatsoever that Deep Throat is a White House employee. The authors were very careful not to give any hint at all as to his place of employment. The movie version, however, differs considerably — with implied White House employment occurring in three separate scenes: First, relatively early on, Woodward (played by Robert Redford) and Bernstein (played by Dustin Hoffman) are shown on the Library of Congress steps, lamenting that they are out of leads. Redford offers up the idea that he has a contact at the Nixon White House — and their paucity of leads quickly evaporates. Second, at one point, Redford calls Deep Throat (played by Hal Holbrook) at work. In the movie scene, Redford is shown in a public phone booth (remember those?) located on the sidewalk across the street from the Old Executive Office Building — an integral part of the White House compound — which he stares at while speaking to Holbrook, who instructs him never again to call him at work. Third, when Holbrook departs from his office on his way to deliver secret papers in a nighttime rendezvous, he is shown as driving out of the White House’s Northwest Gate. The result was the unspoken assurance of Deep Throat being a White House staffer. The movie audience, after all, saw this with their own eyes! Several other Deep Throat observations: By far the best description of Deep Throat and his activities is Max Holland’s Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat (2012), supplemented by Holland’s extensive critical review of the 2017 film Mark Felt. Separately, in a stressful FBI interview of Mark Felt, following his FBI retirement and shortly after publication of Woodward and Bernstein’s book, Felt is quoted by his FBI interrogators as having specifically denied that he was “that fellow they call Deep Throat.” In spite of the Woodward and Bernstein books, I happened to believe their Deep Throat is a composite figure, rather than their exclusive source, a view apparently shared by their boss, Ben Bradlee. In an unpublished interview cited by Jeff Himmelman in Yours in Truth: A Personal Portrait of Ben Bradlee, Legendary Editor of The Washington Post (2012), Bradlee expressed his own doubts as to the authenticity of the Deep Throat story: You know I have a little problem with Deep Throat.… Did that potted [plant] incident ever happen?… and meeting in some garage. One meeting in the garage? Fifty meetings in the garage? I don’t know how many meetings in the garage.… There’s a residual fear in my soul that that isn’t quite straight. It also is interesting to note that lead Watergate prosecutor Earl Silbert has stated that nothing in the Woodward and Bernstein articles was helpful to his team of prosecutors since their stories were only reporting what the government already knew and had under investigation. Thus, while news to the general public, it was not revealing to those actually working on the case. One wonders just how a reputation for relentlessly innovative and creative investigative reporting can be based on receiving a series of leaks from a disgruntled FBI official. Perhaps that’s why it was so important to keep Deep Throat’s identity secret long after the Watergate scandal had run its course. Finally, and most significantly, it is now clear that the American public was knowingly misled for three decades regarding Deep Throat’s identity and motive — all seemingly for the purpose of further undermining President Nixon and his White House staff. Just when, one might ask in light of all this, can we expect to learn the full truth about Trump’s whistleblower? Geoff Shepard came to Washington, D.C., as a White House Fellow right after graduation from Harvard Law School and spent five years on Nixon’s White House staff, including being deputy counsel on his Watergate defense team. See more on his website: www.geoffshepard.com.

www.spectator.org

right

yCSpLCmJmEPc6MoI

test

790ZOGWLqyf4mPKS

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/20/donald-trump-support-base-hillary-clinton-hatred-pennsylvania

Trump supporters still fixate on Clinton as mood darkens

2017-07-20

Tom Mccarthy

Wayne Bisher , a lifelong Democrat , says he looks forward to voting for a Democrat for president again someday . But when the 68-year-old heard Donald Trump ’ s message on the campaign trail last year , promising to protect American manufacturing and control immigration , there was no doubt whom he would vote for . Five months of Trump : Muslims ’ fears were high but neighbors stood by them Read more He took early retirement from his job at a pharmaceuticals plant 14 years ago , when cheap Chinese vitamin C flooded the American market , so Trump ’ s populist “ America First ” message resonated strongly with him . “ I voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was so deceptive , ” Bisher said . “ What I told women : did they really want Hillary Clinton to be the first female president of the United States ? That wasn ’ t a good idea . I would ’ ve voted for other women for president , but not Hillary Clinton . ” Six months after Trump ’ s inauguration , with a daily war raging over the president ’ s own alleged deceptions and major campaign promises going unfulfilled , a perceptible shift in mood has set in among Trump voters interviewed for an ongoing Guardian series in Northampton County , Pennsylvania . The thrill of victory , for many Trump backers , has been replaced by something closer to disgust – the kind of disgust that makes people turn off the news . They still back the president . But they express sharp resentment of the president ’ s perceived enemies in the media and official Washington , and describe fatigue from defending a political figure who does not always make it easy . In a striking number of interviews , the conversation eventually turns to the candidate Trump beat eight months ago – Clinton – whose alleged trespasses are brandished to answer questions about Trump ’ s alleged trespasses . To the extent that Trump may be corrupt , his supporters say , Clinton would have been worse – so much worse , to the thinking of some Trump voters , that even if Trump had cheated to win the election , it was worth it . For now , any Trump voters who might be nursing doubts about the president are mostly not advertising that sentiment to the media . “ They don ’ t want to admit that they may be wrong , ” explained Cathy Robinson , 70 . Robinson was attending a hot-rod show in East Bangor on Saturday night with her husband , John . While she referred to Trump supporters as “ they ” , Robinson , a registered Democrat , said she had “ not necessarily ” voted for Clinton for president – although she had indeed voted . “ That ’ s a hard thing for us as humans to admit that somebody took us over the barrel and we went in there with all the good intentions of changing things , because that ’ s what this person promised he was going to do , ” Robinson said . “ And now we look at it six months later , and we ’ re no better off six months later than we were when Obama was in office . “ People do not want to admit that somebody actually fooled them that well . ” Almost every one of the Trump voters approached by ███ said they approved of the president ’ s performance to this point . Allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia , for example , do not concern them much – meaning , among other things , that the nonstop focus on the issue by the media strikes Trump voters as both annoying and corrupt . “ About two weeks ago , I stopped watching the news , ” said Bisher . “ Because it was just like , it was too depressing . They ’ re still bitching about the Russia thing , which is still not going to amount to anything . “ I feel so much better , for the last two weeks . ” Bisher was atypical , for allowing that Trump was a “ a bit of a nut ” and saying of a potential Trump 2020 presidential bid : “ Based on what he does this first term , I ’ d say well , if he really is screwing everything up , I wouldn ’ t want him back . ” Many Trump supporters give the president far more latitude than Bisher , with some saying that even if Trump had cheated in the election with Russia , the result was still preferable to a Clinton presidency . “ I don ’ t know what all was done , ” said Jack Artley , 43 , a machine operator at the Biospectra pharmaceuticals plant in Bangor . “ No matter how it comes out , even if it comes out that there was some shady business going on there , I ’ d rather Trump in there than Clinton . So , whether he had to cheat or not to get in , I ’ m OK with that . ” “ If they did , I ’ m actually glad they did , ” John Picard , a carpenter , said of alleged Russian tampering in the election . “ I feel that you shouldn ’ t bother somebody else ’ s country . But the idea that they got all this information and they let it slip out – I ’ m happy if that ’ s true . We got some real good documents on some people who were really messed up , so why not ? ” Even as they remain steadfast in their support for the president , many Trump voters have begun to express a disaffection that extends blob-like in every direction . The political establishment is trying to destroy Trump , they say , by flogging what they see as a dubious Russia collusion story , while denying the problem of Democrats they believe have been involved in alleged homegrown election fraud . Congress and the justice department are wasting millions of dollars on a politically motivated witch hunt to destroy the president , they feel , after the same establishment gave a pass to the alleged crimes of Clinton and Obama . The media has dropped all pretense of even-handedness to devote itself full time to the president ’ s destruction , they think , driven by a revenge lust for the defeat of Clinton , their preferred candidate . “ They can play all these games all they like , but the Trump supporters are not going to ever turn around and say we ’ re concerned about something that has been part of the political process for decades , ” Tom Carroll , a conservative grassroots activist from Bethlehem said of Trump Jr ’ s meeting with Russians to get dirt on Clinton . ( Political activists in both parties have called the meeting extraordinary and possibly unique . ) We got fake news , like Trump said , and I ’ m upset with the news . I won ’ t even turn on the television any more Bruce Garis Carroll , a criminal defense lawyer and a vice-chairman of the local Tea Party , spoke with ███ in a late afternoon interview on his back deck . “ You really talk to people and – you know what drove a lot of people ? ” Carroll said . “ Believe it or not , they won ’ t leave Trump for anything . But it ’ s not because they love Trump , it ’ s because they love their families , they love their country , and they were fearful of what was gon na happen if Hillary Clinton got elected president . ” It is remarkable how Clinton , who has largely stepped away from the national stage after her November loss , still looms in the minds of many Trump voters . A conversation inside the Trolley Shop restaurant in Bangor about whether US intelligence agencies can be trusted – not really , was the general consensus – suddenly turned to Clinton . “ Hillary Clinton hurt herself , ” said Mickie Jones , who owns the oldest business in Bangor – a tombstone business – with her husband , Keith . “ She hurt her party , between lies and things that she did . They haven ’ t accepted that . I think she ’ s a liar . And these people don ’ t see that . ” Keith Jones , an air force veteran who was stationed in Korea right after the war , said the relationship between Clinton and the media went a long way to explaining the perceived media bias against Trump . “ The press has an agenda , and it isn ’ t the same agenda as his , ” Jones said . “ Hillary was their darling , Obama was their darling . And you kick them in the shins there , and they get a little ornery . They ’ re ornery , and they ’ re trying to run Trump into the ground . ” Bruce Garis , 75 , is a retired heavy equipment operator from Bangor and was a lifelong Democrat , he said , until he voted for Trump . “ I switched from Democrat to Republican , because the Democratic party went so far left that they are no more for the working man , ” he said . “ And I feel as if we need somebody in there for the lower-class man . “ For all the harassment that ’ s going on , I believe that he ’ s doing what he can do . There ’ s a lot of hindrance there , that shouldn ’ t be . But I ’ m very upset . This is not the America I grew up in . And I ’ d just like things to get better . “ We got fake news , like Trump said , and I ’ m upset with the news . I won ’ t even turn on the television any more . ” July in Northampton County is sunny and leafy , prime time for the pleasures of summer . The highway is a daisy chain of farm stands , yard sales and fire department fund-drives . Thousands of people turn out for an antique tractor show , where gawkers can nose up to 100-year-old flywheels moving at amputation speeds . Hot-rod enthusiasts gather for a car show where locals dance to a three-piece band playing Ernest Tubb and Jim Reeves tunes . After a certain hour , every county resident under 15 is addled on ice cream . Christopher Borick , a professor of political science and director of the Muhlenberg College institute of public opinion in Allentown , strolled to the town square in Nazareth , where he lives , to meet with ███ under an immense maple tree . “ I think on the whole , most Trump supporters are still Trump supporters , ” Borick said . “ Many of them continue to say that Trump ’ s problems , if they exist , are manufactured by the media and Democrats who are being obstructionist . So most of the Trump support that we saw last fall in Northampton County still exists , largely as it was . “ But if you pull a little bit away under the covers , you see some signs of fraying . And the signs that I see are among those Trump supporters who did so grudgingly last fall . They have some sunken cost in Donald Trump . They supported him . They may have even taken some heat for supporting him from non-Trump supporters in the area . And as they try to hold on to their reasoning and their support and make their case , I think they feel a little weariness , a little tired in their explanation . ” Many Trump supporters said that they would abandon their support for the president if undeniable evidence of criminal activity in the Russia matter surfaced – the “ undeniable ” bit , of course , being extremely subjective . As we come to midterm elections , if people are feeling very negative about healthcare as they are now , that can resonate Christopher Borick An issue where Trump seems to be much more vulnerable is healthcare . And unlike on other issues , where chatting with Trump supporters can feel like scrolling through the president ’ s Twitter feed – “ fake news ” , “ witch hunt ” , “ illegal leaks ” , “ voter fraud ” , “ Crooked Hillary ” – Trump voters in Northampton County talk about healthcare with notable measures of nuance , restraint , and human sympathy . “ This health issue is a major problem , ” said Mickie Jones . “ I really think they should be settling on that issue . Because there are so many elderly people around the country , and here we are , fighting each other . “ They have to do something . They have to . They just have to . And it seems like they ’ re stalling on it . ” Prospero T Zito , 74 , is another Northampton Democrat who voted for Trump . “ He needs a little more time to get his priorities together , ” Zito said of the president . He believes in the need for health reform , but is worried about the impact on the sick and the poor . “ I think this healthcare is just a little bit out of hand right now . But the people who really need it , that ’ s what I ’ m looking out for . I think they ’ ll straighten it out . Both parties , they ’ ll have to come together . ” John Griffin , a retired elevator technician and a Republican who voted for Trump , said he was not holding his breath for a bipartisan solution . “ Not gon na happen . It ’ ll never happen , ” he said . “ They ’ ll never get together and do it . But if they can get together and do something for the people – not for themselves , but for the people – I ’ ll go along with it . ” Borick , the political scientist , said the healthcare issue could damage Republicans or the president in upcoming elections . “ We ’ ve polled this issue really heavily for six years , ” said Borick . “ Like many places , Obamacare has reached its zenith in popularity in the commonwealth [ of Pennsylvania ] . It ’ s never been more popular , and the congressional proposals were very unpopular . “ That remains a vexing issue for Republicans . And a vexing issue for the president . Talk about issues that could be incredibly damaging , there ’ s a point where people will see in the next two years what kind of effect those changes or lack of changes have . “ On the whole it holds enormous peril , much more peril than promise for both the Republicans and the president . As we come to that midterm election , if people are feeling very negative about that issue as they are now , that can resonate . Little Creek Bar B Cue ( “ You can ’ t beat our meat ! ” ) in Washington Township is in its ninth year . The restaurant has cooked competitively in 14 different states and twice placed first for barbecue ribs in contests with over 100 teams . Pulled pork is their number one seller . “ We ’ re selling a lot of brisket lately . I ’ ve learned how to cook brisket pretty decent , almost as good as those guys down in Texas , ” said Rich Green , 50 , who owns the place with his wife , Kim . “ I ’ ll put my brisket against them Texas people any day of the week . ” Green is a professional ironworker as well as a chef , and a gun enthusiast who said he expanded his inventory aggressively when he thought Clinton was going to win the election . Trump diehards dismiss Russia scandal : 'Show me the proof – or get off his case ' Read more He took a break from cooking last weekend to muse on how , exactly , the Russians were supposed to have tricked him into voting for Trump . “ I don ’ t know how it would be possible . Nobody called me , ” he said . “ I ’ ve never voted before , this was the first time I voted – nobody called me and said who to vote for . ” Apart from their distrust of the media and the Washington establishment , one good reason Trump voters might not believe the Russia collusion story is because they all know someone who voted for Trump without any tampering by Russia , they think : the person in the mirror . Despite his strong support for Trump , Green said he would vote for a Democrat in the future , “ if it was the right person , and they were doing the right thing ” . “ I would go more towards the person , than the party , myself . I ’ m more about , let ’ s do the right thing here , ” Green said . “ It is kind of stupid to be diehard Democrat or Republican . ” Kim Green , 52 , agreed that Trump the man – his personal sympathies and his policy priorities – was more important than Trump the Republican . “ Because he ’ s for the common man , ” she said . “ And I don ’ t care what anybody says about how much money he has and everything else . He ’ s just like everybody else , he ’ s for us . ” “ Or it ’ s the biggest scam America ’ s ever fell for , ” Rich Green interjected . “ One of the two . ”

Wayne Bisher, a lifelong Democrat, says he looks forward to voting for a Democrat for president again someday. But when the 68-year-old heard Donald Trump’s message on the campaign trail last year, promising to protect American manufacturing and control immigration, there was no doubt whom he would vote for. Five months of Trump: Muslims’ fears were high but neighbors stood by them Read more He took early retirement from his job at a pharmaceuticals plant 14 years ago, when cheap Chinese vitamin C flooded the American market, so Trump’s populist “America First” message resonated strongly with him. And there was another major factor: Hillary Clinton. “I voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was so deceptive,” Bisher said. “What I told women: did they really want Hillary Clinton to be the first female president of the United States? That wasn’t a good idea. I would’ve voted for other women for president, but not Hillary Clinton.” Six months after Trump’s inauguration, with a daily war raging over the president’s own alleged deceptions and major campaign promises going unfulfilled, a perceptible shift in mood has set in among Trump voters interviewed for an ongoing Guardian series in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The thrill of victory, for many Trump backers, has been replaced by something closer to disgust – the kind of disgust that makes people turn off the news. They still back the president. But they express sharp resentment of the president’s perceived enemies in the media and official Washington, and describe fatigue from defending a political figure who does not always make it easy. In a striking number of interviews, the conversation eventually turns to the candidate Trump beat eight months ago – Clinton – whose alleged trespasses are brandished to answer questions about Trump’s alleged trespasses. To the extent that Trump may be corrupt, his supporters say, Clinton would have been worse – so much worse, to the thinking of some Trump voters, that even if Trump had cheated to win the election, it was worth it. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Wayne Bisher. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian For now, any Trump voters who might be nursing doubts about the president are mostly not advertising that sentiment to the media. “They don’t want to admit that they may be wrong,” explained Cathy Robinson, 70. Robinson was attending a hot-rod show in East Bangor on Saturday night with her husband, John. While she referred to Trump supporters as “they”, Robinson, a registered Democrat, said she had “not necessarily” voted for Clinton for president – although she had indeed voted. “That’s a hard thing for us as humans to admit that somebody took us over the barrel and we went in there with all the good intentions of changing things, because that’s what this person promised he was going to do,” Robinson said. “And now we look at it six months later, and we’re no better off six months later than we were when Obama was in office. “People do not want to admit that somebody actually fooled them that well.” Almost every one of the Trump voters approached by the Guardian said they approved of the president’s performance to this point. Allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, for example, do not concern them much – meaning, among other things, that the nonstop focus on the issue by the media strikes Trump voters as both annoying and corrupt. “About two weeks ago, I stopped watching the news,” said Bisher. “Because it was just like, it was too depressing. They’re still bitching about the Russia thing, which is still not going to amount to anything. “I feel so much better, for the last two weeks.” Bisher was atypical, for allowing that Trump was a “a bit of a nut” and saying of a potential Trump 2020 presidential bid: “Based on what he does this first term, I’d say well, if he really is screwing everything up, I wouldn’t want him back.” Many Trump supporters give the president far more latitude than Bisher, with some saying that even if Trump had cheated in the election with Russia, the result was still preferable to a Clinton presidency. “I don’t know what all was done,” said Jack Artley, 43, a machine operator at the Biospectra pharmaceuticals plant in Bangor. “No matter how it comes out, even if it comes out that there was some shady business going on there, I’d rather Trump in there than Clinton. So, whether he had to cheat or not to get in, I’m OK with that.” “If they did, I’m actually glad they did,” John Picard, a carpenter, said of alleged Russian tampering in the election. “I feel that you shouldn’t bother somebody else’s country. But the idea that they got all this information and they let it slip out – I’m happy if that’s true. We got some real good documents on some people who were really messed up, so why not?” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Vendor Tony Varano, 69, sells Trump T-shirts and flags, and countless tractor T-shirts at the Jacktown Tractor Engine Show in Jacktown, Pennsylvania on 15 July 2017. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘I’m very upset’ Even as they remain steadfast in their support for the president, many Trump voters have begun to express a disaffection that extends blob-like in every direction. The political establishment is trying to destroy Trump, they say, by flogging what they see as a dubious Russia collusion story, while denying the problem of Democrats they believe have been involved in alleged homegrown election fraud. Congress and the justice department are wasting millions of dollars on a politically motivated witch hunt to destroy the president, they feel, after the same establishment gave a pass to the alleged crimes of Clinton and Obama. The media has dropped all pretense of even-handedness to devote itself full time to the president’s destruction, they think, driven by a revenge lust for the defeat of Clinton, their preferred candidate. “They can play all these games all they like, but the Trump supporters are not going to ever turn around and say we’re concerned about something that has been part of the political process for decades,” Tom Carroll, a conservative grassroots activist from Bethlehem said of Trump Jr’s meeting with Russians to get dirt on Clinton. (Political activists in both parties have called the meeting extraordinary and possibly unique.) We got fake news, like Trump said, and I’m upset with the news. I won’t even turn on the television any more Bruce Garis Carroll, a criminal defense lawyer and a vice-chairman of the local Tea Party, spoke with the Guardian in a late afternoon interview on his back deck. “You really talk to people and – you know what drove a lot of people?” Carroll said. “Believe it or not, they won’t leave Trump for anything. But it’s not because they love Trump, it’s because they love their families, they love their country, and they were fearful of what was gonna happen if Hillary Clinton got elected president.” It is remarkable how Clinton, who has largely stepped away from the national stage after her November loss, still looms in the minds of many Trump voters. A conversation inside the Trolley Shop restaurant in Bangor about whether US intelligence agencies can be trusted – not really, was the general consensus – suddenly turned to Clinton. “Hillary Clinton hurt herself,” said Mickie Jones, who owns the oldest business in Bangor – a tombstone business – with her husband, Keith. “She hurt her party, between lies and things that she did. They haven’t accepted that. I think she’s a liar. And these people don’t see that.” Keith Jones, an air force veteran who was stationed in Korea right after the war, said the relationship between Clinton and the media went a long way to explaining the perceived media bias against Trump. “The press has an agenda, and it isn’t the same agenda as his,” Jones said. “Hillary was their darling, Obama was their darling. And you kick them in the shins there, and they get a little ornery. They’re ornery, and they’re trying to run Trump into the ground.” Bruce Garis, 75, is a retired heavy equipment operator from Bangor and was a lifelong Democrat, he said, until he voted for Trump. “I switched from Democrat to Republican, because the Democratic party went so far left that they are no more for the working man,” he said. “And I feel as if we need somebody in there for the lower-class man. “For all the harassment that’s going on, I believe that he’s doing what he can do. There’s a lot of hindrance there, that shouldn’t be. But I’m very upset. This is not the America I grew up in. And I’d just like things to get better. “We got fake news, like Trump said, and I’m upset with the news. I won’t even turn on the television any more.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Derek Nordman, 16, holds his golden retriever, Logan, 3, while his uncle Paul Kittle drives them in a tractor at the Jacktown Tractor Engine Show on 15 July 2017. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘Signs of fraying’ July in Northampton County is sunny and leafy, prime time for the pleasures of summer. The highway is a daisy chain of farm stands, yard sales and fire department fund-drives. Thousands of people turn out for an antique tractor show, where gawkers can nose up to 100-year-old flywheels moving at amputation speeds. Hot-rod enthusiasts gather for a car show where locals dance to a three-piece band playing Ernest Tubb and Jim Reeves tunes. After a certain hour, every county resident under 15 is addled on ice cream. Christopher Borick, a professor of political science and director of the Muhlenberg College institute of public opinion in Allentown, strolled to the town square in Nazareth, where he lives, to meet with the Guardian under an immense maple tree. “I think on the whole, most Trump supporters are still Trump supporters,” Borick said. “Many of them continue to say that Trump’s problems, if they exist, are manufactured by the media and Democrats who are being obstructionist. So most of the Trump support that we saw last fall in Northampton County still exists, largely as it was. “But if you pull a little bit away under the covers, you see some signs of fraying. And the signs that I see are among those Trump supporters who did so grudgingly last fall. They have some sunken cost in Donald Trump. They supported him. They may have even taken some heat for supporting him from non-Trump supporters in the area. And as they try to hold on to their reasoning and their support and make their case, I think they feel a little weariness, a little tired in their explanation.” Many Trump supporters said that they would abandon their support for the president if undeniable evidence of criminal activity in the Russia matter surfaced – the “undeniable” bit, of course, being extremely subjective. As we come to midterm elections, if people are feeling very negative about healthcare as they are now, that can resonate Christopher Borick An issue where Trump seems to be much more vulnerable is healthcare. And unlike on other issues, where chatting with Trump supporters can feel like scrolling through the president’s Twitter feed – “fake news”, “witch hunt”, “illegal leaks”, “voter fraud”, “Crooked Hillary” – Trump voters in Northampton County talk about healthcare with notable measures of nuance, restraint, and human sympathy. “This health issue is a major problem,” said Mickie Jones. “I really think they should be settling on that issue. Because there are so many elderly people around the country, and here we are, fighting each other. “They have to do something. They have to. They just have to. And it seems like they’re stalling on it.” Prospero T Zito, 74, is another Northampton Democrat who voted for Trump. “He needs a little more time to get his priorities together,” Zito said of the president. He believes in the need for health reform, but is worried about the impact on the sick and the poor. “I think this healthcare is just a little bit out of hand right now. But the people who really need it, that’s what I’m looking out for. I think they’ll straighten it out. Both parties, they’ll have to come together.” John Griffin, a retired elevator technician and a Republican who voted for Trump, said he was not holding his breath for a bipartisan solution. “Not gonna happen. It’ll never happen,” he said. “They’ll never get together and do it. But if they can get together and do something for the people – not for themselves, but for the people – I’ll go along with it.” Borick, the political scientist, said the healthcare issue could damage Republicans or the president in upcoming elections. “We’ve polled this issue really heavily for six years,” said Borick. “Like many places, Obamacare has reached its zenith in popularity in the commonwealth [of Pennsylvania]. It’s never been more popular, and the congressional proposals were very unpopular. “That remains a vexing issue for Republicans. And a vexing issue for the president. Talk about issues that could be incredibly damaging, there’s a point where people will see in the next two years what kind of effect those changes or lack of changes have. “On the whole it holds enormous peril, much more peril than promise for both the Republicans and the president. As we come to that midterm election, if people are feeling very negative about that issue as they are now, that can resonate. “That can have substantial effect.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Kim Green. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘He’s for us’ Little Creek Bar B Cue (“You can’t beat our meat!”) in Washington Township is in its ninth year. The restaurant has cooked competitively in 14 different states and twice placed first for barbecue ribs in contests with over 100 teams. Pulled pork is their number one seller. “We’re selling a lot of brisket lately. I’ve learned how to cook brisket pretty decent, almost as good as those guys down in Texas,” said Rich Green, 50, who owns the place with his wife, Kim. “I’ll put my brisket against them Texas people any day of the week.” Green is a professional ironworker as well as a chef, and a gun enthusiast who said he expanded his inventory aggressively when he thought Clinton was going to win the election. Trump diehards dismiss Russia scandal: 'Show me the proof – or get off his case' Read more He took a break from cooking last weekend to muse on how, exactly, the Russians were supposed to have tricked him into voting for Trump. “I don’t know how it would be possible. Nobody called me,” he said. “I’ve never voted before, this was the first time I voted – nobody called me and said who to vote for.” Apart from their distrust of the media and the Washington establishment, one good reason Trump voters might not believe the Russia collusion story is because they all know someone who voted for Trump without any tampering by Russia, they think: the person in the mirror. Despite his strong support for Trump, Green said he would vote for a Democrat in the future, “if it was the right person, and they were doing the right thing”. “I would go more towards the person, than the party, myself. I’m more about, let’s do the right thing here,” Green said. “It is kind of stupid to be diehard Democrat or Republican.” Kim Green, 52, agreed that Trump the man – his personal sympathies and his policy priorities – was more important than Trump the Republican. “Because he’s for the common man,” she said. “And I don’t care what anybody says about how much money he has and everything else. He’s just like everybody else, he’s for us.” “Or it’s the biggest scam America’s ever fell for,” Rich Green interjected. “One of the two.” Sign up for regular email dispatches throughout the year to hear from Tom and the people of Northampton County

www.theguardian.com

left

790ZOGWLqyf4mPKS

test

a8CAxiOl6hrIPbAP

fbi

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/934b704a5906e86452319a3bb174dc0c

FBI: Shooter at Pensacola military base link to al-Qaida

2020-05-18

Eric Tucker

This undated photo provided by the FBI shows Mohammed Alshamrani . The Saudi student opened fire inside a classroom at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday before one of the deputies killed him . The FBI has found a link between the gunman in a deadly attack at a military base last December and an al-Qaida operative . That 's according to a U.S. official who spoke to The ███ on Monday . ( FBI via AP ) This undated photo provided by the FBI shows Mohammed Alshamrani . The Saudi student opened fire inside a classroom at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday before one of the deputies killed him . The FBI has found a link between the gunman in a deadly attack at a military base last December and an al-Qaida operative . That 's according to a U.S. official who spoke to The ███ on Monday . ( FBI via AP ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The gunman who killed three U.S. sailors at a military base in Florida last year communicated with al-Qaida operatives about planning and tactics in the months leading up to the attack , U.S. officials said Monday , as they lashed out at Apple for failing to help them open the shooter ’ s phones so they could access key evidence . Law enforcement officials discovered contacts between Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani and operatives of al-Qaida after FBI technicians succeeded in breaking into two cellphones that had previously been locked and that the shooter , a Saudi Air Force officer , had tried to destroy before he was killed by a sheriff ’ s deputy . “ We now have a clearer understanding of Alshamrani ’ s associations and activities in the years , months and days leading up to his attack , ” Attorney General William Barr said at a news conference in which he chastised Apple for not helping open the phones . The new details , including that Alshamrani had been radicalized abroad before he arrived in the U.S. , raise fresh questions about the vetting of foreign military members and trainees who spend time at American bases . The announcement also comes amid tension with the U.S. over instability in the oil market during the coronavirus pandemic and as the Trump administration faces criticism that it has not done enough to hold the kingdom , which has been trying to improve its international image , accountable for human rights violations . The criticism directed at Apple could also escalate divisions between the U.S. government and the technology company , which rejected the characterization that it has been unhelpful . The company said Monday that it does not store customers ’ passcodes , does not have the capacity to unlock passcode-protected devices and that weakening encryption could create vulnerabilities that undermine national secuity and data privacy . Alshamrani was killed by a sheriff ’ s deputy during the Dec. 6 rampage at a classroom building at Naval Air Station Pensacola . He had been undergoing flight training at Pensacola as part of instruction offered at American military bases to foreign nationals . Besides the three sailors who died , eight other people were injured . Once unlocked , U.S. officials said , the phones revealed contact between Alshamrani and “ dangerous ” operatives from al-Qaida in the Arabian Pensinsula , or AQAP , that continued until shortly before the shooting . They also revealed that he had been radicalized since at least 2015 , before he arrived in the U.S. , and had meticulously planned the attack . Alshamrani created minicam videos as he cased a military school building and saved a will on his phone that purported to explain himself — the same document AQAP released after the shooting when it claimed responsibility for it , said FBI Director Chris Wray , who called the attack “ the brutal culmination of years of planning and preparation . ” “ He wasn ’ t just coordinating with them about planning and tactics , ” Wray said . “ He was helping the organization make the most it could out of his murders . ” Asked whether al-Qaida had directed or inspired the attacks , Wray said it was “ certainly more than just inspired . ” The phones have already yielded valuable intelligence , officials said , citing a recent counterterrorism operation in Yemen that targeted an AQAP associate Alshamrani had been in touch with . The Justice Department had asked Apple to help extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the gunman , including one that authorities say Alshamrani damaged with a bullet after being confronted by law enforcement . But Wray said Apple provided “ effectively no help , ” delaying by months the FBI ’ s ability to access the devices and hampering the investigation since agents did not have a full picture of what to look for or ask about . He did not say what method was used to open the phones , but said it was a targeted fix and not a broad solution to the problem . Barr used Monday ’ s news conference to forcefully call on Apple to do more to cooperate with law enforcement . “ In cases like this , where the user is a terrorist , or in other cases , where the user is a violent criminal , a human trafficker , a child predator , Apple ’ s decision has dangerous consequences for public safety and the national security and is , in my judgment , unacceptable , ” Barr said . In a statement Monday , Apple said it had provided the FBI with “ every piece of information available to us , including iCloud backups , account information and transactional data for multiple accounts. ” It rejected the idea of making its products more accessible for law enforcement ’ s benefit . “ It is because we take our responsibility to national security so seriously that we do not believe in the creation of a backdoor — one which will make every device vulnerable to bad actors who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers , ” the statement said . “ There is no such thing as a backdoor just for the good guys , and the American people do not have to choose between weakening encryption and effective investigations . Law enforcement officials had previously left no doubt that Alshamrani was motivated by jihadist ideology , saying he visited a New York City memorial to the attacks of Sept. 11 , 2001 , over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and posted anti-American and anti-Israeli messages on social media just hours before the shooting . Separately , AQAP , al-Qaida ’ s branch in Yemen , released a video claiming the attack . AQAP has long been considered the global network ’ s most dangerous branch . In January , U.S. officials announced that they were sending home 21 Saudi military students after an investigation revealed that they had had jihadist or anti-American sentiments on social media pages or had “ contact with child pornography . ” Operational training for Saudi students at multiple U.S bases was suspended soon after the shooting , but the Pentagon has since given the Navy and other military services conditional approval to resume the instruction . Barr said Monday that the Saudis have been cooperative and have worked with the U.S. to buttress vetting . In a statement , the Saudi Embassy in the U.S. lauded the developments in the investigation of the shooting and reiterated the Saudi government ’ s support of relations with the U.S. and joint efforts against extremism . “ We will never let the terrorists win , or allow their acts of hatred to divide us , ” the embassy said . “ The U.S.-Saudi partnership is one of the primary pillars of the global effort to dismantle and defeat terrorist networks such as AQAP . And our two countries will maintain our unbreakable commitment to combat the forces of evil , wherever they exist . ”

This undated photo provided by the FBI shows Mohammed Alshamrani. The Saudi student opened fire inside a classroom at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday before one of the deputies killed him. The FBI has found a link between the gunman in a deadly attack at a military base last December and an al-Qaida operative. That's according to a U.S. official who spoke to The Associated Press on Monday. (FBI via AP) This undated photo provided by the FBI shows Mohammed Alshamrani. The Saudi student opened fire inside a classroom at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday before one of the deputies killed him. The FBI has found a link between the gunman in a deadly attack at a military base last December and an al-Qaida operative. That's according to a U.S. official who spoke to The Associated Press on Monday. (FBI via AP) WASHINGTON (AP) — The gunman who killed three U.S. sailors at a military base in Florida last year communicated with al-Qaida operatives about planning and tactics in the months leading up to the attack, U.S. officials said Monday, as they lashed out at Apple for failing to help them open the shooter’s phones so they could access key evidence. Law enforcement officials discovered contacts between Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani and operatives of al-Qaida after FBI technicians succeeded in breaking into two cellphones that had previously been locked and that the shooter, a Saudi Air Force officer, had tried to destroy before he was killed by a sheriff’s deputy. “We now have a clearer understanding of Alshamrani’s associations and activities in the years, months and days leading up to his attack,” Attorney General William Barr said at a news conference in which he chastised Apple for not helping open the phones. The new details, including that Alshamrani had been radicalized abroad before he arrived in the U.S., raise fresh questions about the vetting of foreign military members and trainees who spend time at American bases. The announcement also comes amid tension with the U.S. over instability in the oil market during the coronavirus pandemic and as the Trump administration faces criticism that it has not done enough to hold the kingdom, which has been trying to improve its international image, accountable for human rights violations. The criticism directed at Apple could also escalate divisions between the U.S. government and the technology company, which rejected the characterization that it has been unhelpful. The company said Monday that it does not store customers’ passcodes, does not have the capacity to unlock passcode-protected devices and that weakening encryption could create vulnerabilities that undermine national secuity and data privacy. Alshamrani was killed by a sheriff’s deputy during the Dec. 6 rampage at a classroom building at Naval Air Station Pensacola. He had been undergoing flight training at Pensacola as part of instruction offered at American military bases to foreign nationals. Besides the three sailors who died, eight other people were injured. Once unlocked, U.S. officials said, the phones revealed contact between Alshamrani and “dangerous” operatives from al-Qaida in the Arabian Pensinsula, or AQAP, that continued until shortly before the shooting. They also revealed that he had been radicalized since at least 2015, before he arrived in the U.S., and had meticulously planned the attack. Alshamrani created minicam videos as he cased a military school building and saved a will on his phone that purported to explain himself — the same document AQAP released after the shooting when it claimed responsibility for it, said FBI Director Chris Wray, who called the attack “the brutal culmination of years of planning and preparation.” “He wasn’t just coordinating with them about planning and tactics,” Wray said. “He was helping the organization make the most it could out of his murders.” Asked whether al-Qaida had directed or inspired the attacks, Wray said it was “certainly more than just inspired.” The phones have already yielded valuable intelligence, officials said, citing a recent counterterrorism operation in Yemen that targeted an AQAP associate Alshamrani had been in touch with. The Justice Department had asked Apple to help extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the gunman, including one that authorities say Alshamrani damaged with a bullet after being confronted by law enforcement. But Wray said Apple provided “effectively no help,” delaying by months the FBI’s ability to access the devices and hampering the investigation since agents did not have a full picture of what to look for or ask about. He did not say what method was used to open the phones, but said it was a targeted fix and not a broad solution to the problem. Barr used Monday’s news conference to forcefully call on Apple to do more to cooperate with law enforcement. “In cases like this, where the user is a terrorist, or in other cases, where the user is a violent criminal, a human trafficker, a child predator, Apple’s decision has dangerous consequences for public safety and the national security and is, in my judgment, unacceptable,” Barr said. In a statement Monday, Apple said it had provided the FBI with “every piece of information available to us, including iCloud backups, account information and transactional data for multiple accounts.” It rejected the idea of making its products more accessible for law enforcement’s benefit. “It is because we take our responsibility to national security so seriously that we do not believe in the creation of a backdoor — one which will make every device vulnerable to bad actors who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers,” the statement said. “There is no such thing as a backdoor just for the good guys, and the American people do not have to choose between weakening encryption and effective investigations. Law enforcement officials had previously left no doubt that Alshamrani was motivated by jihadist ideology, saying he visited a New York City memorial to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and posted anti-American and anti-Israeli messages on social media just hours before the shooting. Separately, AQAP, al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen, released a video claiming the attack. AQAP has long been considered the global network’s most dangerous branch. In January, U.S. officials announced that they were sending home 21 Saudi military students after an investigation revealed that they had had jihadist or anti-American sentiments on social media pages or had “contact with child pornography.” Operational training for Saudi students at multiple U.S bases was suspended soon after the shooting, but the Pentagon has since given the Navy and other military services conditional approval to resume the instruction. Barr said Monday that the Saudis have been cooperative and have worked with the U.S. to buttress vetting. In a statement, the Saudi Embassy in the U.S. lauded the developments in the investigation of the shooting and reiterated the Saudi government’s support of relations with the U.S. and joint efforts against extremism. “We will never let the terrorists win, or allow their acts of hatred to divide us,” the embassy said. “The U.S.-Saudi partnership is one of the primary pillars of the global effort to dismantle and defeat terrorist networks such as AQAP. And our two countries will maintain our unbreakable commitment to combat the forces of evil, wherever they exist.”

www.apnews.com

center

a8CAxiOl6hrIPbAP

test

S3N8pCo4uSeDsxhr

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/political-crisis-virginia-democratic-party

The political crisis in Virginia is a test for the Democratic party

2019-02-07

Douglas Williams

When Democrats won all three statewide constitutional offices in 2013 for the first time in over two decades , it seemed to herald a new era in Virginia politics . This change also brought significant policy wins , such as former governor Terry McAuliffe restoring the voting rights of over 200,000 convicted felons who had served out their sentences and attorney general Mark Herring ’ s refusal to defend Virginia ’ s ban on same-sex marriage in the courts . This generally positive direction seemed confirmed when the Virginia Democrats held all three of those offices and made significant inroads in the state legislature in the 2017 elections . Policies that harm black bodies deserve the same outrage as blackface | Shanita Hubbard Read more But over the span of five days , all of that has been undone in the most spectacular way imaginable . In that time , both the governor , Ralph Northam , and Herring have found themselves embroiled in a scandal over their use of blackface during their respective medical school and undergrad days in the 1980s . The lieutenant governor , Justin Fairfax , only the second black person to hold statewide office , has been accused of sexual assault by Dr Vanessa Tyson , a college professor and fellow attendee of the 2004 Democratic national convention in Boston , where the assault is alleged to have taken place . ( Fairfax has denied the accusations , and has retained the services of the same law firm that represented now supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh in his Senate confirmation proceedings . ) Democrats have sat uncomfortably with accountability for sexual predators in their ranks in the recent past . To this end , look no further than the outright hostility Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has faced from major Democratic donors for seeking to hold her now former colleague Al Franken accountable when photos and stories of him groping women gained public attention . And lest you think that the calls for Northam and Herring to account for their racist pasts and resign have been universal amongst Virginia Democrats , take a look at comments from Dick Saslaw , the minority leader in the Virginia senate : His whole life has been about exactly the opposite , and that ’ s what you need to examine , not something that occurred 30 years ago . While it ’ s in very poor taste , I would think no one in the general assembly would like their college conduct examined . I would hate to have to go back and examine my two years in the army . Trust me . I was 18 years old and I was a handful , okay ? ” And while blackface is an affront to the dignity of black Virginians like me , the records of Northam and Herring with regards to a compressor station feeding the now delayed Atlantic coast pipeline being sited in the historic black community of Union Hill reflect the same kind of callousness towards black people as smearing shoe polish on your face and dancing the moonwalk , only with much more tangible negative harms to the communities like the one I grew up in . There will be people who argue that Democrats should not train their fire on their own , and that the party should unite against the common enemy they have in the Republican party and Donald Trump . After all , Trump is still president despite the release of the Access Hollywood tape where he discussed nothing less than sexual assault . Mitch McConnell is still the Senate majority leader despite posing in front of the Confederate battle flag at an event for the Sons of Confederate Veterans , a group that has sponsored the same Confederate monuments that are being torn down and removed across the south . But here ’ s what those people fail to understand : every day that Northam , Fairfax and Herring remain in office , the ability of Democrats to call to account an ever more reactionary Republican party is diminished . How can you decry the racism and misogyny of the modern-day Republican party when your own record is marked by the same sins ? What does that say about Democrats ’ genuine concern for marginalized people , around which that party has centered much of its rhetoric ? Accountability – true accountability – is rarely simple . Or easy . It is oftentimes a painful reckoning with those you have hurt and disappointed with your actions , with the potential for even more harm done down the road . Kirk Cox , the Republican speaker of the Virginia house of delegates , would become governor if all three resigned at once . Cox only holds his spot in Virginia ’ s line of succession due to an illegal gerrymandering scheme and a house of delegates race that was , quite literally , determined by the drawing of lots . The thought of Cox ’ s elevation , especially when Virginia is so close to achieving a long-held goal of expanding Medicaid for over 200,000 citizens , is almost too painful to bear . But the idea that Democrats are comfortable with sweeping racism and misogyny under the rug when it suits them politically is far worse , and much more impactful on the lives of working-class Americans . If the Democratic party ’ s actions are to ever credibly meet its rhetoric , then Northam , Fairfax and Herring must resign . Nothing less than the soul of the party itself is at stake .

When Democrats won all three statewide constitutional offices in 2013 for the first time in over two decades, it seemed to herald a new era in Virginia politics. This change also brought significant policy wins, such as former governor Terry McAuliffe restoring the voting rights of over 200,000 convicted felons who had served out their sentences and attorney general Mark Herring’s refusal to defend Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage in the courts. This generally positive direction seemed confirmed when the Virginia Democrats held all three of those offices and made significant inroads in the state legislature in the 2017 elections. Policies that harm black bodies deserve the same outrage as blackface | Shanita Hubbard Read more But over the span of five days, all of that has been undone in the most spectacular way imaginable. In that time, both the governor, Ralph Northam, and Herring have found themselves embroiled in a scandal over their use of blackface during their respective medical school and undergrad days in the 1980s. The lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, only the second black person to hold statewide office, has been accused of sexual assault by Dr Vanessa Tyson, a college professor and fellow attendee of the 2004 Democratic national convention in Boston, where the assault is alleged to have taken place. (Fairfax has denied the accusations, and has retained the services of the same law firm that represented now supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh in his Senate confirmation proceedings.) Democrats have sat uncomfortably with accountability for sexual predators in their ranks in the recent past. To this end, look no further than the outright hostility Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has faced from major Democratic donors for seeking to hold her now former colleague Al Franken accountable when photos and stories of him groping women gained public attention. And lest you think that the calls for Northam and Herring to account for their racist pasts and resign have been universal amongst Virginia Democrats, take a look at comments from Dick Saslaw, the minority leader in the Virginia senate: His whole life has been about exactly the opposite, and that’s what you need to examine, not something that occurred 30 years ago. While it’s in very poor taste, I would think no one in the general assembly would like their college conduct examined. I would hate to have to go back and examine my two years in the army. Trust me. I was 18 years old and I was a handful, okay?” And while blackface is an affront to the dignity of black Virginians like me, the records of Northam and Herring with regards to a compressor station feeding the now delayed Atlantic coast pipeline being sited in the historic black community of Union Hill reflect the same kind of callousness towards black people as smearing shoe polish on your face and dancing the moonwalk, only with much more tangible negative harms to the communities like the one I grew up in. There will be people who argue that Democrats should not train their fire on their own, and that the party should unite against the common enemy they have in the Republican party and Donald Trump. After all, Trump is still president despite the release of the Access Hollywood tape where he discussed nothing less than sexual assault. Mitch McConnell is still the Senate majority leader despite posing in front of the Confederate battle flag at an event for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that has sponsored the same Confederate monuments that are being torn down and removed across the south. But here’s what those people fail to understand: every day that Northam, Fairfax and Herring remain in office, the ability of Democrats to call to account an ever more reactionary Republican party is diminished. How can you decry the racism and misogyny of the modern-day Republican party when your own record is marked by the same sins? What does that say about Democrats’ genuine concern for marginalized people, around which that party has centered much of its rhetoric? Accountability – true accountability – is rarely simple. Or easy. It is oftentimes a painful reckoning with those you have hurt and disappointed with your actions, with the potential for even more harm done down the road. Kirk Cox, the Republican speaker of the Virginia house of delegates, would become governor if all three resigned at once. Cox only holds his spot in Virginia’s line of succession due to an illegal gerrymandering scheme and a house of delegates race that was, quite literally, determined by the drawing of lots. The thought of Cox’s elevation, especially when Virginia is so close to achieving a long-held goal of expanding Medicaid for over 200,000 citizens, is almost too painful to bear. But the idea that Democrats are comfortable with sweeping racism and misogyny under the rug when it suits them politically is far worse, and much more impactful on the lives of working-class Americans. If the Democratic party’s actions are to ever credibly meet its rhetoric, then Northam, Fairfax and Herring must resign. Nothing less than the soul of the party itself is at stake.

www.theguardian.com

left

S3N8pCo4uSeDsxhr

test

SYFNR3cz91f8Ci2z

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/january/inaugural-boycott-grows-amid-trump-lewis-war-of-words

Inaugural Boycott Grows amid Trump, Lewis War of Words

2017-01-17

More than 40 congressional Democrats now say they 're boycotting President-elect Donald Trump 's inauguration on Friday . Some of the Democrats who wo n't be attending say they do n't agree with the president-elect and are unhappy with his response to Congressman Rep. John Lewis , D-Ga . The spat between Trump and Lewis occurred after Lewis said he would n't attend the inauguration because he considers Trump an illegitimate president due to Russian hacking during the election . `` I will not be going . People have not forgotten that he attacked a Mexican- American judge ; he attacked a Gold Star Family , and now a civil rights icon . I can not pretend this is a normal transition of power , '' explained Rep. Mark Takano , D-Calif . Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Armed Service Committee earlier this month that Russian interference did not change any vote counts . Lewis also skipped the inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001 because he did n't believe Bush was `` the true elected president . '' Meanwhile , other congressional Democrats will be attending Trump 's swearing in on Friday , like Sen. Cory Booker , D- N.J . Booker says that even though he opposed Trump 's nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions , R-Ala. , as attorney general and opposes Trump 's agenda , he feels it is still important to attend . `` I respect everybody 's choice in this . My personal feeling is this is the peaceful transition of power , '' Booker told USA Today . On Martin Luther King Day , Trump met with King 's son , Martin Luther King III , at Trump Tower to discuss voting rights . Afterward , King III was asked about Trump 's fallout with Lewis . `` First of all , I think in the heat of emotion , a lot of things get said on both sides . I think that at some point I am , as John Lewis as many others are , a bridge builder , `` he replied . The meeting between the civil rights leader 's son and the president-elect reportedly began with a prayer for the healing of the nation .

More than 40 congressional Democrats now say they're boycotting President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday. Some of the Democrats who won't be attending say they don't agree with the president-elect and are unhappy with his response to Congressman Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. The spat between Trump and Lewis occurred after Lewis said he wouldn't attend the inauguration because he considers Trump an illegitimate president due to Russian hacking during the election. "I will not be going. People have not forgotten that he attacked a Mexican- American judge; he attacked a Gold Star Family, and now a civil rights icon. I cannot pretend this is a normal transition of power," explained Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Armed Service Committee earlier this month that Russian interference did not change any vote counts. Lewis also skipped the inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001 because he didn't believe Bush was "the true elected president." Meanwhile, other congressional Democrats will be attending Trump's swearing in on Friday, like Sen. Cory Booker, D- N.J. Booker says that even though he opposed Trump's nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., as attorney general and opposes Trump's agenda, he feels it is still important to attend. "I respect everybody's choice in this. My personal feeling is this is the peaceful transition of power," Booker told USA Today. On Martin Luther King Day, Trump met with King's son, Martin Luther King III, at Trump Tower to discuss voting rights. Afterward, King III was asked about Trump's fallout with Lewis. "First of all, I think in the heat of emotion, a lot of things get said on both sides. I think that at some point I am, as John Lewis as many others are, a bridge builder, " he replied. The meeting between the civil rights leader's son and the president-elect reportedly began with a prayer for the healing of the nation.

www1.cbn.com

right

SYFNR3cz91f8Ci2z

test

T1mttVpnEsXmFebw

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/september/trump-blasts-jeff-sessions-saying-investigations-could-jeopardize-midterm-election

Trump Blasts Jeff Sessions Saying Investigations Could Jeopardize Midterm Election

2018-09-04

President Donald Trump is attacking his attorney general , Jeff Sessions , over his investigation decisions once again , and this time it 's for charging two Republicans with crimes right before the midterm elections . Trump is accusing Sessions of putting Republican control of the House of Representatives in jeopardy by announcing those charges just two months before the election . `` Two long running , Obama era , investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge , just ahead of the Mid-Terms , by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department . Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time . Good job Jeff ..... .... The Democrats , none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions , must love him now . '' Two long running , Obama era , investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge , just ahead of the Mid-Terms , by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department . Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time . Good job Jeff ...... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 3 , 2018 .... The Democrats , none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions , must love him now . Same thing with Lyin ’ James Comey . The Dems all hated him , wanted him out , thought he was disgusting - UNTIL I FIRED HIM ! Immediately he became a wonderful man , a saint like figure in fact . Really sick ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 3 , 2018 `` It is crossing the line , '' said Professor Paul Berman with the Walter S. Cox , George Washington University . Berman adds , `` The president asking the Justice Department to take a partisan position that would benefit Republicans in an election , which is precisely not what we want our federal law enforcement to do . '' Trump did not name the Republican congressmen , but he was apparently referring to the indictments against Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Chris Collins of New York . Hunter is accused of spending campaign funds for personal expenses , and Collins is accused of insider trading . Both have proclaimed their innocence , but Collins has dropped out of his race . Trump has been very public about his disapproval of how Sessions is running the Justice Department . It all started at the beginning of Trump 's presidency when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation , allowing it to go forward . `` If he gets someone in place a new Attorney General , who actually takes action , gets things to happen on these investigations and brings them to a close , I feel the American people would be grateful for that , '' said Dr. Stephen Perry with the Robertson School of Government at Regent University . You may recall , it was just week , President Trump mentioned his Attorney General is safe , at least until the midterms in November .

President Donald Trump is attacking his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, over his investigation decisions once again, and this time it's for charging two Republicans with crimes right before the midterm elections. Trump is accusing Sessions of putting Republican control of the House of Representatives in jeopardy by announcing those charges just two months before the election. The president tweeted on Monday saying: "Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff..... ....The Democrats, none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions, must love him now." Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff...... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018 ....The Democrats, none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions, must love him now. Same thing with Lyin’ James Comey. The Dems all hated him, wanted him out, thought he was disgusting - UNTIL I FIRED HIM! Immediately he became a wonderful man, a saint like figure in fact. Really sick! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018 "It is crossing the line," said Professor Paul Berman with the Walter S. Cox, George Washington University. Berman adds, "The president asking the Justice Department to take a partisan position that would benefit Republicans in an election, which is precisely not what we want our federal law enforcement to do." Trump did not name the Republican congressmen, but he was apparently referring to the indictments against Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Chris Collins of New York. Hunter is accused of spending campaign funds for personal expenses, and Collins is accused of insider trading. Both have proclaimed their innocence, but Collins has dropped out of his race. Trump has been very public about his disapproval of how Sessions is running the Justice Department. It all started at the beginning of Trump's presidency when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, allowing it to go forward. "If he gets someone in place a new Attorney General, who actually takes action, gets things to happen on these investigations and brings them to a close, I feel the American people would be grateful for that," said Dr. Stephen Perry with the Robertson School of Government at Regent University. You may recall, it was just week, President Trump mentioned his Attorney General is safe, at least until the midterms in November.

www1.cbn.com

right

T1mttVpnEsXmFebw

test

o9moSUqlVQZK3arF

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-trial-will-only-make-us-hate-washington-even-more/

Trump's Impeachment Trial Will Only Make Us Hate Washington Even More

2020-01-21

Nick Gillespie, Billy Binion, Gail Heriot, Scott Shackford, Keith E. Whittington, Ronald Bailey, J.D. Tuccille, C.J. Ciaramella

Today is the day that the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump gets underway . Proceedings start around 1 p.m. in Washington ( go here for places to watch ) and are expected to last anywhere from a week to a month ( Bill Clinton 's trial in 1999 lasted five weeks ) . In a vote that proceeded along party lines , President Trump has been charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress . He is widely expected to be found not guilty by the Senate , in a vote that will also proceed largely , if not completely , along party lines . Come February , or whenever the pompously self-declared `` world 's greatest deliberative body '' votes on the matter , we will be right back to where we started , only a little bit more in debt , a little angrier , and a little more behind schedule on nuts-and-bolts things like passing a real budget for the current fiscal year , figuring out how to pay for entitlements , and discerning whether we 're technically at war with various countries . The impeachment process thus perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with the federal government . From start to finish , the impeachment is almost purely partisan and political rather than substantive , and it accomplishes nothing other than driving down even further any form of trust or confidence in the presidency , Congress , or even the Supreme Court ( Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial ) . To be fair , impeachment is designed to be a political , rather than legal , process . It 's not about discovering the truth of what happened , or even fully explaining what happened , as you 'd expect in a real trial . As Gerald Ford noted just a few years before becoming president himself after the resignation of Richard Nixon ( who was faced with his own impeachment trial ) , an impeachable offense `` is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history . '' It 's only fitting , then , that being found innocent will be an equally partisan exercise . Indeed , that seems especially fitting in an election year in which the incumbent shows some of the worst approval numbers in history and still seems to have an excellent shot at winning a second term . I 've documented over the years how far and fast trust and confidence in various parts of the federal government has fallen . In 1964 , for instance , 77 percent of Americans agreed that they trusted `` the government in Washington always or most of the time . '' As of last year , that figure stood at 17 percent . When it comes to the presidency , trust has toppled from 73 percent in 1972 to 45 percent . For Congress , the drop is even worse , plummeting from 71 percent in 1972 to 38 percent in 2019 . Trust in the Supreme Court has followed the same general trend , even if its numbers are better . In 1988 , 56 percent had a high degree of trust in the Supreme Court but thirty years later , that figure clocked in at 37 percent . It 's unlikely that the purely partisan impeachment process will do anything but accelerate those trends . For libertarians , this might on its face seem a blessing , as evacuating trust and confidence in the federal government is surely a precondition for radically reducing its growth and power . But that 's not how things work . Again and again—and in countries all over the world—declines in trust of government correlate strongly with calls for more government regulation in more parts of our lives . `` Individuals in low-trust countries want more government intervention even though they know the government is corrupt , '' explain the authors of a 2010 Quarterly Journal of Economics paper . That 's certainly the case in the United States , where the size , scope , and spending of government has vastly increased over exactly the same period in which trust and confidence in the government has cratered . In 2018 , I talked with one of the paper 's authors , Andrei Shleifer , a Harvard economist who grew up in the Soviet Union before coming to America . Why do citizens ask a government they do n't believe in to bring order ? `` They want regulation , '' he said . `` They want a dictator who will bring back order . '' Counterintuitively , the relative size and spending of government in the United States actually flattened or dipped during periods when trust and confidence in government picked up : From 1994 to 2001 , Pew data show upticks in the number of people who trust the government to mostly do the right thing… . Using inflation-adjusted dollars , the feds spent about $ 250 billion more in [ Bill ] Clinton 's last year than in his first , a small increase compared to the spending surges seen under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush . Viewed as a percentage of GDP , federal spending fell significantly during that period . In 1991 , it equaled 21 percent . By 2001 , it equaled just 17.5 percent . There were many reasons for minor increases in trust and confidence in government during the 1990s . The end of the Cold War , the rise of the internet , and continual economic expansion all played important roles ( especially the latter ) . While Washington got shriller—virtually all modern forms of hyper-polarization were present or birthed in the '90s—it also became less important to more people . Clinton famously acknowledged that `` the era of big government is over '' even as Congress worked in a bipartisan fashion to change welfare , cut capital gains taxes , and slash defense spending . That sort of rapprochement is unimaginable in the current moment . You can argue that Trump richly deserves to be the third president to face an impeachment trial , that we should be impeaching all the presidents all the time , or that Trump is actually the victim of a coup . You might even win those arguments . But none of that matters if you really care about restraining the size of government . Come the end of the Senate trial that starts today , Trump will almost certainly still be in office , Democrats and Republicans will hate each other even more , and trust and confidence in Washington will be even lower than it already is . And the spending of the federal government , what Milton Friedman said was the purest measure of its power , will continue to set new records . All impeachment will have done is add more fuel to the perpetual dumpster fire that is Washington and pushed the calendar back a month or so when it comes to the fiscal reckoning that awaits us in the new decade .

Today is the day that the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump gets underway. Proceedings start around 1 p.m. in Washington (go here for places to watch) and are expected to last anywhere from a week to a month (Bill Clinton's trial in 1999 lasted five weeks). In a vote that proceeded along party lines, President Trump has been charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is widely expected to be found not guilty by the Senate, in a vote that will also proceed largely, if not completely, along party lines. Come February, or whenever the pompously self-declared "world's greatest deliberative body" votes on the matter, we will be right back to where we started, only a little bit more in debt, a little angrier, and a little more behind schedule on nuts-and-bolts things like passing a real budget for the current fiscal year, figuring out how to pay for entitlements, and discerning whether we're technically at war with various countries. The impeachment process thus perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with the federal government. From start to finish, the impeachment is almost purely partisan and political rather than substantive, and it accomplishes nothing other than driving down even further any form of trust or confidence in the presidency, Congress, or even the Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial). To be fair, impeachment is designed to be a political, rather than legal, process. It's not about discovering the truth of what happened, or even fully explaining what happened, as you'd expect in a real trial. As Gerald Ford noted just a few years before becoming president himself after the resignation of Richard Nixon (who was faced with his own impeachment trial), an impeachable offense "is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." It's only fitting, then, that being found innocent will be an equally partisan exercise. Indeed, that seems especially fitting in an election year in which the incumbent shows some of the worst approval numbers in history and still seems to have an excellent shot at winning a second term. I've documented over the years how far and fast trust and confidence in various parts of the federal government has fallen. In 1964, for instance, 77 percent of Americans agreed that they trusted "the government in Washington always or most of the time." As of last year, that figure stood at 17 percent. When it comes to the presidency, trust has toppled from 73 percent in 1972 to 45 percent. For Congress, the drop is even worse, plummeting from 71 percent in 1972 to 38 percent in 2019. Trust in the Supreme Court has followed the same general trend, even if its numbers are better. In 1988, 56 percent had a high degree of trust in the Supreme Court but thirty years later, that figure clocked in at 37 percent. It's unlikely that the purely partisan impeachment process will do anything but accelerate those trends. For libertarians, this might on its face seem a blessing, as evacuating trust and confidence in the federal government is surely a precondition for radically reducing its growth and power. But that's not how things work. Again and again—and in countries all over the world—declines in trust of government correlate strongly with calls for more government regulation in more parts of our lives. "Individuals in low-trust countries want more government intervention even though they know the government is corrupt," explain the authors of a 2010 Quarterly Journal of Economics paper. That's certainly the case in the United States, where the size, scope, and spending of government has vastly increased over exactly the same period in which trust and confidence in the government has cratered. In 2018, I talked with one of the paper's authors, Andrei Shleifer, a Harvard economist who grew up in the Soviet Union before coming to America. Why do citizens ask a government they don't believe in to bring order? "They want regulation," he said. "They want a dictator who will bring back order." Counterintuitively, the relative size and spending of government in the United States actually flattened or dipped during periods when trust and confidence in government picked up: From 1994 to 2001, Pew data show upticks in the number of people who trust the government to mostly do the right thing…. Using inflation-adjusted dollars, the feds spent about $250 billion more in [Bill] Clinton's last year than in his first, a small increase compared to the spending surges seen under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Viewed as a percentage of GDP, federal spending fell significantly during that period. In 1991, it equaled 21 percent. By 2001, it equaled just 17.5 percent. There were many reasons for minor increases in trust and confidence in government during the 1990s. The end of the Cold War, the rise of the internet, and continual economic expansion all played important roles (especially the latter). While Washington got shriller—virtually all modern forms of hyper-polarization were present or birthed in the '90s—it also became less important to more people. Clinton famously acknowledged that "the era of big government is over" even as Congress worked in a bipartisan fashion to change welfare, cut capital gains taxes, and slash defense spending. That sort of rapprochement is unimaginable in the current moment. You can argue that Trump richly deserves to be the third president to face an impeachment trial, that we should be impeaching all the presidents all the time, or that Trump is actually the victim of a coup. You might even win those arguments. But none of that matters if you really care about restraining the size of government. Come the end of the Senate trial that starts today, Trump will almost certainly still be in office, Democrats and Republicans will hate each other even more, and trust and confidence in Washington will be even lower than it already is. And the spending of the federal government, what Milton Friedman said was the purest measure of its power, will continue to set new records. All impeachment will have done is add more fuel to the perpetual dumpster fire that is Washington and pushed the calendar back a month or so when it comes to the fiscal reckoning that awaits us in the new decade.

www.reason.com

right

o9moSUqlVQZK3arF

test

We7qZ7CzB99cEnak

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/03/the-inside-politics-forecast-rand-paul-tries-to-shed-isolationist-image-with-fall-speech/

The ‘Inside Politics’ Forecast: Rand Paul tries to shed isolationist image with fall speech

2014-08-03

CNN 's John King and other top political reporters empty out their notebooks each Sunday on `` Inside Politics '' to reveal five things that will be in the headlines in the days , weeks and months ahead . Washington ( CNN ) – A rare dose of high-powered bipartisanship , plus a mix of 2014 and 2016 nuggets from our weekly trip around the Inside Politics table : Politico ’ s Mike Allen shared important reporting about an effort by Rand Paul to address what is perhaps his most significant obstacle as he pursues the 2016 GOP presidential nomination : the isolationist label . The freshman Kentucky senator has long complained it ’ s an unfair knock , and an unfair “ guilt by association ” situation with his father , former Rep. Ron Paul . But Mike says the senator is planning a high-profile pitch at the National Defense University this fall to address his critics , and attempt to reposition himself on the foreign policy spectrum . “ He ’ s going to argue that he ’ s smack in the middle - the same place that George H.W . Bush was , that Reagan was , and that Ike was , ” said Allen . Watch Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar as she moves to raise her national profile and make new friends in the kickoff presidential battleground of Iowa . No , as Robert Costa of The Washington Post made clear , the Democratic senator has no plans to seek the 2016 Democratic nomination if her former Senate colleague , as expected , makes the race . But Robert shared reporting of a Klobuchar plan to be ready in case Democrats need a Plan B , or perhaps for a cycle down the road a few years . “ Members of her inner circle tell me that she wo n't run against Secretary Clinton , but should Secretary Clinton , for some reason , bow out of consideration , Senator Klobuchar is building up a national network , talking to donors and later this month , she 'll be in Iowa , ” said Costa . Her tweet about a time where she had to skip flying on Air Force 1 . Of course , if she becomes president , the plane will have to wait ! Supposed 2 be on AirForce1 , but had votes so on delta w/Collin P & @ MicheleBachmann # changeoffortune but all is good pic.twitter.com/m7c1vcW5kv — Amy Klobuchar ( @ amyklobuchar ) June 26 , 2014 3 . TEA PARTY “ CRUSH ” STRATEGY DUE FOR ITS LAST BIG TESTS There are two significant tea party tests left on the GOP Senate primary calendar , and Jonathan Martin of The New York Times tells us the establishment is guardedly optimistic . One is against incumbent Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee ; the other against incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas . The latter for weeks has been described as the more vulnerable of the two , but Jonathan says there are those who believe that might have shifted – meaning Alexander suddenly has more to worry about – because of the shifting issues terrain in Washington . “ There ’ s some concern about Roberts , because of the campaign he 's run , whereas Alexander has run a better campaign , but keep in mind , Alexander has been targeted by Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin over the immigration issue , which is , as we know , boiling right now , ” said Martin . Alexander ’ s tweet showing he supports a Senate tea party favorite on the border crisis issue : Cosponsors @ SenTedCruz amendment to stop Obama from exceeding constitutional authority & supports @ RepHalRogers bill to solve # BorderCrisis — Sen. Lamar Alexander ( @ SenAlexander ) July 31 , 2014 4 . TWO FIRST LADIES AND A LESSON FOR THE MEN OF WASHINGTON Laura Bush and Michelle Obama are teaming up this week , for a mix of policy talk and socializing with the spouses of African leaders who will be in the United States for a summit meeting . And Nia Malika Henderson of The Washington Post tells us the main goal of the Bush-Obama partnership is to discuss their own lives in the context of helping elevate the role of women in the nations of their guests here in Washington . But perhaps this rare , bipartisan effort might send a message to others in this dysfunctional town ? 5 . 93 DAYS , AND COUNTING ..... WITH BIG MONEY DECISIONS LOOMING SOON Republicans need a gain of six Senate seats to take the majority , and are looking at opportunities in a dozen or more states with seats now held by Democrats . But the map will inevitably shrink , and here are two races to watch if you want to feel plugged in when big financial calculations are made after Labor Day . OREGON : GOP nominee Monica Wehby trails in the polls and in fund-raising , and it ’ s a state President Obama carried twice . But the GOP and its allies aren ’ t giving up yet . A group financed by the Koch Brothers just launched a multimillion ad by in the state , hoping to soften up support for Democratic incumbent Sen. Jeff Merkely . Check back at the end of the month : if the numbers have moved , more money will follow . But if they don ’ t narrow much , don ’ t be surprised if Wehby gets squeezed and both national party groups and deep-pocketed Super PACs steer major resources to more competitive states . NEW HAMPSHIRE : Many Republican strategists in the state are frustrated Scott Brown isn ’ t polling better against incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen . But a few GOP activists insist Brown has moved the dial some in the past couple weeks , and remains in striking distance . Also giving the GOP some hope even though it ’ s another state the President carried twice ? One prominent GOP activist , borrowing the local slang a bit , suggested President Obama ’ s New Hampshire poll standing was “ wicked bad . ”

5 years ago CNN's John King and other top political reporters empty out their notebooks each Sunday on "Inside Politics" to reveal five things that will be in the headlines in the days, weeks and months ahead. Washington (CNN) – A rare dose of high-powered bipartisanship, plus a mix of 2014 and 2016 nuggets from our weekly trip around the Inside Politics table: 1. RAND –MAN IN THE MIDDLE ON FOREIGN POLICY? Politico’s Mike Allen shared important reporting about an effort by Rand Paul to address what is perhaps his most significant obstacle as he pursues the 2016 GOP presidential nomination: the isolationist label. The freshman Kentucky senator has long complained it’s an unfair knock, and an unfair “guilt by association” situation with his father, former Rep. Ron Paul. But Mike says the senator is planning a high-profile pitch at the National Defense University this fall to address his critics, and attempt to reposition himself on the foreign policy spectrum. “He’s going to argue that he’s smack in the middle - the same place that George H.W. Bush was, that Reagan was, and that Ike was,” said Allen. 2. 2016 PLAN B PATH IF HILLARY SAYS NO Watch Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar as she moves to raise her national profile and make new friends in the kickoff presidential battleground of Iowa. No, as Robert Costa of The Washington Post made clear, the Democratic senator has no plans to seek the 2016 Democratic nomination if her former Senate colleague, as expected, makes the race. But Robert shared reporting of a Klobuchar plan to be ready in case Democrats need a Plan B, or perhaps for a cycle down the road a few years. “Members of her inner circle tell me that she won't run against Secretary Clinton, but should Secretary Clinton, for some reason, bow out of consideration, Senator Klobuchar is building up a national network, talking to donors and later this month, she'll be in Iowa,” said Costa. Her tweet about a time where she had to skip flying on Air Force 1. Of course, if she becomes president, the plane will have to wait! Supposed 2 be on AirForce1, but had votes so on delta w/Collin P & @MicheleBachmann #changeoffortune but all is good pic.twitter.com/m7c1vcW5kv — Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) June 26, 2014 3. TEA PARTY “CRUSH” STRATEGY DUE FOR ITS LAST BIG TESTS There are two significant tea party tests left on the GOP Senate primary calendar, and Jonathan Martin of The New York Times tells us the establishment is guardedly optimistic. One is against incumbent Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; the other against incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas. The latter for weeks has been described as the more vulnerable of the two, but Jonathan says there are those who believe that might have shifted – meaning Alexander suddenly has more to worry about – because of the shifting issues terrain in Washington. “There’s some concern about Roberts, because of the campaign he's run, whereas Alexander has run a better campaign, but keep in mind, Alexander has been targeted by Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin over the immigration issue, which is, as we know, boiling right now,” said Martin. Alexander’s tweet showing he supports a Senate tea party favorite on the border crisis issue: Cosponsors @SenTedCruz amendment to stop Obama from exceeding constitutional authority & supports @RepHalRogers bill to solve #BorderCrisis — Sen. Lamar Alexander (@SenAlexander) July 31, 2014 4. TWO FIRST LADIES AND A LESSON FOR THE MEN OF WASHINGTON Laura Bush and Michelle Obama are teaming up this week, for a mix of policy talk and socializing with the spouses of African leaders who will be in the United States for a summit meeting. And Nia Malika Henderson of The Washington Post tells us the main goal of the Bush-Obama partnership is to discuss their own lives in the context of helping elevate the role of women in the nations of their guests here in Washington. But perhaps this rare, bipartisan effort might send a message to others in this dysfunctional town? 5. 93 DAYS, AND COUNTING ..... WITH BIG MONEY DECISIONS LOOMING SOON Republicans need a gain of six Senate seats to take the majority, and are looking at opportunities in a dozen or more states with seats now held by Democrats. But the map will inevitably shrink, and here are two races to watch if you want to feel plugged in when big financial calculations are made after Labor Day. OREGON: GOP nominee Monica Wehby trails in the polls and in fund-raising, and it’s a state President Obama carried twice. But the GOP and its allies aren’t giving up yet. A group financed by the Koch Brothers just launched a multimillion ad by in the state, hoping to soften up support for Democratic incumbent Sen. Jeff Merkely. Check back at the end of the month: if the numbers have moved, more money will follow. But if they don’t narrow much, don’t be surprised if Wehby gets squeezed and both national party groups and deep-pocketed Super PACs steer major resources to more competitive states. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Many Republican strategists in the state are frustrated Scott Brown isn’t polling better against incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. But a few GOP activists insist Brown has moved the dial some in the past couple weeks, and remains in striking distance. Also giving the GOP some hope even though it’s another state the President carried twice? One prominent GOP activist, borrowing the local slang a bit, suggested President Obama’s New Hampshire poll standing was “wicked bad.”

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

We7qZ7CzB99cEnak

test

HToa2ije59Q9mLeB

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/new-hampshire-death-penalty-abolished-state-senate-governor

New Hampshire abolishes death penalty after state senate overrides governor

2019-05-30

Associated Press

Vote came a week after the 400-member house voted to override the governor ’ s veto of a bill to repeal capital punishment New Hampshire , which hasn ’ t executed anyone in 80 years and has only one inmate on death row , has became the latest US state to abolish the death penalty when the state senate voted to override the governor ’ s veto . “ Now it ’ s up to us to stop this practice that is archaic , costly , discriminatory and final , ” said New Hampshire state senator Melanie Levesque . The senate vote came a week after the 400-member house voted by the narrowest possible margin to override Republican governor Chris Sununu ’ s veto of a bill to repeal capital punishment . ' A broken system ' : the conservatives against the death penalty Read more New Hampshire ’ s death penalty applies in only seven scenarios : the killing of an on-duty law enforcement officer or judge , murder for hire , murder during a rape , certain drug offenses , or home invasion and murder by someone already serving a life sentence without parole . The state hasn ’ t executed anyone since 1939 , and the repeal bill would not apply retroactively to Michael Addison , who killed Manchester officer Michael Briggs and is the state ’ s only inmate on death row . But death penalty supporters argued that courts will interpret it differently , giving Addison a chance at life in prison . “ If you think you ’ re passing this today and Mr Addison is still going to remain on death row , you are confused , ” said the state senator Sharon Carson . “ Mr Addison ’ s sentence will be converted to life in prison . ” Carson argued that New Hampshire has a narrowly drawn law and a careful , deliberative process to ensure innocent people are not executed . “ This is not Louisiana of the 1920s where Old Sparky was put on a flatbed truck and driven from prison to prison and people were executed . We are not those people , ” she said . “ That doesn ’ t happen here in New Hampshire . ” The senate vote , 16-8 , was exactly the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto . Twelve Democrats and four Republicans supported ending the death penalty , while six Republicans and two Democrats voted to keep it . The latter included Lou D ’ Allesandro , who represents the district in which Briggs was killed . He urged his colleagues to remember law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day . “ I can ’ t abandon these people , ” he said . “ These people are there for us . They ’ re there for us , and I believe strongly we have to support them . ” Sununu , who vetoed the repeal bill surrounded by officers at a community center named for Briggs , said Thursday he was incredibly disappointed in the vote . “ I have consistently stood with law enforcement , families of crime victims , and advocates for justice in opposing a repeal of the death penalty because it is the right thing to do , ” he said in a statement . But state senator Bob Giuda , a former FBI agent , said while he greatly respects law enforcement , the death penalty is at odds with his pro-life principles . He called execution a “ ghastly ” process and urged his colleagues to “ move our civilization ” past it . “ I think we ’ re better than that , ” he said . “ I choose to move our state forward to remove the death penalty . ” Thirty states allow capital punishment , but in four of them , governors have issued moratoriums on the death penalty , according to the Death Penalty Information Center . Twenty states have abolished or overturned it . New Hampshire lawmakers have been considering and rejecting repeal efforts for the last two decades . Former governor Joeanne Shaheen , a Democrat , vetoed a similar bill in 2000 . Another Democrat , former governor John Lynch , signed a bill in 2011 expanding the death penalty to cover home invasions in response to a machete and knife attack that killed a woman and maimed her daughter in Mont Vernon .

Vote came a week after the 400-member house voted to override the governor’s veto of a bill to repeal capital punishment This article is more than 5 months old This article is more than 5 months old New Hampshire, which hasn’t executed anyone in 80 years and has only one inmate on death row, has became the latest US state to abolish the death penalty when the state senate voted to override the governor’s veto. “Now it’s up to us to stop this practice that is archaic, costly, discriminatory and final,” said New Hampshire state senator Melanie Levesque. The senate vote came a week after the 400-member house voted by the narrowest possible margin to override Republican governor Chris Sununu’s veto of a bill to repeal capital punishment. 'A broken system': the conservatives against the death penalty Read more New Hampshire’s death penalty applies in only seven scenarios: the killing of an on-duty law enforcement officer or judge, murder for hire, murder during a rape, certain drug offenses, or home invasion and murder by someone already serving a life sentence without parole. The state hasn’t executed anyone since 1939, and the repeal bill would not apply retroactively to Michael Addison, who killed Manchester officer Michael Briggs and is the state’s only inmate on death row. But death penalty supporters argued that courts will interpret it differently, giving Addison a chance at life in prison. “If you think you’re passing this today and Mr Addison is still going to remain on death row, you are confused,” said the state senator Sharon Carson. “Mr Addison’s sentence will be converted to life in prison.” Carson argued that New Hampshire has a narrowly drawn law and a careful, deliberative process to ensure innocent people are not executed. “This is not Louisiana of the 1920s where Old Sparky was put on a flatbed truck and driven from prison to prison and people were executed. We are not those people,” she said. “That doesn’t happen here in New Hampshire.” The senate vote, 16-8, was exactly the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto. Twelve Democrats and four Republicans supported ending the death penalty, while six Republicans and two Democrats voted to keep it. The latter included Lou D’Allesandro, who represents the district in which Briggs was killed. He urged his colleagues to remember law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day. “I can’t abandon these people,” he said. “These people are there for us. They’re there for us, and I believe strongly we have to support them.” Sununu, who vetoed the repeal bill surrounded by officers at a community center named for Briggs, said Thursday he was incredibly disappointed in the vote. “I have consistently stood with law enforcement, families of crime victims, and advocates for justice in opposing a repeal of the death penalty because it is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. But state senator Bob Giuda, a former FBI agent, said while he greatly respects law enforcement, the death penalty is at odds with his pro-life principles. He called execution a “ghastly” process and urged his colleagues to “move our civilization” past it. “I think we’re better than that,” he said. “I choose to move our state forward to remove the death penalty.” Thirty states allow capital punishment, but in four of them, governors have issued moratoriums on the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Twenty states have abolished or overturned it. New Hampshire lawmakers have been considering and rejecting repeal efforts for the last two decades. Former governor Joeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, vetoed a similar bill in 2000. Another Democrat, former governor John Lynch, signed a bill in 2011 expanding the death penalty to cover home invasions in response to a machete and knife attack that killed a woman and maimed her daughter in Mont Vernon.

www.theguardian.com

left

HToa2ije59Q9mLeB

test

pxu01RPJb0tZI2c4

politics

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/a1770fd620d94bf58d0ff1035d3e0eea/Democratic-socialism-surging-in-the-age-of-Trump

Democratic socialism surging in the age of Trump

2018-07-21

Steve Peoples

Corey Butler , center , stands as he explains what democratic socialism is to him during a meeting of the Southern Maine Democratic Socialists of America at City Hall in Portland , Maine , Monday , July 16 , 2018 . On the ground in dozens of states , there is new evidence that democratic socialism is taking hold as a significant force in Democratic politics . ( AP Photo/Charles Krupa ) Corey Butler , center , stands as he explains what democratic socialism is to him during a meeting of the Southern Maine Democratic Socialists of America at City Hall in Portland , Maine , Monday , July 16 , 2018 . On the ground in dozens of states , there is new evidence that democratic socialism is taking hold as a significant force in Democratic politics . ( AP Photo/Charles Krupa ) PORTLAND , Maine ( AP ) — A week ago , Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn ’ t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America , even if he appreciated the organization ’ s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator . Three days later , he told The ███ it was time to join up . He ’ s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist . Ringelstein ’ s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that , until recently , operated on the fringes of the liberal movement ’ s farthest left flank . As Donald Trump ’ s presidency stretches into its second year , democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics . Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters . “ I stand with the democratic socialists , and I have decided to become a dues-paying member , ” Ringelstein told AP . “ It ’ s time to do what ’ s right , even if it ’ s not easy . ” There are 42 people running for offices at the federal , state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America , the organization says . They span 20 states , including Florida , Hawaii , Kansas and Michigan . The most ambitious Democrats in Washington have been reluctant to embrace the label , even as they embrace the policies defining modern-day democratic socialism : Medicare for all , a $ 15 minimum wage , free college tuition and the abolition of the federal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement , also known as ICE . Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , Congress ’ only self-identified democratic socialist , campaigned Friday with the movement ’ s newest star , New York City congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez , a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month . Her victory fed a flame that was already beginning to burn brighter . The DSA ’ s paid membership has hovered around 6,000 in the years before Trump ’ s election , said Allie Cohn , a member of the group ’ s national political team . There is little distinction made between the terms “ democratic socialism ” and “ socialism ” in the group ’ s literature . While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “ big-tent ” philosophy , the group ’ s constitution describes its members as socialists who “ reject an economic order based on private profit ” and “ share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production , economic planning , equitable distribution , feminism , racial equality and non-oppressive relationships . ” Members during public meetings often refer to each other “ comrades , ” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx . The common association with the failed Soviet Union has made it difficult for sympathetic liberals to explain their connection . “ I don ’ t like the term socialist , because people do associate that with bad things in history , ” said Kansas congressional candidate James Thompson , who is endorsed by the DSA and campaigned alongside Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez , but is not a dues-paying democratic socialist . “ There ’ s definitely a lot of their policies that closely align with mine . ” Thompson , an Army veteran turned civil rights attorney , is running again after narrowly losing a special election last year to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo . Even in deep-red Kansas , he embraces policies like “ Medicare for all ” and is openly critical of capitalism . In Hawaii , 29-year-old state Rep. Kaniela Ing isn ’ t shy about promoting his status as a democratic socialist in his bid for Congress . He said he was encouraged to run for higher office by the same activist who recruited Ocasio-Cortez . “ We figured just lean in hard , ” Ing told the AP of the democratic socialist label . He acknowledged some baby boomers may be scared away , but said the policies democratic socialists promote — like free health care and economic equality — aren ’ t extreme . Republicans , meanwhile , are encouraged by the rise of democratic socialism — for a far different reason . They have seized on what they view as a leftward lurch by Democrats they predict will alienate voters this fall and in the 2020 presidential race . The Republican National Committee eagerly notes that Sanders ’ plan to provide free government-sponsored health care for all Americans had no co-sponsors in 2013 . Today , more than one-third of Senate Democrats and two-thirds of House Democrats have signed onto the proposal , which by one estimate could cost taxpayers as much as $ 32 trillion . The co-sponsors include some 2020 presidential prospects , such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker , New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Sen. Kamala Harris . Those senators aren ’ t calling themselves democratic socialists but also not disassociating themselves from the movement ’ s priorities . Most support the push to abolish ICE , which enforces immigration laws and led the Trump administration ’ s recent push to separate immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border . Of the group , only Booker hasn ’ t called for ICE to be abolished , replaced or rebuilt . Yet Booker ’ s office notes that he ’ s among the few senators backing a plan to guarantee government-backed jobs to unemployed adults in high-unemployment communities across America . “ Embracing socialist policies like government-run health care , a guaranteed jobs program and open borders will only make Democrats more out of touch , ” RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said . Gayle McLaughlin finished eighth in last month ’ s Democratic primary to become California ’ s lieutenant governor , earning just 4 percent of the vote . All three endorsed candidates for Maryland ’ s Montgomery County Council lost last month as well . And Ryan Fenwick was blown out by 58 points in his run to become mayor of Louisville , Kentucky . Ringelstein , a 32-year-old political neophyte , is expected to struggle in his campaign to unseat Maine Sen. Angus King , an independent who caucuses with Democrats . He is refusing to accept donations from lobbyists or corporate political action committees , which has made fundraising a grind . At the end of June , King ’ s campaign reported $ 2.4 million cash on hand while Ringelstein had just $ 23,000 . He has tapped into the party ’ s national progressive movement and the southern Maine chapter of the DSA for the kind of grassroots support that fueled Ocasio-Cortez ’ s victory . As he has done almost every month this year , Ringelstein attended the group ’ s monthly meeting at Portland ’ s city hall last Monday . More than 60 people packed into the room . The group ’ s chairman , 25-year-old union organizer Meg Reilly , wore a T-shirt featuring three roses . She cheered the “ comrades ” softball team ’ s recent season before moving to an agenda that touched on climate change legislation , a book share program “ to further your socialist education , ” and an exchange program that lets community members swap favors such as jewelry repair , pet sitting or cooking . Near the end of the two-hour gathering , Ringelstein thanked the group for “ standing shoulder to shoulder with us throughout this entire campaign . ” “ We could win a U.S. Senate seat ! ” he said . “ I want to say that over and over . We could win a U.S. Senate seat ! So , let ’ s do this . ”

Corey Butler, center, stands as he explains what democratic socialism is to him during a meeting of the Southern Maine Democratic Socialists of America at City Hall in Portland, Maine, Monday, July 16, 2018. On the ground in dozens of states, there is new evidence that democratic socialism is taking hold as a significant force in Democratic politics. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) Corey Butler, center, stands as he explains what democratic socialism is to him during a meeting of the Southern Maine Democratic Socialists of America at City Hall in Portland, Maine, Monday, July 16, 2018. On the ground in dozens of states, there is new evidence that democratic socialism is taking hold as a significant force in Democratic politics. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A week ago, Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn’t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, even if he appreciated the organization’s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator. Three days later, he told The Associated Press it was time to join up. He’s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist. Ringelstein’s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that, until recently, operated on the fringes of the liberal movement’s farthest left flank. As Donald Trump’s presidency stretches into its second year, democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics. Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters. “I stand with the democratic socialists, and I have decided to become a dues-paying member,” Ringelstein told AP. “It’s time to do what’s right, even if it’s not easy.” There are 42 people running for offices at the federal, state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization says. They span 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas and Michigan. The most ambitious Democrats in Washington have been reluctant to embrace the label, even as they embrace the policies defining modern-day democratic socialism: Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition and the abolition of the federal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Congress’ only self-identified democratic socialist, campaigned Friday with the movement’s newest star, New York City congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month. Her victory fed a flame that was already beginning to burn brighter. The DSA’s paid membership has hovered around 6,000 in the years before Trump’s election, said Allie Cohn, a member of the group’s national political team. Last week, its paid membership hit 45,000 nationwide. There is little distinction made between the terms “democratic socialism” and “socialism” in the group’s literature. While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “big-tent” philosophy, the group’s constitution describes its members as socialists who “reject an economic order based on private profit” and “share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.” Members during public meetings often refer to each other “comrades,” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx. The common association with the failed Soviet Union has made it difficult for sympathetic liberals to explain their connection. “I don’t like the term socialist, because people do associate that with bad things in history,” said Kansas congressional candidate James Thompson, who is endorsed by the DSA and campaigned alongside Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, but is not a dues-paying democratic socialist. “There’s definitely a lot of their policies that closely align with mine.” Thompson, an Army veteran turned civil rights attorney, is running again after narrowly losing a special election last year to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Even in deep-red Kansas, he embraces policies like “Medicare for all” and is openly critical of capitalism. In Hawaii, 29-year-old state Rep. Kaniela Ing isn’t shy about promoting his status as a democratic socialist in his bid for Congress. He said he was encouraged to run for higher office by the same activist who recruited Ocasio-Cortez. “We figured just lean in hard,” Ing told the AP of the democratic socialist label. He acknowledged some baby boomers may be scared away, but said the policies democratic socialists promote — like free health care and economic equality — aren’t extreme. Republicans, meanwhile, are encouraged by the rise of democratic socialism — for a far different reason. They have seized on what they view as a leftward lurch by Democrats they predict will alienate voters this fall and in the 2020 presidential race. The Republican National Committee eagerly notes that Sanders’ plan to provide free government-sponsored health care for all Americans had no co-sponsors in 2013. Today, more than one-third of Senate Democrats and two-thirds of House Democrats have signed onto the proposal, which by one estimate could cost taxpayers as much as $32 trillion. The co-sponsors include some 2020 presidential prospects, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Sen. Kamala Harris. Those senators aren’t calling themselves democratic socialists but also not disassociating themselves from the movement’s priorities. Most support the push to abolish ICE, which enforces immigration laws and led the Trump administration’s recent push to separate immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border. Of the group, only Booker hasn’t called for ICE to be abolished, replaced or rebuilt. Yet Booker’s office notes that he’s among the few senators backing a plan to guarantee government-backed jobs to unemployed adults in high-unemployment communities across America. “Embracing socialist policies like government-run health care, a guaranteed jobs program and open borders will only make Democrats more out of touch,” RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said. Despite Ocasio-Cortez’s recent success, most DSA-endorsed candidates have struggled. Gayle McLaughlin finished eighth in last month’s Democratic primary to become California’s lieutenant governor, earning just 4 percent of the vote. All three endorsed candidates for Maryland’s Montgomery County Council lost last month as well. And Ryan Fenwick was blown out by 58 points in his run to become mayor of Louisville, Kentucky. Ringelstein, a 32-year-old political neophyte, is expected to struggle in his campaign to unseat Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. He is refusing to accept donations from lobbyists or corporate political action committees, which has made fundraising a grind. At the end of June, King’s campaign reported $2.4 million cash on hand while Ringelstein had just $23,000. He has tapped into the party’s national progressive movement and the southern Maine chapter of the DSA for the kind of grassroots support that fueled Ocasio-Cortez’s victory. As he has done almost every month this year, Ringelstein attended the group’s monthly meeting at Portland’s city hall last Monday. More than 60 people packed into the room. The group’s chairman, 25-year-old union organizer Meg Reilly, wore a T-shirt featuring three roses. She cheered the “comrades” softball team’s recent season before moving to an agenda that touched on climate change legislation, a book share program “to further your socialist education,” and an exchange program that lets community members swap favors such as jewelry repair, pet sitting or cooking. Near the end of the two-hour gathering, Ringelstein thanked the group for “standing shoulder to shoulder with us throughout this entire campaign.” “We could win a U.S. Senate seat!” he said. “I want to say that over and over. We could win a U.S. Senate seat! So, let’s do this.”

www.apnews.com

center

pxu01RPJb0tZI2c4

test

aYTe9586NefZq091

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/democrat-f-bombs-and-the-inevitable-culture-war/

Democrat F-Bombs and the Inevitable Culture War

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

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand dropped a few f-bombs in a talk last week , sounding like a college sophomore trying to show seniors how cool she is . It was just one more advance in the moral deterioration of our political culture . Madonna ’ s speech at the Lincoln Memorial , the Antifa banners , the obscenities student activists scream at college leaders , Stephen Colbert ’ s “ holster ” joke… they appall moderate liberals I know , but form a long line of nastiness that looks at this point like a cardinal element of liberalism . Progressives place the blame on the ascent of Donald Trump , a man they believe is so bigoted and exploitative that the ordinary norms of decency don ’ t apply . They are right to focus on President Trump , but not for the reasons they think . His bumptious , politically incorrect style has , indeed , evoked from critics vulgarities previously unheard on the mainstream airwaves . But the potential for them long predated Candidate Trump . It started with the counter-culture in the 1950s and ’ 60s . Obscenity laws were struck down in 1959 by a New York judge in a decision that demonstrated how our culture had changed . Senator Gillibrand ’ s profanity goes back to Lenny Bruce and George Carlin . Jon Stewart ’ s and Bill Maher ’ s raunchy send-ups of Republicans were pioneered by the Smothers Brothers in the Nixon Era ( who often slipped obscenities into their scripts just to annoy the censors ) . When Snoop Dog shoots a clown-faced President Trump with a toy gun in a video , it reminds me of a speech by Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver at Stanford University in 1968 , when he said of the current governor , “ I challenge Ronald Reagan to a duel because Reagan is punk , a sissy , and a coward.… He can fight me with a gun , a knife , or a baseball bat . I ’ ll beat him to death with a marshmallow . ” The advance of political correctness for the last 50 years has always been reinforced by counter-culture invective . When Dan Quayle challenged the single motherhood of Murphy Brown , she filled her TV set with a rainbow coalition of accusing faces and shot him down with fervid solemnity . Whoopi Goldberg had fun with George W. Bush ’ s surname , while Hustler magazine did a porn series on Sarah Palin . Some of these attacks were criticized at the time and the stars apologized , but the line between clever satire and cheap insult has been steadily erased when conservatives are the target . They take the wrong position on social issues , it is understood , and so the more tempered liberals are able to find a moral meaning behind the vitriol that softens its indecency . Most of the time , beyond objecting to the tone of the attacks , Republicans have responded feebly . They ’ ve stayed silent or backed off . When Paul Ryan spoke of an eroding “ culture of work ” in inner cities , people termed it a racist remark and Ryan immediately reached out to his opponents . Moral criticism backed up by counter-culture insult makes for an intimidating mix . Until Donald Trump . He won ’ t apologize and he won ’ t explain . When challenged during the campaign on the endorsement of David Duke , he didn ’ t follow the script of hasty disavowal . He didn ’ t even seem to understand why the issue was being raised . One could hear “ Who cares what some white supremacist in Louisiana says ? ” running through his head . For liberals , that incognizance is precisely the problem . It shows that Trump hasn ’ t internalized the liberal take on race , which demands that every slight be treated with earnest gravity . More than that , Trump has the ( male ) ego to refuse shaming . They can make fun of him all they want , scream “ F— TRUMP ! ” all day and night , and he won ’ t budge . Given the history of Republican leaders wilting on social positions the moment charges of “ -ism ” and insensitivity are filed , progressives can only be frustrated and incensed by his obtuseness . A neutral observer would lay the balance of hostility on the side of the protesters , comedians and celebrities , but they have been spoiled by the weakness of prior adversaries and don ’ t realize their own aggression . Or perhaps they recognize the threat a politician who won ’ t be intimidated poses to the progressive agenda . If Mr. Trump refuses to concede and still wins , other Republicans may do the same . One of the potent weapons of the Left will fizzle . That can ’ t happen . The willingness of Kathy Griffin and Maxine Waters to go as far as they have shows how deeply invested progressives are in the insult tactic . This is going to continue until November 2018 and the midterm elections . If the Democrats win , it will vindicate threats and profanity in American politics .

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand dropped a few f-bombs in a talk last week, sounding like a college sophomore trying to show seniors how cool she is. It was just one more advance in the moral deterioration of our political culture. Madonna’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial, the Antifa banners, the obscenities student activists scream at college leaders, Stephen Colbert’s “holster” joke… they appall moderate liberals I know, but form a long line of nastiness that looks at this point like a cardinal element of liberalism. Progressives place the blame on the ascent of Donald Trump, a man they believe is so bigoted and exploitative that the ordinary norms of decency don’t apply. They are right to focus on President Trump, but not for the reasons they think. His bumptious, politically incorrect style has, indeed, evoked from critics vulgarities previously unheard on the mainstream airwaves. But the potential for them long predated Candidate Trump. It started with the counter-culture in the 1950s and ’60s. Obscenity laws were struck down in 1959 by a New York judge in a decision that demonstrated how our culture had changed. Senator Gillibrand’s profanity goes back to Lenny Bruce and George Carlin. Jon Stewart’s and Bill Maher’s raunchy send-ups of Republicans were pioneered by the Smothers Brothers in the Nixon Era (who often slipped obscenities into their scripts just to annoy the censors). When Snoop Dog shoots a clown-faced President Trump with a toy gun in a video, it reminds me of a speech by Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver at Stanford University in 1968, when he said of the current governor, “I challenge Ronald Reagan to a duel because Reagan is punk, a sissy, and a coward.… He can fight me with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat. I’ll beat him to death with a marshmallow.” The advance of political correctness for the last 50 years has always been reinforced by counter-culture invective. When Dan Quayle challenged the single motherhood of Murphy Brown, she filled her TV set with a rainbow coalition of accusing faces and shot him down with fervid solemnity. Whoopi Goldberg had fun with George W. Bush’s surname, while Hustler magazine did a porn series on Sarah Palin. Some of these attacks were criticized at the time and the stars apologized, but the line between clever satire and cheap insult has been steadily erased when conservatives are the target. They take the wrong position on social issues, it is understood, and so the more tempered liberals are able to find a moral meaning behind the vitriol that softens its indecency. Most of the time, beyond objecting to the tone of the attacks, Republicans have responded feebly. They’ve stayed silent or backed off. When Paul Ryan spoke of an eroding “culture of work” in inner cities, people termed it a racist remark and Ryan immediately reached out to his opponents. Moral criticism backed up by counter-culture insult makes for an intimidating mix. Until Donald Trump. He won’t apologize and he won’t explain. When challenged during the campaign on the endorsement of David Duke, he didn’t follow the script of hasty disavowal. He didn’t even seem to understand why the issue was being raised. One could hear “Who cares what some white supremacist in Louisiana says?” running through his head. For liberals, that incognizance is precisely the problem. It shows that Trump hasn’t internalized the liberal take on race, which demands that every slight be treated with earnest gravity. More than that, Trump has the (male) ego to refuse shaming. They can make fun of him all they want, scream “F— TRUMP!” all day and night, and he won’t budge. Given the history of Republican leaders wilting on social positions the moment charges of “-ism” and insensitivity are filed, progressives can only be frustrated and incensed by his obtuseness. A neutral observer would lay the balance of hostility on the side of the protesters, comedians and celebrities, but they have been spoiled by the weakness of prior adversaries and don’t realize their own aggression. Or perhaps they recognize the threat a politician who won’t be intimidated poses to the progressive agenda. If Mr. Trump refuses to concede and still wins, other Republicans may do the same. One of the potent weapons of the Left will fizzle. That can’t happen. The willingness of Kathy Griffin and Maxine Waters to go as far as they have shows how deeply invested progressives are in the insult tactic. This is going to continue until November 2018 and the midterm elections. If the Democrats win, it will vindicate threats and profanity in American politics.

www.spectator.org

right

aYTe9586NefZq091

test

0RLYgJww2Ka57Y5G

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2017/june/congressman-scalise-others-shot-early-this-morning

Congressman Steve Scalise, Others Shot by Gunman Targeting Republicans

2017-06-14

Rep. Steve Scalise , R-La. , remains in critical condition at MedStar Washington Hospital Center after being shot around 7:15 a.m. Wednesday morning when a gunman fired dozens of shots at Republican members of Congress who were gathered to practice baseball before tomorrow 's congressional baseball game . A statement from the hospital said Scalise was shot in the hip and the bullet `` travelled across his pelvis , fracturing bones , injuring internal organs , and causing severe bleeding . '' He underwent emergency surgery but his condition will require additional opperations . Several other people were also wounded , including several police officers . Vice President Mike Pence spoke with two members of the U.S. Capitol Police who were injured during the attack , as well as the father of lobbyist Matt Mika , who was shot multiple times . The White House said shortly after the shooting that President Donald Trump had spoken with House Speaker Paul Ryan , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , injured Rep. Steve Scalise 's wife and chief of staff , and the chief of the Capitol Police . The shooter has been revealed as a campaign volunteer for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. Sanders has condemned the shooting . `` I am sickened by this despicable act . Let me be as clear as I can be : Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms , '' Sanders said . The gunman , identified as James T. Hodgkinson , 66 , of Illinois , was neutralized after Scalise 's security detail engaged the shooter in a hail of gunfire . President Trump says the shooter has since died from his injuries . Hodgkinson had run a home-inspection business . He wrote numerous letters to his hometown newspaper over the years , the Belleville News-Democrat . In October 2011 , he applauded the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York and Boston . He also wrote that his favorite TV show was Rachel Maddow 's MSNBC program . The shooting happened at a baseball field in Alexandria , Virginia , at an early morning practice where more than 20 Republican congressmen were gathered to prepare for the upcoming congressional baseball game . `` I only saw him for a second or two , long enough to recognize that if I can see him , he can see me , '' recalled Congressman Mo Brooks , R-Ala. `` I saw the gunman come around the back stop and he had a clear line of fire into the dugout . '' A ███ News team , including Reporter Ben Kennedy , DC Bureau Chief Dana Ritter , and Producer Amber Strong , has been on the scene all morning gathering information . Follow their Twitter accounts and our ███ News Facebook page for ongoing updates from the field . UPDATE : `` after being shot @ SteveScalise drug himself out of the infield onto the outfield . '' - Rep. Jeff Flake @ CBNNews pic.twitter.com/5KIQWSx21L — Ben Kennedy ( @ BenKennedyTV ) June 14 , 2017 Scalise had a security detail with him because he serves as the current U.S. House of Representatives Majority Whip , one of the most powerful positions in Congress . An emotional Rep. Barton praises police efforts after the shooting . # scaliseshooting @ CBNNews pic.twitter.com/7bsTE9dlLb — Amber Strong TV ( @ AmberCStrong ) June 14 , 2017 Rep. Rodney Davis , R-Ill. , says he never thought he 'd go to a baseball practice and `` have to dodge bullets . '' Davis says if U.S. Capitol Police officers had not been on the scene , it `` would have been a massacre . '' “ The officers acted heroically today and they are in good condition , ” said Chief Matthew Verderosa of the Capitol Police Department . The White House issued a statement this morning saying : `` The Vice President and I are aware of the shooting incident in Virginia and are monitoring developments closely . We are deeply saddened by this tragedy . Our thoughts and prayers are with the members of Congress , their staffs , Capitol Police , first responders , and all others affected . '' Karen & I are praying for @ SteveScalise , the Capitol Police , & all hurt for a speedy recovery . Our hearts are with them & their loved ones . — Vice President Pence ( @ VP ) June 14 , 2017 This photo of Democratic congressmen praying on a separate baseball field is making the rounds on Twitter . Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks was at the Republican baseball practice where the shooting happened , and he tweeted this : Praying for those injured at this morning 's practice . I 'm especially thankful to the US Capitol Police who risked their lived to protect us . — Mo Brooks ( @ RepMoBrooks ) June 14 , 2017 Sen. James Lankford offered this prayer on the floor on the U.S. Senate . Meanwhile , Arkansas-based Tyson Foods Inc. says one of its employees was among those shot at the baseball practice Wednesday . Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson identified the wounded employee as Matt Mika . He says Mika is director of government relations for Tyson 's Washington , D.C. , office .

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., remains in critical condition at MedStar Washington Hospital Center after being shot around 7:15 a.m. Wednesday morning when a gunman fired dozens of shots at Republican members of Congress who were gathered to practice baseball before tomorrow's congressional baseball game. A statement from the hospital said Scalise was shot in the hip and the bullet "travelled across his pelvis, fracturing bones, injuring internal organs, and causing severe bleeding." He underwent emergency surgery but his condition will require additional opperations. Several other people were also wounded, including several police officers. Rep. Steve Scalise Vice President Mike Pence spoke with two members of the U.S. Capitol Police who were injured during the attack, as well as the father of lobbyist Matt Mika, who was shot multiple times. The White House said shortly after the shooting that President Donald Trump had spoken with House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, injured Rep. Steve Scalise's wife and chief of staff, and the chief of the Capitol Police. The shooter has been revealed as a campaign volunteer for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders has condemned the shooting. "I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms," Sanders said. The gunman, identified as James T. Hodgkinson, 66, of Illinois, was neutralized after Scalise's security detail engaged the shooter in a hail of gunfire. President Trump says the shooter has since died from his injuries. Hodgkinson had run a home-inspection business. He wrote numerous letters to his hometown newspaper over the years, the Belleville News-Democrat. In October 2011, he applauded the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York and Boston. He also wrote that his favorite TV show was Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program. The shooting happened at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, at an early morning practice where more than 20 Republican congressmen were gathered to prepare for the upcoming congressional baseball game. "I only saw him for a second or two, long enough to recognize that if I can see him, he can see me," recalled Congressman Mo Brooks, R-Ala. "I saw the gunman come around the back stop and he had a clear line of fire into the dugout." A CBN News team, including Reporter Ben Kennedy, DC Bureau Chief Dana Ritter, and Producer Amber Strong, has been on the scene all morning gathering information. Follow their Twitter accounts and our CBN News Facebook page for ongoing updates from the field. UPDATE: "after being shot @SteveScalise drug himself out of the infield onto the outfield." - Rep. Jeff Flake @CBNNews pic.twitter.com/5KIQWSx21L — Ben Kennedy (@BenKennedyTV) June 14, 2017 Scalise had a security detail with him because he serves as the current U.S. House of Representatives Majority Whip, one of the most powerful positions in Congress. An emotional Rep. Barton praises police efforts after the shooting. #scaliseshooting @CBNNews pic.twitter.com/7bsTE9dlLb — Amber Strong TV (@AmberCStrong) June 14, 2017 Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., says he never thought he'd go to a baseball practice and "have to dodge bullets." Davis says if U.S. Capitol Police officers had not been on the scene, it "would have been a massacre." “The officers acted heroically today and they are in good condition,” said Chief Matthew Verderosa of the Capitol Police Department. The White House issued a statement this morning saying: "The Vice President and I are aware of the shooting incident in Virginia and are monitoring developments closely. We are deeply saddened by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members of Congress, their staffs, Capitol Police, first responders, and all others affected." Karen & I are praying for @SteveScalise, the Capitol Police, & all hurt for a speedy recovery. Our hearts are with them & their loved ones. — Vice President Pence (@VP) June 14, 2017 This photo of Democratic congressmen praying on a separate baseball field is making the rounds on Twitter. Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks was at the Republican baseball practice where the shooting happened, and he tweeted this: Praying for those injured at this morning's practice. I'm especially thankful to the US Capitol Police who risked their lived to protect us. — Mo Brooks (@RepMoBrooks) June 14, 2017 Sen. James Lankford offered this prayer on the floor on the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods Inc. says one of its employees was among those shot at the baseball practice Wednesday. Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson identified the wounded employee as Matt Mika. He says Mika is director of government relations for Tyson's Washington, D.C., office.

www1.cbn.com

right

0RLYgJww2Ka57Y5G

test

LdYYZZUtM8exg7qR

race_and_racism

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/22/elizabeth-warren-calls-full-blown-national-conversation-about-reparations/

Elizabeth Warren Calls for a ‘Full-Blown National Conversation About Reparations’

2019-11-22

Hannah Bleau

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) on Thursday delivered a speech at Clark Atlanta University , and declared that it is time to adopt Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee ’ s ( D-TX ) legislation on reparations . Warren delivered a speech at the historically black university Thursday evening and stressed the need to pass Lee ’ s reparations legislation , which “ establishes the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans . ” “ Let ’ s be clear : It ’ s time for our government to have a full-blown national conversation about reparations , ” Warren wrote in a tweet containing a video of her remarks : Let ’ s be clear : It ’ s time for our government to have a full-blown national conversation about reparations . We must be honest about our history , and do what ’ s right so that our nation can begin to heal . # AtlantaWithWarren pic.twitter.com/Lsl47JezpM — Elizabeth Warren ( @ ewarren ) November 22 , 2019 “ America was founded on principles of liberty and built on the backs of enslaved people . [ It ’ s ] time to adopt H.R . 40 , Sheila Jackson Lee ’ s reparations plan . [ It ’ s ] time to do what ’ s right , so that our nation can begin to heal , ” Warren stated . The commission , according to the summary , would examine slavery and discrimination from 1619 to the modern era and “ recommend appropriate remedies . ” While Warren said that would be a “ big step , ” she suggested that more must be done . “ This is a big step but slavery is not the only history we must confront . Jim Crow was the lived reality in American up through the 1960s , ” Warren said . Government redlining meant that too often , toxic waste dumps and polluting factories were located far away from white communities and right next to black communities . The 1994 crime bill exacerbated the mass incarceration that locked up millions of black men and women . So don ’ t talk about race-neutral laws . The federal government helped create the racial divide in this country through decades of active state-sponsored discrimination , and that means the federal government has a responsibility to fix it . The presidential hopeful argued that each of her plans has an element that will address what she considers racial injustice . For instance , she said her Green New Deal plan would “ put racial and environmental justice at the center of our response to climate change . ” “ My health care plan will bring down the costs of prescription drugs and tackle the risks of black maternal mortality that is literally killing black women and their babies , ” she continued , seemingly ignoring her support for abortion and the impact that has had on the black community . “ My public education plan will put 800 billion new dollars in federal money into our public schools and quadruple the funding or schools that teach low-income children . My student debt cancellation plan will help close the black-white wealth gap in America , ” she continued , triumphantly declaring that her plans are “ all paid for . ” “ One more thing about those plans : They are all paid for , not by raising taxes one penny on working families , ” she claimed . “ They are all paid for by asking the wealthy and well-connected to just pay a fair share . ” “ It ’ s time for a wealth tax in America . Two cents ! ” she declared . This is not the first time Warren has signaled support for having a conversation on issuing reparations . She called for a “ national , full-blown ” conversation ” in March : Slavery is a stain on America & we need to address it head on . I believe it ’ s time to start a national , full-blown conversation about reparations . I support the bill in the House to support a congressional panel of experts so that our nation can do what ’ s right & begin to heal . — Elizabeth Warren ( @ ewarren ) March 19 , 2019 However , when asked about the “ direct transfers of money ” during a CNN town hall event in March , Warren dodged the question , instead stressing the need for further conversations . “ If I could just follow up on Georgia ’ s question , you said you ’ re open to a conversation about reparations to the descendants of slaves and Native Americans ? Might that include direct payments ? Direct transfers of money ? ” CNN ’ s Jake Tapper asked . There ’ s a lot of ways to think about the way they should be formed . And I noticed Georgia ’ s question started with the frame of an apology and national recognition . We have a lot of experts around the country , a lot of activists that have a whole lot of different approaches to it and I think the best we can do right now “ I love the idea of this congressional commission , let ’ s bring people together and let ’ s open that conversation as Americans . Let ’ s see what ideas people want to put on the table and let ’ s talk them through , ” she continued . “ Because I have to tell you , ignoring the problem is not working , ” she added , failing to answer the specific question .

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Thursday delivered a speech at Clark Atlanta University, and declared that it is time to adopt Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) legislation on reparations. Warren delivered a speech at the historically black university Thursday evening and stressed the need to pass Lee’s reparations legislation, which “establishes the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans.” “Let’s be clear: It’s time for our government to have a full-blown national conversation about reparations,” Warren wrote in a tweet containing a video of her remarks: Let’s be clear: It’s time for our government to have a full-blown national conversation about reparations. We must be honest about our history, and do what’s right so that our nation can begin to heal. #AtlantaWithWarren pic.twitter.com/Lsl47JezpM — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 22, 2019 “America was founded on principles of liberty and built on the backs of enslaved people. [It’s] time to adopt H.R. 40, Sheila Jackson Lee’s reparations plan. [It’s] time to do what’s right, so that our nation can begin to heal,” Warren stated. The commission, according to the summary, would examine slavery and discrimination from 1619 to the modern era and “recommend appropriate remedies.” While Warren said that would be a “big step,” she suggested that more must be done. “This is a big step but slavery is not the only history we must confront. Jim Crow was the lived reality in American up through the 1960s,” Warren said. She continued: Government redlining meant that too often, toxic waste dumps and polluting factories were located far away from white communities and right next to black communities. The 1994 crime bill exacerbated the mass incarceration that locked up millions of black men and women. So don’t talk about race-neutral laws. The federal government helped create the racial divide in this country through decades of active state-sponsored discrimination, and that means the federal government has a responsibility to fix it. The presidential hopeful argued that each of her plans has an element that will address what she considers racial injustice. For instance, she said her Green New Deal plan would “put racial and environmental justice at the center of our response to climate change.” “My health care plan will bring down the costs of prescription drugs and tackle the risks of black maternal mortality that is literally killing black women and their babies,” she continued, seemingly ignoring her support for abortion and the impact that has had on the black community. “My public education plan will put 800 billion new dollars in federal money into our public schools and quadruple the funding or schools that teach low-income children. My student debt cancellation plan will help close the black-white wealth gap in America,” she continued, triumphantly declaring that her plans are “all paid for.” “One more thing about those plans: They are all paid for, not by raising taxes one penny on working families,” she claimed. “They are all paid for by asking the wealthy and well-connected to just pay a fair share.” “It’s time for a wealth tax in America. Two cents!” she declared. This is not the first time Warren has signaled support for having a conversation on issuing reparations. She called for a “national, full-blown” conversation” in March: Slavery is a stain on America & we need to address it head on. I believe it’s time to start a national, full-blown conversation about reparations. I support the bill in the House to support a congressional panel of experts so that our nation can do what’s right & begin to heal. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 19, 2019 However, when asked about the “direct transfers of money” during a CNN town hall event in March, Warren dodged the question, instead stressing the need for further conversations. “If I could just follow up on Georgia’s question, you said you’re open to a conversation about reparations to the descendants of slaves and Native Americans? Might that include direct payments? Direct transfers of money?” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked. Warren replied: There’s a lot of ways to think about the way they should be formed. And I noticed Georgia’s question started with the frame of an apology and national recognition. We have a lot of experts around the country, a lot of activists that have a whole lot of different approaches to it and I think the best we can do right now “I love the idea of this congressional commission, let’s bring people together and let’s open that conversation as Americans. Let’s see what ideas people want to put on the table and let’s talk them through,” she continued. “Because I have to tell you, ignoring the problem is not working,” she added, failing to answer the specific question.

www.breitbart.com

right

LdYYZZUtM8exg7qR

test

LJYwFT75ZXU7Hh0N

education

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/4e0667bb51f18bf54656ce5c504d5859

Amid pandemic, fewer students seek federal aid for college

2020-06-30

Collin Binkley, Larry Fenn

FILE - In this June 27 , 2020 , file photo , Saltillo High School seniors make their way to the football field as the sun begins to set for their graduation ceremony in Saltillo , Miss . The number of high school seniors applying for U.S. federal college aid plunged in the weeks following the sudden closure of school buildings this spring — a time when students were cut off from school counselors , and families hit with financial setbacks were reconsidering plans for higher education . ( Thomas Wells/The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal via AP , File ) FILE - In this June 27 , 2020 , file photo , Saltillo High School seniors make their way to the football field as the sun begins to set for their graduation ceremony in Saltillo , Miss . The number of high school seniors applying for U.S. federal college aid plunged in the weeks following the sudden closure of school buildings this spring — a time when students were cut off from school counselors , and families hit with financial setbacks were reconsidering plans for higher education . ( Thomas Wells/The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal via AP , File ) The number of high school seniors applying for U.S. federal college aid plunged in the weeks following the sudden closure of school buildings this spring — a time when students were cut off from school counselors , and families hit with financial setbacks were reconsidering plans for higher education . In the first weeks of the pandemic , the number of new applications fell by nearly half compared to last year ’ s levels , fueled by a precipitous decline among students at low-income schools , according to an ███ analysis of federal data . The numbers have risen as states and schools have launched campaigns urging students to apply for aid , but they remain down overall from last year . It ’ s raising alarms among education officials who say thousands of students may be opting to delay or forgo college , with potentially dire consequences for their job prospects and future earnings . “ The consequences are that kids are going directly into the workforce . They ’ re closing the door on post-high school learning , ” said David Nieslanik , principal of Southridge High School in Beaverton , Oregon , where he saw only more affluent students file for aid once instruction moved online . The FAFSA , short for Free Application for Federal Student Aid , is required for students to be eligible for federal Pell grants and student loans . It ’ s also often a requirement for state aid . Students who complete the form are far more likely to enroll in college , studies have found , and those who receive aid are more likely to stay in college . In the four weeks starting March 13 , the number of completed applications was down 45 % compared to the same period the year before , according to the AP analysis . It was sharpest at Title I schools , a federal designation for public schools that have larger shares of low-income students , which saw a 52 % decrease , compared to a 39 % slide at other public schools . Overall , applications were down by 70,000 as of June 19 , representing a 3.7 % drop for the entire application cycle . Even before the pandemic , some states had been expecting to see decreases as demographic shifts result in fewer high school seniors , and plenty of individual schools saw filings hold steady or increase . However , as the coronavirus started to spread , every state saw numbers slide compared to last year ’ s levels , even states that had more high school seniors this year . Schools say the pandemic contributed to the slide in several ways . Separated from their schools , students lost touch with counselors who typically guide them through the complex financial aid process . Families without reliable internet access struggled to complete the online form . And amid economic turmoil , some students took jobs and put college plans on hold . The pandemic ’ s timing worsened its impact on low-income students , experts say : While more affluent students typically submit the FAFSA earlier in the application cycle , low-income students are more likely to wait until March or April , the time when schools were shutting down . Gregory Cole , principal of the Mojave High School in North Las Vegas , Nevada , said it came at “ the very worst time . ” Many parents lost jobs as the region ’ s gaming industry shut down , and some students took jobs in groceries or fast food chains . Compounding the problem , many students come from families that had never filed the form , which requires a range of tax and Social Security records . “ We ’ re the lifeline for a lot of our kids , ” Cole said . “ Without us there to help them through the process , I think it ’ s inevitable that some of them are going to fall through the cracks . ” Once schools closed , counselors could no longer pull students into their offices to talk , or invite families to school to navigate the FAFSA . Instead , schools were left sending emails that often went unanswered , or they relied on unwieldy video chats to help families with paperwork . There ’ s hope that the decrease is partly tied to students who plan to attend community colleges and are waiting to file until closer to those schools ’ deadlines , which are often later , said Justin Draeger , president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators . Still , he worries that the drop-off may be more than a “ temporary blip . ” “ During recessions , traditionally more people go back to school to retool . But this just feels very different because of the pandemic , the illness , the job loss , and then the quarantines that might reappear this year , ” he said . “ All of this says to me , there are a lot of things to be worried about . ” Education officials are encouraging students to apply over the summer , even if only to see how much financial aid they could receive . North Carolina recently launched a “ FAFSA Frenzy ” campaign , while Kentucky is hosting “ FAFSA Fridays ” urging students to apply . Although deadlines for some state scholarships have passed , students can still apply for federal aid for the 2020-21 school year through June 2021 . In Louisiana , one of several states where students are required to file the FAFSA in order to graduate from high school , state officials waived that rule because of the pandemic . But state education officials are still calling and texting students in districts with lower completion rates . As of June 19 , applications among the state ’ s low-income students were down by nearly 9 % . “ We are not going to stop , ” said Sujuan Boutté , executive director of the Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance . “ We ’ ve got to be that rock that says , ‘ I do understand that there ’ s a lot of uncertainty , but this is a ticket to your future and you don ’ t want to put that on hold . ’ ” Officials in Kentucky say they ’ re working hard but aren ’ t optimistic they ’ ll catch up with last year ’ s numbers . Even if they do , they worry that many students who filed will ultimately not enroll in college . “ We may reach the same percentage , but I ’ m not optimistic that all of those students will be going to college , ” said Aaron Thompson , president of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education . “ If I ’ m wrong about this , I will be shouting hallelujah . ” ___ Binkley reported from Boston . Fenn reported from New York .

FILE - In this June 27, 2020, file photo, Saltillo High School seniors make their way to the football field as the sun begins to set for their graduation ceremony in Saltillo, Miss. The number of high school seniors applying for U.S. federal college aid plunged in the weeks following the sudden closure of school buildings this spring — a time when students were cut off from school counselors, and families hit with financial setbacks were reconsidering plans for higher education. (Thomas Wells/The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal via AP, File) FILE - In this June 27, 2020, file photo, Saltillo High School seniors make their way to the football field as the sun begins to set for their graduation ceremony in Saltillo, Miss. The number of high school seniors applying for U.S. federal college aid plunged in the weeks following the sudden closure of school buildings this spring — a time when students were cut off from school counselors, and families hit with financial setbacks were reconsidering plans for higher education. (Thomas Wells/The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal via AP, File) The number of high school seniors applying for U.S. federal college aid plunged in the weeks following the sudden closure of school buildings this spring — a time when students were cut off from school counselors, and families hit with financial setbacks were reconsidering plans for higher education. In the first weeks of the pandemic, the number of new applications fell by nearly half compared to last year’s levels, fueled by a precipitous decline among students at low-income schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal data. The numbers have risen as states and schools have launched campaigns urging students to apply for aid, but they remain down overall from last year. ADVERTISEMENT It’s raising alarms among education officials who say thousands of students may be opting to delay or forgo college, with potentially dire consequences for their job prospects and future earnings. “The consequences are that kids are going directly into the workforce. They’re closing the door on post-high school learning,” said David Nieslanik, principal of Southridge High School in Beaverton, Oregon, where he saw only more affluent students file for aid once instruction moved online. The FAFSA, short for Free Application for Federal Student Aid, is required for students to be eligible for federal Pell grants and student loans. It’s also often a requirement for state aid. Students who complete the form are far more likely to enroll in college, studies have found, and those who receive aid are more likely to stay in college. In the four weeks starting March 13, the number of completed applications was down 45% compared to the same period the year before, according to the AP analysis. It was sharpest at Title I schools, a federal designation for public schools that have larger shares of low-income students, which saw a 52% decrease, compared to a 39% slide at other public schools. Overall, applications were down by 70,000 as of June 19, representing a 3.7% drop for the entire application cycle. Even before the pandemic, some states had been expecting to see decreases as demographic shifts result in fewer high school seniors, and plenty of individual schools saw filings hold steady or increase. However, as the coronavirus started to spread, every state saw numbers slide compared to last year’s levels, even states that had more high school seniors this year. Schools say the pandemic contributed to the slide in several ways. Separated from their schools, students lost touch with counselors who typically guide them through the complex financial aid process. Families without reliable internet access struggled to complete the online form. And amid economic turmoil, some students took jobs and put college plans on hold. ADVERTISEMENT The pandemic’s timing worsened its impact on low-income students, experts say: While more affluent students typically submit the FAFSA earlier in the application cycle, low-income students are more likely to wait until March or April, the time when schools were shutting down. Gregory Cole, principal of the Mojave High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada, said it came at “the very worst time.” Many parents lost jobs as the region’s gaming industry shut down, and some students took jobs in groceries or fast food chains. Compounding the problem, many students come from families that had never filed the form, which requires a range of tax and Social Security records. “We’re the lifeline for a lot of our kids,” Cole said. “Without us there to help them through the process, I think it’s inevitable that some of them are going to fall through the cracks.” Once schools closed, counselors could no longer pull students into their offices to talk, or invite families to school to navigate the FAFSA. Instead, schools were left sending emails that often went unanswered, or they relied on unwieldy video chats to help families with paperwork. There’s hope that the decrease is partly tied to students who plan to attend community colleges and are waiting to file until closer to those schools’ deadlines, which are often later, said Justin Draeger, president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Still, he worries that the drop-off may be more than a “temporary blip.” “During recessions, traditionally more people go back to school to retool. But this just feels very different because of the pandemic, the illness, the job loss, and then the quarantines that might reappear this year,” he said. “All of this says to me, there are a lot of things to be worried about.” Education officials are encouraging students to apply over the summer, even if only to see how much financial aid they could receive. North Carolina recently launched a “FAFSA Frenzy” campaign, while Kentucky is hosting “FAFSA Fridays” urging students to apply. Although deadlines for some state scholarships have passed, students can still apply for federal aid for the 2020-21 school year through June 2021. In Louisiana, one of several states where students are required to file the FAFSA in order to graduate from high school, state officials waived that rule because of the pandemic. But state education officials are still calling and texting students in districts with lower completion rates. As of June 19, applications among the state’s low-income students were down by nearly 9%. “We are not going to stop,” said Sujuan Boutté, executive director of the Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance. “We’ve got to be that rock that says, ‘I do understand that there’s a lot of uncertainty, but this is a ticket to your future and you don’t want to put that on hold.’” Officials in Kentucky say they’re working hard but aren’t optimistic they’ll catch up with last year’s numbers. Even if they do, they worry that many students who filed will ultimately not enroll in college. “We may reach the same percentage, but I’m not optimistic that all of those students will be going to college,” said Aaron Thompson, president of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. “If I’m wrong about this, I will be shouting hallelujah.” ___ Binkley reported from Boston. Fenn reported from New York.

www.apnews.com

center

LJYwFT75ZXU7Hh0N

test

J7MpUwKMosSx19q1

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/22/gop-consultant-lays-out-new-genius-plan-to-take-down-trump-how-brutus-killed-caesar-get-close-then-shiv-him-in-the-ribs/

GOP Consultant Lays Out New Genius Plan to Take Down Trump: 'How Brutus Killed Caesar,' Get Close Then 'Shiv Him in the Ribs'

2015-08-22

Matthew Boyle

The geniuses in the Washington , D.C.- centered GOP establishment have a new plan to take down 2016 Republican frontrunner Donald Trump : Infiltrate his inner circle posing as an ally , then use their fabricated support of him to secretly plot to take him down . But now they all admit : They were wrong , Trump is real , and he has a serious shot at winning this thing . “ Just like Humphrey Bogart said in Casablanca , I was misinformed , ” Alex Castellanos , one such consultant , said of Trump in an interview with Bloomberg Politics on Friday . “ He ’ s grown . He started off as the anti-Washington candidate , the angry man ’ s candidate , now he ’ s becoming not just an anti-them vote but a pro-him . He ’ s becoming the Make America Great Again candidate and that gives him room for growth . ” “ Anybody who discounts Donald Trump—he ’ s going to be around through the convention now—I think is making a mistake , ” Castellanos added . From there , the conversation turned to how Castellanos thinks Trump might be taken down—and who might do it . He said : Well you have two angles to look at that—he ’ s sitting on a bunch of people down there on the conservative side . He ’ s sitting on Ted Cruz . I doubt Ben Carson is going to do anything about that , but at some point Ted Cruz is going to wake and figure ‘ this race is going to end and I ’ m never going to catch up. ’ Then on the other side , the establishment side , you can wait a little longer . Whether it ’ s a Carly Fiorina or a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio , don ’ t stand in front of the tsunami right now and just coalesce—become a better , stronger candidate so you can be in the lead when everyone turns not to Trump but to the anti-Trump . When asked , if he were running strategy for those wanting to take Trump down , how he would do it , he compared the effort to how Brutus murdered Caesar . ” Castellanos said : The best way to do it is how Brutus killed Caesar . Get real close , snuggle up , and shiv him in the ribs . In other words , hug the message but not the messenger . ‘ We understand the frustration in America , we know why you hate Washington . Your country is on the verge of decline , it ’ s going over a cliff , and nobody ’ s doing anything about it . We get it . Donald Trump and I agree on that , but let me tell you now what we ’ re going to do. ’ Take his energy , take his heat , and use it to fuel your engine . Turn his heat into your action and be there , you hope , when voters actually get serious about this and say ‘ you know what , I agree with him but he ’ s not a president . ’ This is the same Castellanos who just a few days earlier called for a “ cleansing ” of the Republican Party after what he then expected would be an inevitable collapse of Trump ’ s campaign . Just a few days later , Castellanos has clearly changed his tune .

The geniuses in the Washington, D.C.- centered GOP establishment have a new plan to take down 2016 Republican frontrunner Donald Trump: Infiltrate his inner circle posing as an ally, then use their fabricated support of him to secretly plot to take him down. But now they all admit: They were wrong, Trump is real, and he has a serious shot at winning this thing. “Just like Humphrey Bogart said in Casablanca, I was misinformed,” Alex Castellanos, one such consultant, said of Trump in an interview with Bloomberg Politics on Friday. “He’s grown. He started off as the anti-Washington candidate, the angry man’s candidate, now he’s becoming not just an anti-them vote but a pro-him. He’s becoming the Make America Great Again candidate and that gives him room for growth.” “Anybody who discounts Donald Trump—he’s going to be around through the convention now—I think is making a mistake,” Castellanos added. From there, the conversation turned to how Castellanos thinks Trump might be taken down—and who might do it. He said: Well you have two angles to look at that—he’s sitting on a bunch of people down there on the conservative side. He’s sitting on Ted Cruz. I doubt Ben Carson is going to do anything about that, but at some point Ted Cruz is going to wake and figure ‘this race is going to end and I’m never going to catch up.’ Then on the other side, the establishment side, you can wait a little longer. Whether it’s a Carly Fiorina or a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio, don’t stand in front of the tsunami right now and just coalesce—become a better, stronger candidate so you can be in the lead when everyone turns not to Trump but to the anti-Trump. WATCH: CASTELLANOS DETAILS NEW PLAN TO TAKE OUT DONALD TRUMP When asked, if he were running strategy for those wanting to take Trump down, how he would do it, he compared the effort to how Brutus murdered Caesar. ” Castellanos said: The best way to do it is how Brutus killed Caesar. Get real close, snuggle up, and shiv him in the ribs. In other words, hug the message but not the messenger. ‘We understand the frustration in America, we know why you hate Washington. Your country is on the verge of decline, it’s going over a cliff, and nobody’s doing anything about it. We get it. Donald Trump and I agree on that, but let me tell you now what we’re going to do.’ Take his energy, take his heat, and use it to fuel your engine. Turn his heat into your action and be there, you hope, when voters actually get serious about this and say ‘you know what, I agree with him but he’s not a president.’ This is the same Castellanos who just a few days earlier called for a “cleansing” of the Republican Party after what he then expected would be an inevitable collapse of Trump’s campaign. Just a few days later, Castellanos has clearly changed his tune.

www.breitbart.com

right

J7MpUwKMosSx19q1

test

StI3h71AiCcleVzi

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax/trump-key-republican-u-s-senator-spar-ahead-of-tax-meeting-idUSKBN1CT200

Trump, key Republican U.S. senator spar ahead of tax meeting

2017-10-24

Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump began talks with Republican senators on Tuesday to try to build consensus for proposed tax cuts in a meeting that was overshadowed by an exchange of insults between the president and one of the lawmakers . Trump has asked his fellow Republicans who control Congress to pass a package of tax cuts , including a deep reduction in the corporate income tax , by year ’ s end . But hours before he was to promote the tax plan at a weekly lunch for Republican senators on Capitol Hill , Trump engaged in a distracting tussle with one of those lawmakers : Bob Corker , a leading fiscal hawk and the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . “ Bob Corker , who ... couldn ’ t get elected dog catcher in Tennessee , is now fighting Tax Cuts , ” Trump wrote on Twitter , later adding that the senator is “ incompetent . ” Trump arrived at the Capitol building with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for the lunch and gave a thumbs up to waiting reporters . A protester threw a handful of small Russian flags toward Trump and shouted comments about accusations of collusion between his presidential campaign and Moscow . Both Trump and Russia deny colluding but a special counsel appointed by the U.S. Justice Department and congressional committees are looking into the matter . Alienating any members of his own party could be costly for Trump ’ s legislative initiatives in the Senate because Republicans control the chamber by just a slim 52-48 margin . Corker warned Trump in television interviews against interfering in congressional efforts to finalize the legislation to cut taxes and called the president ’ s visit with Senate Republicans “ a photo op . ” “ Hopefully , the White House will step aside and let that occur in a normal process , ” the Tennessee Republican told NBC ’ s “ Today ” program . “ That ’ s the best way for us to have success . ” Corker also described Trump in a Twitter post as “ an utterly untruthful president , ” and in television interviews accused Trump of debasing the United States . House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan urged reporters to ignore the Trump-Corker spat and concentrate on the tax plan . “ Put this Twitter dispute aside . The fact is we have an historic chance of fixing this tax code , ” Ryan said . Ryan added that he knows Corker well and predicted that the senator is “ going to vote for tax reform . ” U.S. President Donald Trump walks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) as he arrives for the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington , U.S. , October 24 , 2017 . ███/Joshua Roberts Ryan said he wants the House to pass the Republican tax cut bill by the Nov. 23 U.S. Thanksgiving holiday , echoing Trump ’ s call to speed up the party ’ s efforts to get the measure approved before year ’ s end . CNBC reported that Republicans plan to release their tax bill on Nov. 1 after an expected House vote on Thursday on a Senate-approved budget plan . House leaders are eager to get a tax bill voted on before the Dec. 8 deadline for a possible government shutdown comes into view , as it is likely to distract from the tax overhaul , financial firm Cowen and Co. said in a research note . “ The Senate time-frame on taxes remains much more of a mystery with a Senate Finance draft likely in the late November/early December time frame , ” Cowen analyst Chris Krueger said . Securing congressional passage of his tax plan is critically important to Trump , who has yet to get major legislation through Congress since taking office in January , including a healthcare overhaul he promised as a candidate last year . Tax cuts were another of Trump ’ s campaign pledges . The White House argues that tax cuts are needed to boost economic growth and create jobs , but has shown sensitivity in recent weeks to arguments that it is endangering America ’ s long-term fiscal health . Trump said he believed the tax overhaul would help bring in $ 4 trillion in foreign profits from U.S. companies . “ It ’ s going to bring back , I would say , $ 4 trillion back into this country , ” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office . “ Nobody even knows the amount , ” Trump said . Market analysts estimate that about $ 2.6 trillion in profits is being held offshore by U.S. multinationals to avoid the current 35 percent U.S. corporate income tax . Trump ’ s tax plan would require multinationals to bring in , or repatriate , those profits at a sharply reduced tax rate payable over several years . One of the key elements of the proposal is to slash the corporate income tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent . While the broad parameters of the tax proposal have been made public , detailed legislation has not yet been unveiled . Democrats have painted Trump ’ s plan , with its $ 6 trillion in tax cuts , as a gift to the rich and corporate America that would balloon the federal deficit . Trump promised on Monday to protect a popular retirement program as Republican lawmakers seek ways to pay for the proposed cuts .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump began talks with Republican senators on Tuesday to try to build consensus for proposed tax cuts in a meeting that was overshadowed by an exchange of insults between the president and one of the lawmakers. Trump has asked his fellow Republicans who control Congress to pass a package of tax cuts, including a deep reduction in the corporate income tax, by year’s end. But hours before he was to promote the tax plan at a weekly lunch for Republican senators on Capitol Hill, Trump engaged in a distracting tussle with one of those lawmakers: Bob Corker, a leading fiscal hawk and the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Bob Corker, who ... couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Tennessee, is now fighting Tax Cuts,” Trump wrote on Twitter, later adding that the senator is “incompetent.” Trump arrived at the Capitol building with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for the lunch and gave a thumbs up to waiting reporters. A protester threw a handful of small Russian flags toward Trump and shouted comments about accusations of collusion between his presidential campaign and Moscow. Both Trump and Russia deny colluding but a special counsel appointed by the U.S. Justice Department and congressional committees are looking into the matter. Alienating any members of his own party could be costly for Trump’s legislative initiatives in the Senate because Republicans control the chamber by just a slim 52-48 margin. Corker warned Trump in television interviews against interfering in congressional efforts to finalize the legislation to cut taxes and called the president’s visit with Senate Republicans “a photo op.” “Hopefully, the White House will step aside and let that occur in a normal process,” the Tennessee Republican told NBC’s “Today” program. “That’s the best way for us to have success.” Corker also described Trump in a Twitter post as “an utterly untruthful president,” and in television interviews accused Trump of debasing the United States. ‘HISTORIC CHANCE’ House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan urged reporters to ignore the Trump-Corker spat and concentrate on the tax plan. “Put this Twitter dispute aside. The fact is we have an historic chance of fixing this tax code,” Ryan said. Ryan added that he knows Corker well and predicted that the senator is “going to vote for tax reform.” U.S. President Donald Trump walks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as he arrives for the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 24, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts Ryan said he wants the House to pass the Republican tax cut bill by the Nov. 23 U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, echoing Trump’s call to speed up the party’s efforts to get the measure approved before year’s end. CNBC reported that Republicans plan to release their tax bill on Nov. 1 after an expected House vote on Thursday on a Senate-approved budget plan. House leaders are eager to get a tax bill voted on before the Dec. 8 deadline for a possible government shutdown comes into view, as it is likely to distract from the tax overhaul, financial firm Cowen and Co. said in a research note. “The Senate time-frame on taxes remains much more of a mystery with a Senate Finance draft likely in the late November/early December time frame,” Cowen analyst Chris Krueger said. Securing congressional passage of his tax plan is critically important to Trump, who has yet to get major legislation through Congress since taking office in January, including a healthcare overhaul he promised as a candidate last year. Tax cuts were another of Trump’s campaign pledges. The White House argues that tax cuts are needed to boost economic growth and create jobs, but has shown sensitivity in recent weeks to arguments that it is endangering America’s long-term fiscal health. Trump said he believed the tax overhaul would help bring in $4 trillion in foreign profits from U.S. companies. “It’s going to bring back, I would say, $4 trillion back into this country,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “Nobody even knows the amount,” Trump said. Market analysts estimate that about $2.6 trillion in profits is being held offshore by U.S. multinationals to avoid the current 35 percent U.S. corporate income tax. Trump’s tax plan would require multinationals to bring in, or repatriate, those profits at a sharply reduced tax rate payable over several years. Slideshow (4 Images) One of the key elements of the proposal is to slash the corporate income tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent. While the broad parameters of the tax proposal have been made public, detailed legislation has not yet been unveiled. Democrats have painted Trump’s plan, with its $6 trillion in tax cuts, as a gift to the rich and corporate America that would balloon the federal deficit. Trump promised on Monday to protect a popular retirement program as Republican lawmakers seek ways to pay for the proposed cuts.

www.reuters.com

center

StI3h71AiCcleVzi

test

frsPCCEEmIAewXzz

politics

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/october/barred-from-wearing-their-uniforms-minneapolis-police-supporters-promise-sea-of-red-at-trump-rally

Barred from Wearing Their Uniforms, Minneapolis Police Supporters Promise 'Sea of Red' at Trump Rally

2019-10-09

The lead-up to President Donald Trump 's big rally in Minneapolis , MN has been tumultuous after local officials took steps that sparked furious responses from the president and others who say the mayor was trying to limit Trump 's impact . If you watch President Trump 's rally there on Thursday , look for Minneapolis police officers standing behind him . They 'll be very easy to spot . They 'll all be wearing red t-shirts instead of their uniforms due to a brand new department policy . So why are the police officers not wearing their uniforms ? It all started after Trump announced he would hold the Minneapolis rally , his first campaign event since House Democrats announced an impeachment inquiry against him . The North Star state is expected to be a big battleground in the 2020 presidential campaign . A day after Trump announced the event , a new policy was handed down which bars off-duty police officers from wearing their uniforms to political events . The head of the local police union immediately cried foul , saying it was a political move by Democrat city officials . Police spokesman John Elder told USA Today the new rule was put in place to prevent the department 's officers from showing political bias and for the public from becoming `` confused . '' `` The uniform gets translated back to the average person as someone being from the police department , '' he said . `` It 's very confusing for people when they see someone in uniform to understand the difference between the city and the federation . '' But Lt. Bob Kroll , president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis told USA Today it 's clear to him that politics are behind the rule change . After Trump 's rally was announced , Mayor Jacob Frey released a statement in which he called the President 's actions `` reprehensible . '' `` Under ordinary circumstances , it would be an honor to welcome a sitting President of the United States to Minneapolis and to showcase all our city has to offer on the national stage , '' Frey said in the statement . `` But these are n't ordinary circumstances . Since taking office President Trump 's actions have been reprehensible and his rhetoric has made it clear that he does not value the perspectives or rights of Minneapolis ' diverse communities . '' Both Frey and Elder said police officials have been working on the rule change for months before Trump announced the Minneapolis rally . Kroll said the timing of the rule change announcement was `` very conspicuous . '' So police officers who support the president will now wear t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan `` Cops for Trump . '' The shirt features an American flag in the shape of Minnesota . All proceeds from the sale of the shirts will go toward the police union 's charity . President Trump , a big supporter of law enforcement professionals , likes to feature local officers behind him at events . Trump tweeted about the shirts and wrote he wants to bring some back to Washington with him . `` Thank you to Lt. Bob Kroll of the great Minneapolis Police Department for your kind words on @ foxandfriends . The Police are fighting the Radical Left Mayor and his ridiculous Uniform Ban . Actually , I LOVE the Cops for Trump shirts . Want to bring some home . I am with you 100 % ! ! ! ! , '' the president tweeted . Thank you to Lt. Bob Kroll of the great Minneapolis Police Department for your kind words on @ foxandfriends . The Police are fighting the Radical Left Mayor , and his ridiculous Uniform Ban . Actually , I LOVE the Cops for Trump shirts . Want to bring some home . I am with you 100 % ! ! ! ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 8 , 2019 Minneapolis city officials also had a few words with the Trump campaign on who was going to cover the costs of the President 's rally at the Target Center . According to The Washington Post , city officials told the Target Center that it would be responsible for a whopping $ 530,000 security bill the city says it needs in order to provide security for Trump 's visit . The arena then threatened to cancel the rally unless the Trump campaign paid the bill . This angered Trump 's team which accused Mayor Frey of trying to stop the rally . It was only after the campaign threatened to sue the arena 's owners that the bill was rescinded . According to The Post , campaign manager Brad Parscale wrote in an email to supporters . `` The Target Center has backed off canceling the contract , which means President Trump 's Keep America Great rally will go on as scheduled . Consistent with our original agreement with the venue , the Trump campaign has not agreed to pay any additional funds . '' Trump tweeted , `` Someone please tell the Radical Left Mayor of Minneapolis that he ca n't price out Free Speech . Probably illegal ! I stand strongly & proudly with the great Police Officers and Law Enforcement of Minneapolis and the Great State of Minnesota ! See you Thursday Night !

The lead-up to President Donald Trump's big rally in Minneapolis, MN has been tumultuous after local officials took steps that sparked furious responses from the president and others who say the mayor was trying to limit Trump's impact. If you watch President Trump's rally there on Thursday, look for Minneapolis police officers standing behind him. They'll be very easy to spot. They'll all be wearing red t-shirts instead of their uniforms due to a brand new department policy. So why are the police officers not wearing their uniforms? It all started after Trump announced he would hold the Minneapolis rally, his first campaign event since House Democrats announced an impeachment inquiry against him. The North Star state is expected to be a big battleground in the 2020 presidential campaign. A day after Trump announced the event, a new policy was handed down which bars off-duty police officers from wearing their uniforms to political events. The head of the local police union immediately cried foul, saying it was a political move by Democrat city officials. Police spokesman John Elder told USA Today the new rule was put in place to prevent the department's officers from showing political bias and for the public from becoming "confused." "The uniform gets translated back to the average person as someone being from the police department," he said. "It's very confusing for people when they see someone in uniform to understand the difference between the city and the federation." But Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis told USA Today it's clear to him that politics are behind the rule change. After Trump's rally was announced, Mayor Jacob Frey released a statement in which he called the President's actions "reprehensible." "Under ordinary circumstances, it would be an honor to welcome a sitting President of the United States to Minneapolis and to showcase all our city has to offer on the national stage," Frey said in the statement. "But these aren't ordinary circumstances. Since taking office President Trump's actions have been reprehensible and his rhetoric has made it clear that he does not value the perspectives or rights of Minneapolis' diverse communities." Both Frey and Elder said police officials have been working on the rule change for months before Trump announced the Minneapolis rally. Kroll said the timing of the rule change announcement was "very conspicuous." So police officers who support the president will now wear t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Cops for Trump." The shirt features an American flag in the shape of Minnesota. All proceeds from the sale of the shirts will go toward the police union's charity. President Trump, a big supporter of law enforcement professionals, likes to feature local officers behind him at events. Trump tweeted about the shirts and wrote he wants to bring some back to Washington with him. "Thank you to Lt. Bob Kroll of the great Minneapolis Police Department for your kind words on @foxandfriends. The Police are fighting the Radical Left Mayor and his ridiculous Uniform Ban. Actually, I LOVE the Cops for Trump shirts. Want to bring some home. I am with you 100%!!!!," the president tweeted. Thank you to Lt. Bob Kroll of the great Minneapolis Police Department for your kind words on @foxandfriends. The Police are fighting the Radical Left Mayor, and his ridiculous Uniform Ban. Actually, I LOVE the Cops for Trump shirts. Want to bring some home. I am with you 100%!!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2019 Minneapolis city officials also had a few words with the Trump campaign on who was going to cover the costs of the President's rally at the Target Center. According to The Washington Post, city officials told the Target Center that it would be responsible for a whopping $530,000 security bill the city says it needs in order to provide security for Trump's visit. The arena then threatened to cancel the rally unless the Trump campaign paid the bill. This angered Trump's team which accused Mayor Frey of trying to stop the rally. It was only after the campaign threatened to sue the arena's owners that the bill was rescinded. According to The Post, campaign manager Brad Parscale wrote in an email to supporters. "The Target Center has backed off canceling the contract, which means President Trump's Keep America Great rally will go on as scheduled. Consistent with our original agreement with the venue, the Trump campaign has not agreed to pay any additional funds." Trump tweeted, "Someone please tell the Radical Left Mayor of Minneapolis that he can't price out Free Speech. Probably illegal! I stand strongly & proudly with the great Police Officers and Law Enforcement of Minneapolis and the Great State of Minnesota! See you Thursday Night!

www1.cbn.com

right

frsPCCEEmIAewXzz

test

B5luDMGMSxE8Bv2p

race_and_racism

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/biden-trump-shooting/2019/08/07/id/927594/

Biden: Trump's 'Toxic Tongue' Linked to Mass Shootings

2019-08-07

Tim Reid

Joe Biden is accusing President Donald Trump of fueling the white supremacy that 's blamed for several mass shootings in the United States in a speech the Democrat was due to deliver Wednesday . Biden , 76 , frontrunner in the crowded pack of Democras running for the White House , was scheduled to speak in Iowa after back-to-back mass shootings last weekend in the United States . In the first , on Saturday , a gunman killed 22 people in El Paso , a Texas city on the border with Mexico . Law enforcement agencies say he apparently was driven by hatred for Hispanics . In the second mass shooting , a gunman in Dayton , Ohio , killed nine people , including his sister , before he was killed by police . Trump 's rhetoric , including calling Central Americans trying to enter the United States `` an invasion , '' and his hard-line immigration policies have exposed him to condemnation since the El Paso shooting . `` How far is it from Trump 's saying this 'is an invasion ' to the shooter in El Paso declaring 'his attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas ? ' Not far at all , '' Biden was due to say , according to an advance copy of his speech . `` In both clear language and in code , this president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation . '' Trump aides deny his rhetoric was a cause of the shootings . In a national address , the president proposed reforming mental health laws , working with social media to detect possible mass shooters and keeping guns away from people considered potentially violent . He plans to visit El Paso on Wednesday . Biden is one of 24 candidates trying to become the nominee to take on Trump in next November 's election . Iowa is among the first states to vote in the Democratic nomination process . Biden was expected to invoke the rhetoric of previous Republican and Democratic presidents , including Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton , who he said `` opposed hate . '' In Trump , Biden was due to say , `` we have a president who has aligned himself in the darkest forces in the nation . We have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced a political strategy of hate , racism , and division . ''

Joe Biden is accusing President Donald Trump of fueling the white supremacy that's blamed for several mass shootings in the United States in a speech the Democrat was due to deliver Wednesday. Biden, 76, frontrunner in the crowded pack of Democras running for the White House, was scheduled to speak in Iowa after back-to-back mass shootings last weekend in the United States. In the first, on Saturday, a gunman killed 22 people in El Paso, a Texas city on the border with Mexico. Law enforcement agencies say he apparently was driven by hatred for Hispanics. In the second mass shooting, a gunman in Dayton, Ohio, killed nine people, including his sister, before he was killed by police. Trump's rhetoric, including calling Central Americans trying to enter the United States "an invasion," and his hard-line immigration policies have exposed him to condemnation since the El Paso shooting. "How far is it from Trump's saying this 'is an invasion' to the shooter in El Paso declaring 'his attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas?' Not far at all," Biden was due to say, according to an advance copy of his speech. "In both clear language and in code, this president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation." Trump aides deny his rhetoric was a cause of the shootings. In a national address, the president proposed reforming mental health laws, working with social media to detect possible mass shooters and keeping guns away from people considered potentially violent. He plans to visit El Paso on Wednesday. Biden is one of 24 candidates trying to become the nominee to take on Trump in next November's election. Iowa is among the first states to vote in the Democratic nomination process. Biden was expected to invoke the rhetoric of previous Republican and Democratic presidents, including Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton, who he said "opposed hate." In Trump, Biden was due to say, "we have a president who has aligned himself in the darkest forces in the nation. We have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced a political strategy of hate, racism, and division."

www.newsmax.com

right

B5luDMGMSxE8Bv2p

test

KY1KjBk984RlKxsj

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/17/washington-post-mocked-stacey-abrams-profile/

Washington Post Roundly Mocked For ‘Bizarre’ Stacey Abrams Profile Comparing Her To ‘A Runway Supermodel’

2020-05-17

The Washington Post was mocked after publishing a dramatic profile of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams on May 14 . WaPo ’ s profile includes a long description comparing Abrams , who has been pitching herself as Joe Biden ’ s running mate pick , to “ a runway supermodel. ” It is titled “ The Power of Stacey Abrams ” and claims Abrams “ has moved quickly to political prominence . ” The article also says that “ whether or not she ’ s chosen as Biden ’ s running mate , ” Abrams “ has moved into a unique space in American politics . ” “ Pandemonium ensues as she [ Abrams ] walks to the far left of the stage , like a runway supermodel , stops on a dime , poses , tilts her head slightly and smiles , ” WaPo ’ s profile on Abrams reads . “ Camera flashes explode . She next pivots and walks slowly to the center of the stage , freezes there and repeats the pose . Again , the flashes explode . Abrams is summoning her inner actress , and she is both enjoying the moment and getting through it to get to the conversation . ” “ She then pivots and walks to the far right of the stage , same . You wonder whether she has done this before , because it is not necessarily what one would expect from a 46-year-old politician who was nearly elected the first black female governor in U.S. history . ” Abrams ’ s feature in WaPo sparked many to mock the publication ’ s “ bizarre ” piece on the vice presidential hopeful . “ Have any Wash Post reporters resigned in embarrassment this morning ? ” Stephen L. Miller , host of the “ Versus Media Podcast ” on Patreon , tweeted Sunday morning . “ No ? Cool , so we ’ re all on board with supermodel Stacey Abrams then . ” “ How does something like this even make it past editors who care about their reputations ? ” Miller wrote in another tweet , highlighting the paragraph where Abrams is compared to a supermodel . How is every journalist employed by the Washington Post not named Jennifer Rubin not completely embarrassed by this Stacey Abrams profile . How does something like this even make it past editors who care about their reputations ? pic.twitter.com/yqpSeTnBbM — Stephen L. Miller ( @ redsteeze ) May 17 , 2020 Josh Jordan pointed out the superhero-like image of Abrams included in the piece , which shows her wearing a flowing cap against a godly background . ( RELATED : Biden Punts Abrams As Veep Pick After O ’ Donnell Asks Him To Announce ) “ The desire from so many in the media to make Abrams into a larger than life superhero is bizarre and telling , ” Jordan tweeted . I can not believe this is a real image that the Washington Post used in their profile on Stacey Abrams . The desire from so many in the media to make Abrams into a larger than life superhero is bizarre and telling . You ’ ll never see a conservative woman get this kind of coverage . pic.twitter.com/ojDGy6K17Y — Josh Jordan ( @ NumbersMuncher ) May 17 , 2020 I am now measuring time via the publication of Stacey Abrams profiles ; How are you this Abrams the 4th ? We haven ’ t spoken since two Abrams past… — Robby Soave ( @ robbysoave ) May 17 , 2020 New York Post reporter Jon Levine wrote that it was “ disturbing that so many of my colleagues at other news orgs don ’ t realize how bad this kind of hagiography makes us look . ” The comments included assurances that the piece is , in fact , real . The profile was written by left-wing activist Kevin Powell , who has made numerous unsuccessful runs for Congress . Powell said on his LinkedIn before publication that it was “ a big piece ” about Abrams , whom he described as “ a visionary leader . ”

The Washington Post was mocked after publishing a dramatic profile of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams on May 14. WaPo’s profile includes a long description comparing Abrams, who has been pitching herself as Joe Biden’s running mate pick, to “a runway supermodel.” It is titled “The Power of Stacey Abrams” and claims Abrams “has moved quickly to political prominence.” The article also says that “whether or not she’s chosen as Biden’s running mate,” Abrams “has moved into a unique space in American politics.” “Pandemonium ensues as she [Abrams] walks to the far left of the stage, like a runway supermodel, stops on a dime, poses, tilts her head slightly and smiles,” WaPo’s profile on Abrams reads. “Camera flashes explode. She next pivots and walks slowly to the center of the stage, freezes there and repeats the pose. Again, the flashes explode. Abrams is summoning her inner actress, and she is both enjoying the moment and getting through it to get to the conversation.” “She then pivots and walks to the far right of the stage, same. You wonder whether she has done this before, because it is not necessarily what one would expect from a 46-year-old politician who was nearly elected the first black female governor in U.S. history.” Abrams’s feature in WaPo sparked many to mock the publication’s “bizarre” piece on the vice presidential hopeful. “Have any Wash Post reporters resigned in embarrassment this morning?” Stephen L. Miller, host of the “Versus Media Podcast” on Patreon, tweeted Sunday morning. “No? Cool, so we’re all on board with supermodel Stacey Abrams then.” “How does something like this even make it past editors who care about their reputations?” Miller wrote in another tweet, highlighting the paragraph where Abrams is compared to a supermodel. How is every journalist employed by the Washington Post not named Jennifer Rubin not completely embarrassed by this Stacey Abrams profile. How does something like this even make it past editors who care about their reputations? pic.twitter.com/yqpSeTnBbM — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 17, 2020 Josh Jordan pointed out the superhero-like image of Abrams included in the piece, which shows her wearing a flowing cap against a godly background. (RELATED: Biden Punts Abrams As Veep Pick After O’Donnell Asks Him To Announce) “The desire from so many in the media to make Abrams into a larger than life superhero is bizarre and telling,” Jordan tweeted. I can not believe this is a real image that the Washington Post used in their profile on Stacey Abrams. The desire from so many in the media to make Abrams into a larger than life superhero is bizarre and telling. You’ll never see a conservative woman get this kind of coverage. pic.twitter.com/ojDGy6K17Y — Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) May 17, 2020 I am now measuring time via the publication of Stacey Abrams profiles; How are you this Abrams the 4th? We haven’t spoken since two Abrams past… — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) May 17, 2020 New York Post reporter Jon Levine wrote that it was “disturbing that so many of my colleagues at other news orgs don’t realize how bad this kind of hagiography makes us look.” The comments included assurances that the piece is, in fact, real. The profile was written by left-wing activist Kevin Powell, who has made numerous unsuccessful runs for Congress. Powell said on his LinkedIn before publication that it was “a big piece” about Abrams, whom he described as “a visionary leader.” “Been incredible witnessing her in action,” Powell declared.

www.dailycaller.com

right

KY1KjBk984RlKxsj

test

3guqmYWkSQhUb60e

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/our_real_policerace_problem_diverse_forces_white_resentment_and_americas_persistent_blackblue_divide/

Our real police/race problem: Diverse forces, white resentment, and America’s persistent divides

2015-01-02

Jim Sleeper

Nearly two decades before last month 's murders of New York police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by a black man , the murder of a black NYPD officer , Charles Davis , anticipated claims we 're hearing that police-community problems aren ’ t really “ black and white ” and the only color that really counts is blue . Yet the problems do remain “ black and white ” for reasons of economic exploitation and isolation that run deeper than race itself and that are gathering force , despite rising numbers of white/Asian and white/Hispanic marriages and of multiracial children , even in the families of police officers themselves . Unless we can face the reasons why more `` diversity '' in police ranks is a far-from-sufficient condition of justice , American society will remain more racist than many others , and thereby hangs my tale . Shortly before Christmas 1996 in the lower-middle-class Queens neighborhood of East Elmhurst , robbers killed Officer Davis as he tried to protect Ira Epstein , the white owner of a check-cashing store where Davis was moonlighting as a security guard to earn extra money to buy holiday gifts for his 6-year-old daughter , Arielle . Because Davis was off-duty at the time , it ’ s unclear if his assailants knew that he was a police officer . But because he was one and was murdered for doing what police officers do , his Episcopal funeral Mass in Garden City , Long Island , was a familiar “ tableau of pomp and grief , ” as the New York Times put it , with thousands of saluting , white-gloved , white-ethnic officers and a flyover by police helicopters . “ Arielle , your daddy , who loved you , who adored you…will always be a hero of New York City , ” Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told Davis ’ daughter from the church pulpit . He asked the congregation to give Arielle something she would remember , and all present responded with a long , wrenching ovation . Noting that Ira Epstein ’ s widow had called Davis a role model for the city ’ s youth , Giuliani said , “ She was right , ” adding that , “ When [ Davis ] died Saturday morning he was doing what he was trained to do – he was trying to protect another man . '' Many funerals of New York City police officers killed in action have been tableaus not only of pomp and grief but of the chasm that yawns between an “ occupying army ” of mostly white-ethnic officers and an “ underclass ” of inner-city , black and Hispanic men . I spent enough time there in the late 1970s to have wished that the sea of blue around Davis ’ funeral -- and now those of officers Ramos and Liu -- would signify something better than a chasm . But does it ? Or have the examples set by Davis , Liu and Ramos on police forces given the rest of us excuses to rationalize the continuing , calculated , heavily policed and seemingly bottomless isolation of millions of black and Hispanic men and women ? Are economic isolation and social stigmatization still driving some of the isolated -- and those who police them -- so crazy that it 's a wonder there aren ’ t even more police killers like those who killed Davis , Liu and Ramos ? Ramos and Wu ’ s killer , Ismaaiyl Brinsley , was a perversely politicized , vengeance-crazed black man . Even the slaying in Ferguson of an unarmed black man , Michael Brown , by white officer Darren Wilson has a symbolic but no less telling opposite ( Wilson ’ s nightmare ) in another Ferguson – Colin Ferguson , a perversely politicized , vengeance-crazed black man who , shortly before Christmas , 1993 , boarded a suburban Long Island commuter train and shot 23 white passengers , killing six . Although he killed no cops , many New York officers live on Long Island , whose suburban towns their parents or grandparents chose over New York City ’ s tenements and row homes in the 1960s while seeking greener pastures in the booming , postwar economy and insulation from racially changing inner-city neighborhoods and rising black crime . As Newsday ’ s Jimmy Breslin put it a day after Ferguson ’ s train massacre : “ Last night , Brooklyn followed them home . ” Are these officers and prosecutors to blame for provoking their killers ’ isolation and rage ? Or are they really doing only what our democracy seemingly wants and expects them to do : keep the lid on blacks and Hispanics who are cheated and sidelined , as the rest of us look the other way and disclaim responsibility – an evasion that seems easier to some whenever a Brinsley or a Colin Ferguson explodes ? In a strange irony , Charles Davis probably reinforced white innocence because he was a generous cop , popular with other officers and with residents of the Queens neighborhood where he supervised youth basketball games and a club for kids who might want to join the NYPD . His large presence , sharp eye and caring strengthened the community policing that had helped to cut New York City ’ s murder rate in half in less than five years , to below 1,000 for the first time in three decades . ( By 2013 , that number would plummet to just over 300 , and this year it may be even lower , notwithstanding predictable predictions of doom 11 months ago by Rupert Murdoch ’ s New York Post and the Patrolmen ’ s Benevolent Association that Mayor Bill De Blasio ’ s curbing of excessive NYPD “ stop and frisk ” practices would unleash mayhem . ) But if Davis ' blue uniform and the blue sea at his funeral signified something better than black-versus-white , that equation took a perverse turn as Queens District Attorney Richard Brown orchestrated the indictment of 19-year-old George Bell , a stock boy at Old Navy who lived with his mother and had no criminal background , and two other black men , as Davis ’ killers . A recent Nation magazine review of the case by Hannah Riley , a former researcher at the Innocence Project and a student of criminology at the University of Cambridge , raises serious doubts that the men convicted and still in prison for killing Davis were really his murderers . D.A . Brown ’ s zeal in convicting them may have been fortified by the fact that Davis ’ wife had been an assistant district attorney , albeit in another jurisdiction . But all prosecutors who face high-profile , highly charged cases have other , more-powerful incentives to “ resolve ” them irresponsibly . New Yorkers would be reminded of that in 2002 , when the four black men and one Hispanic man who 'd been convicted and imprisoned in 1989 amid public outrage over the infamous assault and rape of the Central Park Jogger were released after years of unjustified incarceration after the real assailant confessed . Such things happen partly because D.A.s win reelection by pandering to angry , frightened voters ' hunger for revenge and because police officers are literally the prosecutors ’ comrades in arms and their witnesses before grand juries and in open trials . ( The over-zealous assistant prosecutors and detectives complicit in both the Central Park jogger and Davis cases were women , by the way . ) But Hannah Riley has found a would-be whistle-blower in retired NYPD detective Pete Fiorillo , who had been pleased at first to see Giuliani touting the work of other detectives in the case and who 'd had , as he put it , “ no intention of looking at it for the purpose of taking it apart . ” “ But the more he learned , ” Riley explains , “ the more his doubts grew until he became convinced that the investigation and trial were irredeemably flawed . ‘ This case represents a total breakdown of the criminal justice system from the bottom to the top : the police that investigated this case ; the DA that prosecuted the case ; the judge that tried all three cases , ’ said Fiorillo . ‘ They just didn ’ t have the courage to do the right thing . ’ ” Giuliani , himself an infamously zealous former prosecutor , told the public after Davis ’ murder that , “ If you shoot and kill a New York City police officer , the Police Department is going to catch you , they ’ re going to find you , usually in a short period of time , and then at a minimum you ’ re going to spend the rest of your life in jail . And in this particular situation , it ’ s quite possible you ’ ll get executed . ” The word “ execution ” had a dark double-entendre here , giving the “ blue over black ” equation another perverse twist : Prosecutorial railroading involves not only beguiling or coercing helpless and apparently hopeless young black and Hispanic men into confessions and eventual convictions , and not just complicity by grand juries whose secrecy sanitizes such orchestrations . It also involves finding excuses for officers who are spared indictment time and again -- even after summarily executing unarmed and even unresisting black and Hispanic men and , in some cases , women . Like most New Yorkers watching the Central Park and Davis cases , I was inclined to trust prosecutors and to assume the justice of the convictions . When reporters on the Davis murder were told that the 19-year-old Bell had been heard humming the song , “ Have Yourself a Very Merry Christmas ” during a break in the questioning at the 109th Precinct and that remorse seemed never to enter his mind , I assumed that he was yet another half-crazed casualty of inner-city isolation , the kind of casualty I ’ d encountered more than once . In the late 1970s I ran a weekly newspaper serving poor neighborhoods just across Brooklyn ’ s Broadway and Flushing Avenue from Bedford-Stuyvesant , where Officers Ramos and Liu were killed ; I made more than a few visits to the Tompkins Houses along Myrtle Avenue , outside of which the murders occurred , and to Woodhull Hospital , where they were brought with Brinsley , who committed suicide nearby . Just to the northeast lay Bushwick , a once-tidy , German and Italian white-ethnic neighborhood that had become mostly Hispanic and black in the 1960s in ways and for reasons I knew intimately and that I portray in my book `` The Closest of Strangers , '' two of whose chapters chronicle North Brooklyn ’ s ravaging by absentee landlords ’ “ block-busting ” welfare-subsidy scams , rampant arson for profit and for revenge , and massive looting during a huge 1977 power blackout . On two occasions I navigated the devastation all night with officers of Bushwick ’ s 83rd Precinct , accompanying them into scenes of domestic violence where terrified toddlers sucking on teething rings crawled across shattered plates and splattered dinners to hide behind sofas as their mothers told us why they ’ d called 911 out of desperation and sometimes for revenge . Sometimes the man was still there , and officers had to take him outside . Out on the street in the noisy , sulfurous darkness , a black-Hispanic youth sauntered up to the patrol car ’ s open window and taunted one of my hosts by asking , “ You Officer Torsney ? Gon na shoot me ? ” -- referring to Robert Torsney , who on Thanksgiving Day in 1976 , for no apparent reason , had fired a bullet into the head of Randolph Evans , 15 , a ninth grader at Franklin K. Lane High School , outside the Cypress Hills housing project , near where Officer Rafael Ramos was buried last Saturday . As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert noted years later , “ Torsney would later claim he had been afflicted with a rare form of epilepsy that , remarkably , had never been noticed before the killing and was never seen after it . The ‘ epilepsy ’ defense worked . Officer Torsney was acquitted of any wrongdoing . ” Herbert ’ s column , “ The Sickness in the NYPD , '' is worth reading , if only for the experience of rubbing your eyes in disbelief . Another of its offerings : “ One April morning in 1973 a veteran police officer named Thomas Shea pulled his service revolver and blew away a young black boy on a street in Jamaica , Queens . He shot the kid in the back . There was no chance of survival . Afterward , no one could figure out why the officer had done it . There was no reason for the shooting , no threat to Officer Shea of any kind . The boy 's name was Clifford Glover and he was 10 years old . Officer Shea was charged with murder but of course he was acquitted . ” For every young man whom killers in uniform execute as unambiguously as they did Randy Evans , Clifford Glover , Eric Garner and many others without being indicted for it , still more essentially hapless , helpless people are packed off into the vast archipelago of incarceration that employs thousands of “ corrections ” officers . Either way , for the rest of us , it ’ s out of sight , out of mind , as were the hundreds of homeless people and derelicts about whom few New Yorkers asked when they disappeared from Manhattan ’ s streets during Giuliani ’ s mayoralty . If at the bottom of it all is the calculated isolation and impoverishment of blacks and Hispanics that I chronicled while climbing stairwells in Brooklyn ’ s Bushwick-Hylan and Borinquen Plaza housing projects to distribute our paper , next to that bottom are the cops we assign to keep the lid on it . Is it a wonder that they sometimes say that they feel like “ garbage collectors ” and that , when the “ garbage ” call them something worse , some of them explode ? In the 1960s , insouciant , pseudo-insurgent , middle-class white youths called cops “ pigs. ” A police union took out an ad saying , “ Next time you really need help , try calling a pig. ” But , with a very few , spectacular exceptions like the Brinks armored car robbery , the worst thing that white kids did to cops in those days was call them names . Is it really surprising that some cops and corrections officers feel as trapped in neighborhoods like Bushwick as the people they ’ re charged with containing ? Is it surprising that some of the young white men who are drawn to such work grew up marinating what I described here three weeks ago as ressentiment , the social pathology of a society that has begun to countenance torture abroad and the militarization of police at home against a decadent , demoralized populace that has come to include themselves ? Or that , at the funeral of Rafael Ramos , stunted citizens like these would turn their backs on the chief executive of the democracy that employs them , and that they would thereby dishonor the fallen officer and flout civilian leadership of the police and the military as if they would prefer a police state ? The surprise is that so many police officers are still as good as Davis and as the relatives of ███ ’ s own Joan Walsh , as she recounted here vividly this week and in her book `` What 's the Matter With White People ? '' I , too , can testify that there are many officers , of all colors and backgrounds , as generous and effective as Charles Davis . In the mid-1990s , Peter Mancuso , a former NYPD sergeant , Marine combat veteran , and longtime police reformer , introduced me to other impressive colleagues while I was a columnist for the New York Daily News , a paper many cops read while sitting in their patrol cars . The officers I met were better , more proactive citizen-leaders than moralists who simply cluck their tongues at them . On the other hand , whenever I wrote columns like this one praising their reform efforts , I got some unexpected visits from the New York Fire Department , whose firefighters banged loudly on my door at 3 a.m. because someone had called in a false alarm a day or two after the column ran . Soon after the chokehold killing of Eric Garner , but before the assassinations of Liu and Ramos , another retired police officer sent me this video , distributed by anonymous officers who seem to be preparing for race war , that depicts black men maiming and murdering cops in realistic street scenes . Some of the scenes look staged , but if Brinsley ’ s real deed had been filmed it would have fit perfectly into this alarmist , racist montage . The officer who shared it with me calls it “ almost a counter-training device . Its message is , ‘ Never mind what we are about to tell you the law says ; here is what you are up against at any moment. ’ After seeing it , I can better understand that young Housing Division Officer opening stairwell doors with his gun in his hand [ and , trigger-happy , shot and killed an unarmed , innocent 28-year-old black man two floors below him ] . I 'm wondering if he saw the video or something like it. ’ ” ( Before calling 911 to aid the man he ’ d shot , the housing officer called his union . ) Officers ’ testimony in cases like this and Eric Garner ’ s and Randy Evans ’ and Clifford Glover ’ s and the rest is almost transparently scripted by the union . Another irony . Even as the rogue video and the real deeds of Brinsley and Colin Ferguson alarm us , and even as some officers ’ turning their backs on the mayor at a funeral and a police graduation ceremony disgust us , many black leaders have been ascending a far-better learning curve from the demagoguery of the 1980s and ‘ 90s to more sophisticated , humane strategizing . Where now are the Louis Farrakhans , the Vernon Masons and Alton Maddoxes ( lawyers of Tawana Brawley infamy ) and the Johnnie Cochrans , whose verbal threats and courtroom tactics sent chills down whites ’ spines ? Al Sharpton , whom I knew well in those years and described here in November , has climbed that learning curve : He said that the Ferguson , Missouri , protest movement “ was not about Darren Wilson ’ s job . It was about Michael Brown ’ s justice… . We are not anti-police . If our children are wrong , arrest them . Don ’ t empty your gun and act like you had no other way. ” Sharpton also led Eric Garner ’ s family in protesting Brinsley ’ s deed and mourning the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu . Sharpton is a flawed leader , but efforts by Fox News ’ flunkies to blame him and recent protesters for bad relations with police prove only that black leadership ’ s learning curve has been offset by some white male degeneration along the lines I sketched here . The glorious funerals given officers Davis , Liu and Ramos don ’ t dispel these white men ’ s growing bewilderment , fear and anger , less of it generated by black men than by economic and cultural riptides that would still dispossess and disorient many of them even if the U.S. were white from coast to coast . To overcome racism , we ’ ll have to reach past “ black and white ” story lines and find strategies that free the oppressed by freeing the oppressor . Police are trapped in the swamp I navigated in Brooklyn because all of us are trapped in a political economy that ’ s no longer legitimate or sustainable . Unless we confront what Joan Walsh is telling us has happened to the white working and middle classes , and what AlterNet editor Don Hazen , economist James Galbraith and historian Eli Zaretsky are trying to tell us about the real roots of America ’ s white male problem , “ black and white ” explanations will fall short , on both sides of an enduring race line that leads us nowhere .

Nearly two decades before last month's murders of New York police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by a black man, the murder of a black NYPD officer, Charles Davis, anticipated claims we're hearing that police-community problems aren’t really “black and white” and the only color that really counts is blue. Yet the problems do remain “black and white” for reasons of economic exploitation and isolation that run deeper than race itself and that are gathering force, despite rising numbers of white/Asian and white/Hispanic marriages and of multiracial children, even in the families of police officers themselves. Unless we can face the reasons why more "diversity" in police ranks is a far-from-sufficient condition of justice, American society will remain more racist than many others, and thereby hangs my tale. Advertisement: Black on Blue Shortly before Christmas 1996 in the lower-middle-class Queens neighborhood of East Elmhurst, robbers killed Officer Davis as he tried to protect Ira Epstein, the white owner of a check-cashing store where Davis was moonlighting as a security guard to earn extra money to buy holiday gifts for his 6-year-old daughter, Arielle. Because Davis was off-duty at the time, it’s unclear if his assailants knew that he was a police officer. But because he was one and was murdered for doing what police officers do, his Episcopal funeral Mass in Garden City, Long Island, was a familiar “tableau of pomp and grief,” as the New York Times put it, with thousands of saluting, white-gloved, white-ethnic officers and a flyover by police helicopters. Advertisement: “Arielle, your daddy, who loved you, who adored you…will always be a hero of New York City,” Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told Davis’ daughter from the church pulpit. He asked the congregation to give Arielle something she would remember, and all present responded with a long, wrenching ovation. Noting that Ira Epstein’s widow had called Davis a role model for the city’s youth, Giuliani said, “She was right,” adding that, “When [Davis] died Saturday morning he was doing what he was trained to do – he was trying to protect another man." Many funerals of New York City police officers killed in action have been tableaus not only of pomp and grief but of the chasm that yawns between an “occupying army” of mostly white-ethnic officers and an “underclass” of inner-city, black and Hispanic men. I spent enough time there in the late 1970s to have wished that the sea of blue around Davis’ funeral -- and now those of officers Ramos and Liu -- would signify something better than a chasm. But does it? Or have the examples set by Davis, Liu and Ramos on police forces given the rest of us excuses to rationalize the continuing, calculated, heavily policed and seemingly bottomless isolation of millions of black and Hispanic men and women? Are economic isolation and social stigmatization still driving some of the isolated -- and those who police them -- so crazy that it's a wonder there aren’t even more police killers like those who killed Davis, Liu and Ramos? Advertisement: Ramos and Wu’s killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, was a perversely politicized, vengeance-crazed black man. Even the slaying in Ferguson of an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, by white officer Darren Wilson has a symbolic but no less telling opposite (Wilson’s nightmare) in another Ferguson – Colin Ferguson, a perversely politicized, vengeance-crazed black man who, shortly before Christmas, 1993, boarded a suburban Long Island commuter train and shot 23 white passengers, killing six. Although he killed no cops, many New York officers live on Long Island, whose suburban towns their parents or grandparents chose over New York City’s tenements and row homes in the 1960s while seeking greener pastures in the booming, postwar economy and insulation from racially changing inner-city neighborhoods and rising black crime. As Newsday’s Jimmy Breslin put it a day after Ferguson’s train massacre: “Last night, Brooklyn followed them home.” Advertisement: Are these officers and prosecutors to blame for provoking their killers’ isolation and rage? Or are they really doing only what our democracy seemingly wants and expects them to do: keep the lid on blacks and Hispanics who are cheated and sidelined, as the rest of us look the other way and disclaim responsibility – an evasion that seems easier to some whenever a Brinsley or a Colin Ferguson explodes? In a strange irony, Charles Davis probably reinforced white innocence because he was a generous cop, popular with other officers and with residents of the Queens neighborhood where he supervised youth basketball games and a club for kids who might want to join the NYPD. His large presence, sharp eye and caring strengthened the community policing that had helped to cut New York City’s murder rate in half in less than five years, to below 1,000 for the first time in three decades. (By 2013, that number would plummet to just over 300, and this year it may be even lower, notwithstanding predictable predictions of doom 11 months ago by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post and the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association that Mayor Bill De Blasio’s curbing of excessive NYPD “stop and frisk” practices would unleash mayhem.) Blue on Black Advertisement: But if Davis' blue uniform and the blue sea at his funeral signified something better than black-versus-white, that equation took a perverse turn as Queens District Attorney Richard Brown orchestrated the indictment of 19-year-old George Bell, a stock boy at Old Navy who lived with his mother and had no criminal background, and two other black men, as Davis’ killers. A recent Nation magazine review of the case by Hannah Riley, a former researcher at the Innocence Project and a student of criminology at the University of Cambridge, raises serious doubts that the men convicted and still in prison for killing Davis were really his murderers. D.A. Brown’s zeal in convicting them may have been fortified by the fact that Davis’ wife had been an assistant district attorney, albeit in another jurisdiction. But all prosecutors who face high-profile, highly charged cases have other, more-powerful incentives to “resolve” them irresponsibly. New Yorkers would be reminded of that in 2002, when the four black men and one Hispanic man who'd been convicted and imprisoned in 1989 amid public outrage over the infamous assault and rape of the Central Park Jogger were released after years of unjustified incarceration after the real assailant confessed. Such things happen partly because D.A.s win reelection by pandering to angry, frightened voters' hunger for revenge and because police officers are literally the prosecutors’ comrades in arms and their witnesses before grand juries and in open trials. (The over-zealous assistant prosecutors and detectives complicit in both the Central Park jogger and Davis cases were women, by the way.) But Hannah Riley has found a would-be whistle-blower in retired NYPD detective Pete Fiorillo, who had been pleased at first to see Giuliani touting the work of other detectives in the case and who'd had, as he put it, “no intention of looking at it for the purpose of taking it apart.” Advertisement: “But the more he learned,” Riley explains, “the more his doubts grew until he became convinced that the investigation and trial were irredeemably flawed. ‘This case represents a total breakdown of the criminal justice system from the bottom to the top: the police that investigated this case; the DA that prosecuted the case; the judge that tried all three cases,’ said Fiorillo. ‘They just didn’t have the courage to do the right thing.’” Giuliani, himself an infamously zealous former prosecutor, told the public after Davis’ murder that, “If you shoot and kill a New York City police officer, the Police Department is going to catch you, they’re going to find you, usually in a short period of time, and then at a minimum you’re going to spend the rest of your life in jail. And in this particular situation, it’s quite possible you’ll get executed.” The word “execution” had a dark double-entendre here, giving the “blue over black” equation another perverse twist: Prosecutorial railroading involves not only beguiling or coercing helpless and apparently hopeless young black and Hispanic men into confessions and eventual convictions, and not just complicity by grand juries whose secrecy sanitizes such orchestrations. It also involves finding excuses for officers who are spared indictment time and again -- even after summarily executing unarmed and even unresisting black and Hispanic men and, in some cases, women. Advertisement: Like most New Yorkers watching the Central Park and Davis cases, I was inclined to trust prosecutors and to assume the justice of the convictions. When reporters on the Davis murder were told that the 19-year-old Bell had been heard humming the song, “Have Yourself a Very Merry Christmas” during a break in the questioning at the 109th Precinct and that remorse seemed never to enter his mind, I assumed that he was yet another half-crazed casualty of inner-city isolation, the kind of casualty I’d encountered more than once. In the late 1970s I ran a weekly newspaper serving poor neighborhoods just across Brooklyn’s Broadway and Flushing Avenue from Bedford-Stuyvesant, where Officers Ramos and Liu were killed; I made more than a few visits to the Tompkins Houses along Myrtle Avenue, outside of which the murders occurred, and to Woodhull Hospital, where they were brought with Brinsley, who committed suicide nearby. Just to the northeast lay Bushwick, a once-tidy, German and Italian white-ethnic neighborhood that had become mostly Hispanic and black in the 1960s in ways and for reasons I knew intimately and that I portray in my book "The Closest of Strangers," two of whose chapters chronicle North Brooklyn’s ravaging by absentee landlords’ “block-busting” welfare-subsidy scams, rampant arson for profit and for revenge, and massive looting during a huge 1977 power blackout. On two occasions I navigated the devastation all night with officers of Bushwick’s 83rd Precinct, accompanying them into scenes of domestic violence where terrified toddlers sucking on teething rings crawled across shattered plates and splattered dinners to hide behind sofas as their mothers told us why they’d called 911 out of desperation and sometimes for revenge. Sometimes the man was still there, and officers had to take him outside. Out on the street in the noisy, sulfurous darkness, a black-Hispanic youth sauntered up to the patrol car’s open window and taunted one of my hosts by asking, “You Officer Torsney? Gonna shoot me?” -- referring to Robert Torsney, who on Thanksgiving Day in 1976, for no apparent reason, had fired a bullet into the head of Randolph Evans, 15, a ninth grader at Franklin K. Lane High School, outside the Cypress Hills housing project, near where Officer Rafael Ramos was buried last Saturday. Advertisement: As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert noted years later, “Torsney would later claim he had been afflicted with a rare form of epilepsy that, remarkably, had never been noticed before the killing and was never seen after it. The ‘epilepsy’ defense worked. Officer Torsney was acquitted of any wrongdoing.” Herbert’s column, “The Sickness in the NYPD," is worth reading, if only for the experience of rubbing your eyes in disbelief. Another of its offerings: “One April morning in 1973 a veteran police officer named Thomas Shea pulled his service revolver and blew away a young black boy on a street in Jamaica, Queens. He shot the kid in the back. There was no chance of survival. Afterward, no one could figure out why the officer had done it. There was no reason for the shooting, no threat to Officer Shea of any kind. The boy's name was Clifford Glover and he was 10 years old. Officer Shea was charged with murder but of course he was acquitted.” For every young man whom killers in uniform execute as unambiguously as they did Randy Evans, Clifford Glover, Eric Garner and many others without being indicted for it, still more essentially hapless, helpless people are packed off into the vast archipelago of incarceration that employs thousands of “corrections” officers. Either way, for the rest of us, it’s out of sight, out of mind, as were the hundreds of homeless people and derelicts about whom few New Yorkers asked when they disappeared from Manhattan’s streets during Giuliani’s mayoralty. White on White Advertisement: If at the bottom of it all is the calculated isolation and impoverishment of blacks and Hispanics that I chronicled while climbing stairwells in Brooklyn’s Bushwick-Hylan and Borinquen Plaza housing projects to distribute our paper, next to that bottom are the cops we assign to keep the lid on it. Is it a wonder that they sometimes say that they feel like “garbage collectors” and that, when the “garbage” call them something worse, some of them explode? In the 1960s, insouciant, pseudo-insurgent, middle-class white youths called cops “pigs.” A police union took out an ad saying, “Next time you really need help, try calling a pig.” But, with a very few, spectacular exceptions like the Brinks armored car robbery, the worst thing that white kids did to cops in those days was call them names. Is it really surprising that some cops and corrections officers feel as trapped in neighborhoods like Bushwick as the people they’re charged with containing? Is it surprising that some of the young white men who are drawn to such work grew up marinating what I described here three weeks ago as ressentiment, the social pathology of a society that has begun to countenance torture abroad and the militarization of police at home against a decadent, demoralized populace that has come to include themselves? Or that, at the funeral of Rafael Ramos, stunted citizens like these would turn their backs on the chief executive of the democracy that employs them, and that they would thereby dishonor the fallen officer and flout civilian leadership of the police and the military as if they would prefer a police state? Advertisement: The Only Way Out The surprise is that so many police officers are still as good as Davis and as the relatives of Salon’s own Joan Walsh, as she recounted here vividly this week and in her book "What's the Matter With White People?" I, too, can testify that there are many officers, of all colors and backgrounds, as generous and effective as Charles Davis. In the mid-1990s, Peter Mancuso, a former NYPD sergeant, Marine combat veteran, and longtime police reformer, introduced me to other impressive colleagues while I was a columnist for the New York Daily News, a paper many cops read while sitting in their patrol cars. The officers I met were better, more proactive citizen-leaders than moralists who simply cluck their tongues at them. On the other hand, whenever I wrote columns like this one praising their reform efforts, I got some unexpected visits from the New York Fire Department, whose firefighters banged loudly on my door at 3 a.m. because someone had called in a false alarm a day or two after the column ran. Soon after the chokehold killing of Eric Garner, but before the assassinations of Liu and Ramos, another retired police officer sent me this video, distributed by anonymous officers who seem to be preparing for race war, that depicts black men maiming and murdering cops in realistic street scenes. Some of the scenes look staged, but if Brinsley’s real deed had been filmed it would have fit perfectly into this alarmist, racist montage. The officer who shared it with me calls it “almost a counter-training device. Its message is, ‘Never mind what we are about to tell you the law says; here is what you are up against at any moment.’ After seeing it, I can better understand that young Housing Division Officer opening stairwell doors with his gun in his hand [and, trigger-happy, shot and killed an unarmed, innocent 28-year-old black man two floors below him]. I'm wondering if he saw the video or something like it.’” (Before calling 911 to aid the man he’d shot, the housing officer called his union.) Officers’ testimony in cases like this and Eric Garner’s and Randy Evans’ and Clifford Glover’s and the rest is almost transparently scripted by the union. Another irony. Even as the rogue video and the real deeds of Brinsley and Colin Ferguson alarm us, and even as some officers’ turning their backs on the mayor at a funeral and a police graduation ceremony disgust us, many black leaders have been ascending a far-better learning curve from the demagoguery of the 1980s and ‘90s to more sophisticated, humane strategizing. Where now are the Louis Farrakhans, the Vernon Masons and Alton Maddoxes (lawyers of Tawana Brawley infamy) and the Johnnie Cochrans, whose verbal threats and courtroom tactics sent chills down whites’ spines? Al Sharpton, whom I knew well in those years and described here in November, has climbed that learning curve: He said that the Ferguson, Missouri, protest movement “was not about Darren Wilson’s job. It was about Michael Brown’s justice…. We are not anti-police. If our children are wrong, arrest them. Don’t empty your gun and act like you had no other way.” Sharpton also led Eric Garner’s family in protesting Brinsley’s deed and mourning the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu. Sharpton is a flawed leader, but efforts by Fox News’ flunkies to blame him and recent protesters for bad relations with police prove only that black leadership’s learning curve has been offset by some white male degeneration along the lines I sketched here. The glorious funerals given officers Davis, Liu and Ramos don’t dispel these white men’s growing bewilderment, fear and anger, less of it generated by black men than by economic and cultural riptides that would still dispossess and disorient many of them even if the U.S. were white from coast to coast. To overcome racism, we’ll have to reach past “black and white” story lines and find strategies that free the oppressed by freeing the oppressor. Police are trapped in the swamp I navigated in Brooklyn because all of us are trapped in a political economy that’s no longer legitimate or sustainable. Unless we confront what Joan Walsh is telling us has happened to the white working and middle classes, and what AlterNet editor Don Hazen, economist James Galbraith and historian Eli Zaretsky are trying to tell us about the real roots of America’s white male problem, “black and white” explanations will fall short, on both sides of an enduring race line that leads us nowhere.

www.salon.com

left

3guqmYWkSQhUb60e

test

CEtZ4GtHLIiZqahu

nuclear_weapons

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/10/north-korea-details-guam-strike-trump-load-of-nonsense

North Korea details Guam strike plan and calls Trump 'bereft of reason'

2017-08-10

Julian Borger

Pyongyang says it will launch four missiles into waters ‘ 30-40km ’ off US territory in Pacific Ocean North Korea has defied threats of “ fire and fury ” from Donald Trump , deriding his warning as a “ load of nonsense ” and announcing a detailed plan to launch missiles aimed at the waters off the coast of the US Pacific territory of Guam . 'Will even white people die ? ' How to explain nuclear war to your kids | First Dog on the Moon Read more A statement attributed to General Kim Rak Gyom , the head of the country ’ s strategic forces , declared : “ Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him ” . The general outlined a plan to carry out a demonstration launch of four intermediate-range missiles that would fly over Japan and then land in the sea around Guam , “ enveloping ” the island . “ The Hwasong-12 rockets to be launched by the KPA [ Korean People ’ s Army ] will cross the sky above Shimani , Hiroshima and Koichi prefectures of Japan , ” the statement said . “ They will fly for 3,356.7 km for 1,065 seconds and hit the waters 30 to 40km away from Guam . ” The statement said the plan for this show of force would be ready by the middle of this month and then await orders from the commander-in-chief , Kim Jong-un . The statement was clearly designed as a show of bravado , calling the Trump administration ’ s bluff after the president ’ s threat and a statement from the defence secretary , James Mattis , both stressing the overwhelming power of the US military . “ North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States . They will be met by fire and fury like the world has never seen , ” Trump said on Wednesday . The response from Pyongyang was its most public and detailed threat to date , and evidently meant to goad the US president . Trump had “ let out a load of nonsense about ‘ fire and fury ’ failing to grasp the ongoing grave situation . This is extremely getting on the nerves of the infuriated Hwasong artillerymen of the KPA . ” The US has a naval base in Guam and the island is home to Andersen air base , which has six B-1B heavy bombers . According to NBC news the non-nuclear bombers have made 11 practice sorties since May in readiness for a potential strike on North Korea . The remote island is home to 162,000 people . Q & A Why is North Korea threatening Guam ? Show Hide Guam , a 210 sq mile sovereign US territory in the western Pacific Ocean , is used by America as a strategic military base . Almost a third of its land is controlled by the US military and about 6,000 American troops are based there . The island 's location , within range of North Korean medium- and long-range missiles , and military significance to the US make it a logical target for Pyongyang . As recently as Monday , two US air force B-1B bombers flew from Guam to join their counterparts from South Korea and Japan for a mission over the Korean peninsula , about 2,100 miles away . Read more South Korea ’ s military said on Thursday that North Korea ’ s statements were a challenge against Seoul and the US-South Korea alliance . Joint chiefs of staff spokesman Roh Jae-cheon told a media briefing that South Korea was prepared to act immediately against any North Korean provocation . Japan ’ s chief government spokesman said the country could “ never tolerate this ” . “ North Korea ’ s actions are obviously provocative to the region as well as to the security of the international community , ” Yoshihide Suga said . Play Video 0:43 North Koreans stage mass rally to denounce UN sanctions – video The announcement on the North Korean state news service KCNA came at the end of two days of brinksmanship which began with the leak of a US intelligence report that Pyongyang had developed a nuclear warhead small enough to put on a missile . This was followed by Trump ’ s warning of “ fire and fury ” . On Wednesday the US defence secretary , James Mattis , said a North Korean attack would risk the “ end of its regime and the destruction of its people ” . On Thursday , Trump ’ s deputy assistant , Sebastian Gorka , declined to tone down the rhetoric , warning Pyongyang : “ Do not challenge the United States because you will pay a cost if you do so ” Asked if the threat of a strike , rather than an actual attack , would be enough to provoke a response , Gorka told the BBC : “ If you threaten a nation , then what should you expect ; a stiffly worded letter to be sent by courier ? Is that what the UK would do if a nation threatened a nuclear-tipped missile launched against any of the UK ’ s territories ? ” Damian Green , the UK ’ s first secretary of state , urged the Trump administration to use UN processes to resolve the crisis . “ It ’ s obviously in all our interests to make sure that nothing escalates , ” Green said on a visit to Edinburgh . “ We are very strongly in support of the UN process , which has and continues to put pressure on North Korea to stop acting in an irresponsible way . ” In the event of a missile launch by North Korea , the US military faces the dilemma of trying to intercept the incoming missiles and risking humiliation if it fails . Trump would have to decide whether to try to carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Hwasong launchpads or a retaliation strike if the launch went ahead . The North Korean military has frequently tested missiles that land in the sea off the Japanese coast , without a military response from Tokyo . “ For the [ North Koreans ] to telegraph a move like this is extraordinary . But it ’ s probably their way of trying not to trigger a war , ” said Joshua Pollack , a senior research associate at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey . He said that if the launch went ahead as laid out in the statement , it gave US the opportunity to concentrate its ballistic defences in that area , to give them a better chance to shoot down the incoming missiles . “ The reason you can ’ t shoot down a test is that it doesn ’ t enter a defended area . But that wouldn ’ t be the case with ‘ bracketing fire ’ , ” Pollack said in a thread of tweets . He argued that the exchange of threats and the missile plans underlined the need to open a military hotline between the US and North Korea to mitigate the dangers of catastrophic miscalculation by either side . “ If they do carry out that plan , both sides might discover that they need a crisis management mechanism sooner than not , ” Pollack said . Q & A What are North Korea 's nuclear capabilities ? Show Hide North Korea has carried out five nuclear tests since 2006 , so it unquestionably has the capacity to create some form of nuclear bomb . To function effectively , however , the bomb needs to be small enough to fit on to a missile . Some experts believe the North has already `` miniaturised '' its nuclear capability , while others believe the regime is still several years away from being able to do so . Japan 's defence ministry warned on 8 August that it was possible that Pyongyang had mastered miniaturisation . North Korea would also need a reliable delivery system for any bomb . Its proven short- and medium-range missiles could reach South Korea and Japan . In July it test-launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles , placing US cities in range of potential attack , according to US experts . Mattis ’ s reminder to Pyongyang that the allied militaries “ possess the most precise , rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth ” capped an unprecedented 24 hours of sabre-rattling sparked by Donald Trump ’ s surprise threat to rain “ fire and fury ” down on the Pyongyang regime . Despite the harsh rhetoric , there was no change in US military deployments or alert status . Mattis couched his remarks in the language of traditional deterrence , making clear that such overwhelming force would be used in the event of a North Korean attack . God save us from Donald Trump 's fire and fury | Richard Wolffe Read more Trump – without consulting his own security staff – had warned of a devastating onslaught “ like the world has never seen ” if Kim ’ s government persisted in threats against the US . But that line was crossed within hours when Pyongyang announced it was “ carefully examining ” a plan for a missile strike and “ enveloping fire ” around Guam . The US secretary of state , Rex Tillerson , also spent much of Wednesday struggling to contain the fallout from Trump ’ s threats , assuring Americans they could “ sleep well at night ” , and reassuring shocked allies that there was “ no imminent threat of war ” . • This article was amended on 10 August 2017 to correct a statement from Joshua Pollack .

Pyongyang says it will launch four missiles into waters ‘30-40km’ off US territory in Pacific Ocean North Korea has defied threats of “fire and fury” from Donald Trump, deriding his warning as a “load of nonsense” and announcing a detailed plan to launch missiles aimed at the waters off the coast of the US Pacific territory of Guam. 'Will even white people die?' How to explain nuclear war to your kids | First Dog on the Moon Read more A statement attributed to General Kim Rak Gyom, the head of the country’s strategic forces, declared: “Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him”. The general outlined a plan to carry out a demonstration launch of four intermediate-range missiles that would fly over Japan and then land in the sea around Guam, “enveloping” the island. “The Hwasong-12 rockets to be launched by the KPA [Korean People’s Army] will cross the sky above Shimani, Hiroshima and Koichi prefectures of Japan,” the statement said. “They will fly for 3,356.7 km for 1,065 seconds and hit the waters 30 to 40km away from Guam.” The statement said the plan for this show of force would be ready by the middle of this month and then await orders from the commander-in-chief, Kim Jong-un. The statement was clearly designed as a show of bravado, calling the Trump administration’s bluff after the president’s threat and a statement from the defence secretary, James Mattis, both stressing the overwhelming power of the US military. “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met by fire and fury like the world has never seen,” Trump said on Wednesday. The response from Pyongyang was its most public and detailed threat to date, and evidently meant to goad the US president. Trump had “let out a load of nonsense about ‘fire and fury’ failing to grasp the ongoing grave situation. This is extremely getting on the nerves of the infuriated Hwasong artillerymen of the KPA.” The US has a naval base in Guam and the island is home to Andersen air base, which has six B-1B heavy bombers. According to NBC news the non-nuclear bombers have made 11 practice sorties since May in readiness for a potential strike on North Korea. The remote island is home to 162,000 people. Q&A Why is North Korea threatening Guam? Show Hide Guam, a 210 sq mile sovereign US territory in the western Pacific Ocean, is used by America as a strategic military base. Almost a third of its land is controlled by the US military and about 6,000 American troops are based there. The island's location, within range of North Korean medium- and long-range missiles, and military significance to the US make it a logical target for Pyongyang. As recently as Monday, two US air force B-1B bombers flew from Guam to join their counterparts from South Korea and Japan for a mission over the Korean peninsula, about 2,100 miles away. Read more South Korea’s military said on Thursday that North Korea’s statements were a challenge against Seoul and the US-South Korea alliance. Joint chiefs of staff spokesman Roh Jae-cheon told a media briefing that South Korea was prepared to act immediately against any North Korean provocation. Japan’s chief government spokesman said the country could “never tolerate this”. “North Korea’s actions are obviously provocative to the region as well as to the security of the international community,” Yoshihide Suga said. Play Video 0:43 North Koreans stage mass rally to denounce UN sanctions – video The announcement on the North Korean state news service KCNA came at the end of two days of brinksmanship which began with the leak of a US intelligence report that Pyongyang had developed a nuclear warhead small enough to put on a missile. This was followed by Trump’s warning of “fire and fury”. On Wednesday the US defence secretary, James Mattis, said a North Korean attack would risk the “end of its regime and the destruction of its people”. On Thursday, Trump’s deputy assistant, Sebastian Gorka, declined to tone down the rhetoric, warning Pyongyang: “Do not challenge the United States because you will pay a cost if you do so” Asked if the threat of a strike, rather than an actual attack, would be enough to provoke a response, Gorka told the BBC: “If you threaten a nation, then what should you expect; a stiffly worded letter to be sent by courier? Is that what the UK would do if a nation threatened a nuclear-tipped missile launched against any of the UK’s territories?” Damian Green, the UK’s first secretary of state, urged the Trump administration to use UN processes to resolve the crisis. “It’s obviously in all our interests to make sure that nothing escalates,” Green said on a visit to Edinburgh. “We are very strongly in support of the UN process, which has and continues to put pressure on North Korea to stop acting in an irresponsible way.” In the event of a missile launch by North Korea, the US military faces the dilemma of trying to intercept the incoming missiles and risking humiliation if it fails. Trump would have to decide whether to try to carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Hwasong launchpads or a retaliation strike if the launch went ahead. The North Korean military has frequently tested missiles that land in the sea off the Japanese coast, without a military response from Tokyo. “For the [North Koreans] to telegraph a move like this is extraordinary. But it’s probably their way of trying not to trigger a war,” said Joshua Pollack, a senior research associate at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. He said that if the launch went ahead as laid out in the statement, it gave US the opportunity to concentrate its ballistic defences in that area, to give them a better chance to shoot down the incoming missiles. “The reason you can’t shoot down a test is that it doesn’t enter a defended area. But that wouldn’t be the case with ‘bracketing fire’,” Pollack said in a thread of tweets. He argued that the exchange of threats and the missile plans underlined the need to open a military hotline between the US and North Korea to mitigate the dangers of catastrophic miscalculation by either side. “If they do carry out that plan, both sides might discover that they need a crisis management mechanism sooner than not,” Pollack said. Q&A What are North Korea's nuclear capabilities? Show Hide North Korea has carried out five nuclear tests since 2006, so it unquestionably has the capacity to create some form of nuclear bomb. To function effectively, however, the bomb needs to be small enough to fit on to a missile. Some experts believe the North has already "miniaturised" its nuclear capability, while others believe the regime is still several years away from being able to do so. Japan's defence ministry warned on 8 August that it was possible that Pyongyang had mastered miniaturisation. North Korea would also need a reliable delivery system for any bomb. Its proven short- and medium-range missiles could reach South Korea and Japan. In July it test-launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles, placing US cities in range of potential attack, according to US experts. Mattis’s reminder to Pyongyang that the allied militaries “possess the most precise, rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth” capped an unprecedented 24 hours of sabre-rattling sparked by Donald Trump’s surprise threat to rain “fire and fury” down on the Pyongyang regime. Despite the harsh rhetoric, there was no change in US military deployments or alert status. Mattis couched his remarks in the language of traditional deterrence, making clear that such overwhelming force would be used in the event of a North Korean attack. God save us from Donald Trump's fire and fury | Richard Wolffe Read more Trump – without consulting his own security staff – had warned of a devastating onslaught “like the world has never seen” if Kim’s government persisted in threats against the US. But that line was crossed within hours when Pyongyang announced it was “carefully examining” a plan for a missile strike and “enveloping fire” around Guam. The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, also spent much of Wednesday struggling to contain the fallout from Trump’s threats, assuring Americans they could “sleep well at night”, and reassuring shocked allies that there was “no imminent threat of war”. • This article was amended on 10 August 2017 to correct a statement from Joshua Pollack.

www.theguardian.com

left

CEtZ4GtHLIiZqahu

test

o0tKKGAjD3Sg5uks

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/congress-passes-bill-to-end-sequester-flight-delays/

Congress Passes Bill to End Sequester Flight Delays

Sarah Parnass

In less than 24 hours , bipartisan legislation passed both the Senate and the House to relieve one of the most noticeable downsides to budget sequestration : FAA furloughs . The bill that was rushed through Congress - so quickly that the version the Senate voted on had an ending paragraph handwritten in - and is expected to be signed by the president today gives the FAA transfer authority for $ 253 million until October to put towards meeting the staffing challenges that have created staggering airport delays this week . The money comes from the leftovers of a fund for airport improvements that is expected to send back between $ 400 and $ 450 million in unused funds this year . The bill garnered praise from the air traffic controllers ' union . `` After just one week of furloughs , it is abundantly clear that a fully staffed air traffic control workforce is necessary for our national airspace system to operate at full capacity , '' the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said in a statement Friday . `` We applaud the bipartisan nature of the votes and look forward to working closely with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the newly granted flexibility is exercised in a way that maintains our national airspace system 's status as the safest and most efficient in the world . '' This is not the first time Congress has put in place legislation to ease some of the pain of sequester cuts . RELATED : Sequestration : Here to Stay or on Its Way Out ? Congress at the end of March gave the Defense Department the flexibility to delay furloughs of civilian workers . It also took care of one of the most lamented defense sequester cuts - the tuition assistance program for active duty troops - by ordering all branches to restore their programs . But some in Congress oppose the piece-by-piece method of picking off sequestration 's controls . Rep. Chris Van Hollen was among 29 House Democrats who voted against the bill . He said members of Congress should stay in D.C. this week and form a plan `` to replace the entire sequester . '' `` It makes no sense to deal with this you know one manufactured emergency at a time , '' Van Hollen , D-Md. , told ███ . `` We need to get at the underlying issue , replace the sequester . Otherwise , we 're going to have to be dealing with another issue next week . So let 's take the time . Get the job done . '' The only airports showing sequestration-linked delays on Friday afternoon were JFK and La Guardia Airport .

In less than 24 hours, bipartisan legislation passed both the Senate and the House to relieve one of the most noticeable downsides to budget sequestration: FAA furloughs. The bill that was rushed through Congress - so quickly that the version the Senate voted on had an ending paragraph handwritten in - and is expected to be signed by the president today gives the FAA transfer authority for $253 million until October to put towards meeting the staffing challenges that have created staggering airport delays this week. The money comes from the leftovers of a fund for airport improvements that is expected to send back between $400 and $450 million in unused funds this year. Image credit: David Goldman/AP The bill garnered praise from the air traffic controllers' union. "After just one week of furloughs, it is abundantly clear that a fully staffed air traffic control workforce is necessary for our national airspace system to operate at full capacity," the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said in a statement Friday. "We applaud the bipartisan nature of the votes and look forward to working closely with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the newly granted flexibility is exercised in a way that maintains our national airspace system's status as the safest and most efficient in the world." This is not the first time Congress has put in place legislation to ease some of the pain of sequester cuts. RELATED: Sequestration: Here to Stay or on Its Way Out? Congress at the end of March gave the Defense Department the flexibility to delay furloughs of civilian workers. It also took care of one of the most lamented defense sequester cuts - the tuition assistance program for active duty troops - by ordering all branches to restore their programs. But some in Congress oppose the piece-by-piece method of picking off sequestration's controls. Rep. Chris Van Hollen was among 29 House Democrats who voted against the bill. He said members of Congress should stay in D.C. this week and form a plan "to replace the entire sequester." RELATED: FAA Administrator Defends Furloughs, Budget Increase "It makes no sense to deal with this you know one manufactured emergency at a time," Van Hollen, D-Md., told ABC News. "We need to get at the underlying issue, replace the sequester. Otherwise, we're going to have to be dealing with another issue next week. So let's take the time. Get the job done." The only airports showing sequestration-linked delays on Friday afternoon were JFK and La Guardia Airport. ABC's Jeff Zeleny, Sunlen Miller and John Parkinson contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

o0tKKGAjD3Sg5uks

test

IUHezgOq4UxF4Mar

education

Reason

https://reason.com/video/whatever-happened-to-the-classroom-of-the-future/

Whatever Happened to the Classroom of the Future?

2020-01-28

Olivier Ballou, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Josh Blackman, Charles Oliver, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, Emily Yoffe, Scott Shackford

The runaway success of Khan Academy , which launched in 2008 , showed the potential of online learning to revolutionize K-12 education . It meant that a great classroom lecture could be experienced by anyone , anywhere . The same year , the legendary business consultant and academic Clayton Christensen—who passed away last week at the age of 67—co-authored Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns , applying his most famous theory to K-12 education . When used `` disruptively , '' software could solve the problem of students learning at different speeds . Christensen and his co-authors wanted to `` flip '' the structure of the classroom to make it student-centric . Students would watch online courses given by the world 's best instructors . Educational apps would gamify learning , help track progress , and personalize content . Teachers could then use classroom time to help students tackle bigger , more conceptual problems . Christensen and his co-authors predicted that by 2018 , about half of high school classes would be delivered online . And they dismissed the objection that government bureaucracies and teachers unions would stand in the way of rapid change . But 12 years later , classrooms mostly look like they always have . `` I would say the big lesson that I 've had , is not that I 'm disappointed , but just that it takes a long time to do this because you 're trying to overthrow literally a century of policy and practice around our current school system , '' says Michael Horn , one of Christensen 's co-authors and a Harvard MBA who specializes in education technology . `` And all of a sudden we come along and say , 'wait a second , we 're not doing it the right way . ' '' Emily Raskin , a high school math teacher in Washington , D.C. , says that the idea of a flipped classroom ignores the realities of student behavior . `` I think we look at the next big thing that seems great to adults , and assume that it 's going to be the same thing for kids , '' she says . `` So if you assign [ students ] to watch a video…if they are not really interested , they just kind of zone out , and they come to school the next day really believing that they have watched the video . '' Were Christensen and Horn guilty , as the saying goes , of mistaking `` a clear view of the future for a short distance , '' or were they fundamentally wrong ? The current classroom model may survive for a long time to come—at least until software gets better at approximating student-teacher interactions . And when change does come , chances are it will look nothing like what we had imagined . Written , shot , and produced by Olivier Ballou ; narrated by Nick Gillespie . ███ is celebrating National School Choice Week . This story is part of a series that will be published over the course of the week highlighting different K-12 education options available to children and families .

The runaway success of Khan Academy, which launched in 2008, showed the potential of online learning to revolutionize K-12 education. It meant that a great classroom lecture could be experienced by anyone, anywhere. The same year, the legendary business consultant and academic Clayton Christensen—who passed away last week at the age of 67—co-authored Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, applying his most famous theory to K-12 education. When used "disruptively," software could solve the problem of students learning at different speeds. Christensen and his co-authors wanted to "flip" the structure of the classroom to make it student-centric. Students would watch online courses given by the world's best instructors. Educational apps would gamify learning, help track progress, and personalize content. Teachers could then use classroom time to help students tackle bigger, more conceptual problems. Christensen and his co-authors predicted that by 2018, about half of high school classes would be delivered online. And they dismissed the objection that government bureaucracies and teachers unions would stand in the way of rapid change. But 12 years later, classrooms mostly look like they always have. What went wrong? "I would say the big lesson that I've had, is not that I'm disappointed, but just that it takes a long time to do this because you're trying to overthrow literally a century of policy and practice around our current school system," says Michael Horn, one of Christensen's co-authors and a Harvard MBA who specializes in education technology. "And all of a sudden we come along and say, 'wait a second, we're not doing it the right way.'" Emily Raskin, a high school math teacher in Washington, D.C., says that the idea of a flipped classroom ignores the realities of student behavior. "I think we look at the next big thing that seems great to adults, and assume that it's going to be the same thing for kids," she says. "So if you assign [students] to watch a video…if they are not really interested, they just kind of zone out, and they come to school the next day really believing that they have watched the video." Were Christensen and Horn guilty, as the saying goes, of mistaking "a clear view of the future for a short distance," or were they fundamentally wrong? The current classroom model may survive for a long time to come—at least until software gets better at approximating student-teacher interactions. And when change does come, chances are it will look nothing like what we had imagined. Written, shot, and produced by Olivier Ballou; narrated by Nick Gillespie. Reason is celebrating National School Choice Week. This story is part of a series that will be published over the course of the week highlighting different K-12 education options available to children and families.

www.reason.com

right

IUHezgOq4UxF4Mar

test

q7btGcn1EgIFv2mu

polarization

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romney-trump-apologize-remarks-caused-racists-rejoice/story?id=49293213

Romney says Trump must 'apologize' for remarks that caused 'racists to rejoice'

Meghan Keneally

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is calling on President Donald Trump to apologize and address the fallout from his statements about the violence in Charlottesville , warning that a failure to act could lead to `` an unraveling of our national fabric . '' Interested in Charlottesville ? Add Charlottesville as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Charlottesville news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest `` Whether he intended to or not , what he communicated caused racists to rejoice , minorities to weep , and the vast heart of America to mourn , '' Romney wrote in a post on Facebook this morning . `` His apologists strain to explain that he did n't mean what we heard . But what we heard is now the reality , and unless it is addressed by the president as such , with unprecedented candor and strength , there may commence an unraveling of our national fabric , '' Romney said . The former Massachusetts governor who was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 wrote that the `` potential consequences '' to how people are interpretating Trump 's comments `` are severe in the extreme . '' `` Accordingly , the president must take remedial action in the extreme , '' he wrote . Romney wrote that Trump should `` address the American people , acknowledge that he was wrong , apologize . '' `` State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100 % to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville . Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis -- who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat -- and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag , Nazi armband and Nazi salute , '' Romney wrote . Romney also suggests that Trump `` definitively repudiate the support of David Duke and his ilk and call for every American to banish racists and haters from any and every association . '' `` Mr. President , act now for the good of the country , '' he concluded . This is not the first time that Romney has publicly criticized Trump , even on the Charlottesville violence . He tweeted after Trump 's latest comments at a press conference on Tuesday , writing `` No , not the same . One side is racist , bigoted , Nazi . The other opposes racism and bigotry . Morally different universes . '' No , not the same . One side is racist , bigoted , Nazi . The other opposes racism and bigotry . Morally different universes . — Mitt Romney ( @ MittRomney ) August 16 , 2017 This latest public rebuke stands in stark contrast to better times in the Romney-Trump relationship . Trump endorsed Romney in 2012 , but then when it was Trump 's turn to run 2016 , Romney became one of Trump 's most vocal critics , and at one point held a press conference urging delegates in upcoming primaries to do whatever they could to prevent Trump from becoming the party 's nominee . They appeared to reach a truce after Trump won , and Romney was very publicly considered to fill the role of Trump 's secretary of state , but then was not chosen .

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is calling on President Donald Trump to apologize and address the fallout from his statements about the violence in Charlottesville, warning that a failure to act could lead to "an unraveling of our national fabric." Interested in Charlottesville? Add Charlottesville as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Charlottesville news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest "Whether he intended to or not, what he communicated caused racists to rejoice, minorities to weep, and the vast heart of America to mourn," Romney wrote in a post on Facebook this morning. "His apologists strain to explain that he didn't mean what we heard. But what we heard is now the reality, and unless it is addressed by the president as such, with unprecedented candor and strength, there may commence an unraveling of our national fabric," Romney said. The former Massachusetts governor who was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 wrote that the "potential consequences" to how people are interpretating Trump's comments "are severe in the extreme." "Accordingly, the president must take remedial action in the extreme," he wrote. Julie Jacobson/AP Photo Romney wrote that Trump should "address the American people, acknowledge that he was wrong, apologize." "State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville. Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis -- who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat -- and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag, Nazi armband and Nazi salute," Romney wrote. Romney also suggests that Trump "definitively repudiate the support of David Duke and his ilk and call for every American to banish racists and haters from any and every association." "Mr. President, act now for the good of the country," he concluded. This is not the first time that Romney has publicly criticized Trump, even on the Charlottesville violence. He tweeted after Trump's latest comments at a press conference on Tuesday, writing "No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes." No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes. — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) August 16, 2017 This latest public rebuke stands in stark contrast to better times in the Romney-Trump relationship. Trump endorsed Romney in 2012, but then when it was Trump's turn to run 2016, Romney became one of Trump's most vocal critics, and at one point held a press conference urging delegates in upcoming primaries to do whatever they could to prevent Trump from becoming the party's nominee. They appeared to reach a truce after Trump won, and Romney was very publicly considered to fill the role of Trump's secretary of state, but then was not chosen.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

q7btGcn1EgIFv2mu

test

fd453CToZ7dMc4JW

media_bias

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/23/hillary-clinton-todays-media-is-more-entertainment-less-facts/

Hillary Clinton: Today's media is more entertainment, less facts

2014-04-23

Storrs , Connecticut ( CNN ) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the state of journalism on Wednesday , telling an audience at the University of Connecticut that journalism is now driven more by entertainment than fact based reporting . Clinton , who has been the focus of national media attention since the early 1990s , told the 2,300-person audience that `` journalism has changed quite a bit in a way that is not good for the country and not good for journalism . '' `` A lot of serious news reporting has become more entertainment driven and more opinion-driven as opposed to factual , '' she said . `` People book onto the shows , political figures , commentators who will be controversial who will be provocative because it ’ s a good show . You might not learn anything but you might be entertained and I think that ’ s just become an unfortunate pattern that I wish could be broken . '' Clinton 's comments came as part of the question and answer portion to Wednesday ’ s event . University of Connecticut President Susan Herbst asked Clinton about how journalism has changed and whether journalists could help break gridlock that has halted work in Washington . The former secretary of state went on to say that she feels there is a space for `` explanatory journalism because there ’ s a lot going on in the world that needs explanation . '' The former first lady also had a tip for journalists : Do your homework . `` It ’ s important for journalists to realize that they have to do their homework too and they really should be well-prepared when they interview people , when they talk about issues , '' she said . `` I think that it ’ s with professional tweaking and creativity we could address some of the issues we know are plaguing journalism today​ . '' Clinton has long been the focus of journalists ' attention , which at times has caused an acrimonious view of media . According to the diary of Diane Blair , a longtime Clinton confidant whose personal documents gained media attention earlier this year , Clinton regularly expressed frustration and a deep distrust of the media . In January 1995 , Blair wrote that Clinton expressed “ her total exasperation with all this obsession and attention , and how hard she ’ s finding to conceal her contempt for it all. ” On Thanksgiving Day 1996 , Blair wrote that Clinton thought the press was “ complete hypocrites . ” “ Say they want the truth , want power to be transparent , but in fact they prefer the backstage manipulation of B. Bush , N. Reagan , B. Truman , R. Carter , ” Blair wrote , listing several former first ladies . “ On her death bed , wants to be able to say she was true to herself and is not going to do phoney makeovers to please others . ” When her husband , Bill Clinton , was president , many in the White House worried of a `` vast right-wing conspiracy '' that aimed to take down the Clinton White House . Some of that concern stemmed from the rise of right wing media and blogs . Clinton 's 2008 campaign also suffered from a sometimes tense relationship with the media . In 2008 , former President Clinton railed against what he called `` the most biased coverage in history , '' and both Clintons complained of what they believed to be pervasive sexism dominating the campaign narrative . In response to her remarks , Tim Miller , executive director of American Rising PAC , a conservative research and media super PAC , said Clinton 's problem with the media stemmed from `` a lack of interest in transparency , not the media . She 's never going to like anyone that tries to hold her accountable . '' While in Storrs , Clinton also talked about National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden , the future of the Ukraine-Russia relationship and the importance of youth participation . Because the remarks came at University of Connecticut , a school whose basketball program won both Division I national championship in 2014 , the former secretary of state also brandished some of her basketball bona fides , telling the audience that she was `` a big fan '' of Shabazz Napier , the men 's senior guard . Clinton , who has used the last few months to travel the country and deliver paid speeches , has acknowledged that she is thinking about a presidential run in 2016 . All polls have her as the Democratic frontrunner and it is likely that she would win the nomination if she won . Former Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut , who attended Wednesday 's event , said the former first lady should think about running , while Connecticut 's Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he would support Clinton `` when and if she does . ''

5 years ago Storrs, Connecticut (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the state of journalism on Wednesday, telling an audience at the University of Connecticut that journalism is now driven more by entertainment than fact based reporting. Clinton, who has been the focus of national media attention since the early 1990s, told the 2,300-person audience that "journalism has changed quite a bit in a way that is not good for the country and not good for journalism." Follow @politicaltickerFollow @danmericacnn Clinton urges ending age discrimination of women "A lot of serious news reporting has become more entertainment driven and more opinion-driven as opposed to factual," she said. "People book onto the shows, political figures, commentators who will be controversial who will be provocative because it’s a good show. You might not learn anything but you might be entertained and I think that’s just become an unfortunate pattern that I wish could be broken." Clinton's comments came as part of the question and answer portion to Wednesday’s event. University of Connecticut President Susan Herbst asked Clinton about how journalism has changed and whether journalists could help break gridlock that has halted work in Washington. The former secretary of state went on to say that she feels there is a space for "explanatory journalism because there’s a lot going on in the world that needs explanation." The former first lady also had a tip for journalists: Do your homework. "It’s important for journalists to realize that they have to do their homework too and they really should be well-prepared when they interview people, when they talk about issues," she said. "I think that it’s with professional tweaking and creativity we could address some of the issues we know are plaguing journalism today​." Clinton has long been the focus of journalists' attention, which at times has caused an acrimonious view of media. According to the diary of Diane Blair, a longtime Clinton confidant whose personal documents gained media attention earlier this year, Clinton regularly expressed frustration and a deep distrust of the media. In January 1995, Blair wrote that Clinton expressed “her total exasperation with all this obsession and attention, and how hard she’s finding to conceal her contempt for it all.” On Thanksgiving Day 1996, Blair wrote that Clinton thought the press was “complete hypocrites.” “Say they want the truth, want power to be transparent, but in fact they prefer the backstage manipulation of B. Bush, N. Reagan, B. Truman, R. Carter,” Blair wrote, listing several former first ladies. “On her death bed, wants to be able to say she was true to herself and is not going to do phoney makeovers to please others.” When her husband, Bill Clinton, was president, many in the White House worried of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that aimed to take down the Clinton White House. Some of that concern stemmed from the rise of right wing media and blogs. Clinton's 2008 campaign also suffered from a sometimes tense relationship with the media. In 2008, former President Clinton railed against what he called "the most biased coverage in history," and both Clintons complained of what they believed to be pervasive sexism dominating the campaign narrative. In response to her remarks, Tim Miller, executive director of American Rising PAC, a conservative research and media super PAC, said Clinton's problem with the media stemmed from "a lack of interest in transparency, not the media. She's never going to like anyone that tries to hold her accountable." While in Storrs, Clinton also talked about National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, the future of the Ukraine-Russia relationship and the importance of youth participation. Because the remarks came at University of Connecticut, a school whose basketball program won both Division I national championship in 2014, the former secretary of state also brandished some of her basketball bona fides, telling the audience that she was "a big fan" of Shabazz Napier, the men's senior guard. "You just busted every bracket," Clinton said. Clinton, who has used the last few months to travel the country and deliver paid speeches, has acknowledged that she is thinking about a presidential run in 2016. All polls have her as the Democratic frontrunner and it is likely that she would win the nomination if she won. Former Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who attended Wednesday's event, said the former first lady should think about running, while Connecticut's Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he would support Clinton "when and if she does."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

fd453CToZ7dMc4JW

test

h96karOwmHFrsRTi

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/york-judge-rules-trump-turn-tax-returns-hush/story?id=66110643&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed

New York judge rules Trump must turn over tax returns for hush money investigation

President Donald Trump lost his bid Monday to shield his tax returns from the Manhattan District Attorney 's office , which subpoenaed them as part of an investigation into `` hush payments '' to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal . 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 In a 75-page decision Judge Victor Marrero said he could not endorse `` such a categorical and limitless assertion of presidential immunity from judicial process as being countenanced by the nation 's constitutional plan . '' Trump had argued he was immune from any criminal proceeding while in office . The judge said the president was entitled to no such `` protective shield . '' `` The notion of federal supremacy and presidential immunity from judicial process that the president here invokes , unqualified and boundless in its reach as described above , cuts across the grain of these constitutional precedents , '' Marrero wrote . The judge dismissed the president 's lawsuit that was meant to stop the subpoena from being enforced . President Trump 's legal team filed an immediate notice of appeal to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals , and the 2nd Circuit at least temporarily agreed to block the president 's accounting firm from immediately having to hand over the requested tax returns in an emergency administrative stay Monday . `` Whether or not the Court ultimately agrees with the President 's constitutional challenge to the subpoena , he is entitled to appellate review before his papers are forcibly disclosed to a state grand jury , '' the president 's lawyer Patrick Strawbridge wrote . The 2nd Circuit 's order said the stay is granted `` pending expedited review by a panel of the Court . '' `` We are very pleased that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a stay of the subpoena issued by New York County District Attorney Cy Vance , '' Trump lead counsel Jay Sekulow told ███ . Earlier Monday , in response to the judge 's ruling that the president 's tax returns are subject to subpoena , Trump took to Twitter to respond . `` The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts , so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump , '' the president tweeted Monday morning . `` A thing like this has never happened to any President before . Not even close ! '' The Manhattan DA 's office declined to comment to ███ . The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts , so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump . A thing like this has never happened to any President before . Not even close ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 7 , 2019 The subpoena was issued to Mazars USA , Trump 's accounting firm , in August as part of an ongoing investigation into whether hush payments to Daniels and McDougal broke any state laws . The subpoena calls for financial and tax records of a number of entities and individuals , including those of President Trump . The president 's attorneys insisted `` a sitting President of the United States is not subject to the criminal process while he is in office '' and they filed a lawsuit to quash it . `` That does n't immunize him permanently , '' the president 's attorney William Consovoy said in the filing . `` It means that while he is the commander in chief of our nation , 50 states ca n't decide that they are going to investigate the president while he tries to serve us as a country . '' Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance called that argument `` remarkable '' and said in September the lawsuit to block the taxes from subpoena should be dismissed . `` The law provides no such sweeping immunity , '' Assistant District Attorney Solomon Shinerock said in September . `` They have no authority for the breathtaking grant of immunity that they seek . '' The district attorney 's office also accused the president of trying to run out the clock . `` Right now we 're just in the very early stage of wanting to review materials , '' Shinerock said . `` And this entire process I think is really designed by the plaintiff to make sure that does n't happen . ''

President Donald Trump lost his bid Monday to shield his tax returns from the Manhattan District Attorney's office, which subpoenaed them as part of an investigation into "hush payments" to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. 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 In a 75-page decision Judge Victor Marrero said he could not endorse "such a categorical and limitless assertion of presidential immunity from judicial process as being countenanced by the nation's constitutional plan." Trump had argued he was immune from any criminal proceeding while in office. The judge said the president was entitled to no such "protective shield." "The notion of federal supremacy and presidential immunity from judicial process that the president here invokes, unqualified and boundless in its reach as described above, cuts across the grain of these constitutional precedents," Marrero wrote. The judge dismissed the president's lawsuit that was meant to stop the subpoena from being enforced. President Trump's legal team filed an immediate notice of appeal to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 2nd Circuit at least temporarily agreed to block the president's accounting firm from immediately having to hand over the requested tax returns in an emergency administrative stay Monday. "Whether or not the Court ultimately agrees with the President's constitutional challenge to the subpoena, he is entitled to appellate review before his papers are forcibly disclosed to a state grand jury," the president's lawyer Patrick Strawbridge wrote. The 2nd Circuit's order said the stay is granted "pending expedited review by a panel of the Court." "We are very pleased that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a stay of the subpoena issued by New York County District Attorney Cy Vance," Trump lead counsel Jay Sekulow told ABC News. Earlier Monday, in response to the judge's ruling that the president's tax returns are subject to subpoena, Trump took to Twitter to respond. "The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump," the president tweeted Monday morning. "A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!" The Manhattan DA's office declined to comment to ABC News. The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2019 The subpoena was issued to Mazars USA, Trump's accounting firm, in August as part of an ongoing investigation into whether hush payments to Daniels and McDougal broke any state laws. The subpoena calls for financial and tax records of a number of entities and individuals, including those of President Trump. The president's attorneys insisted "a sitting President of the United States is not subject to the criminal process while he is in office" and they filed a lawsuit to quash it. "That doesn't immunize him permanently," the president's attorney William Consovoy said in the filing. "It means that while he is the commander in chief of our nation, 50 states can't decide that they are going to investigate the president while he tries to serve us as a country." Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance called that argument "remarkable" and said in September the lawsuit to block the taxes from subpoena should be dismissed. "The law provides no such sweeping immunity," Assistant District Attorney Solomon Shinerock said in September. "They have no authority for the breathtaking grant of immunity that they seek." The district attorney's office also accused the president of trying to run out the clock. "Right now we're just in the very early stage of wanting to review materials," Shinerock said. "And this entire process I think is really designed by the plaintiff to make sure that doesn't happen." ABC News' John Santucci contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

h96karOwmHFrsRTi

test

51Rs7ZTt46rHiuN3

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/a-flawed-president-whose-pugnacious-divisiveness-uniquely-suits-the-moments-need/

A Flawed President Whose Pugnacious Divisiveness Uniquely Suits the Moment’s Need

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

Any fair assessment of our President is that he is flawed as a person . His sense of self much exceeds the norm . Some of his insults famously transcend those we associate with the meme “ Politics Ain ’ t Beanbag. ” On discrete occasions , he has disappointed staunch supporters by punctuating certain powerfully valid viewpoints with “ facts ” that are so demonstrably wrong that they approach the coveted Gold Standard for Public Falsehood established by the dual-gender political tag-team of Clintons and exceeded only by Barack Obama . ( See also : “ Shovel-ready jobs ” ; “ If you like your [ ] , you can keep your [ ] ” ; “ More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America ” ; Solyndra . ) President Trump infuriates his foes and leaves his supporters ofttimes squeamish . Shall we rue his election , as “ Never Trumpers ” continue to do ? Well , first of all — He ’ s what we ’ ve got for the next 41 or 89 months . Had we gotten Hillary instead , we would not have encountered fewer lies from the Oval Office , nor from whatever new bathroom she would have selected to store her next-generation stealth computer server . In a world where Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video that almost no one saw — and which no one conceivably viewed through its painfully not-soon-enough conclusion — and in which a Secretary of State had exchanged tens of thousands of emails regarding her yoga classes and daughter ’ s wedding dress , one need not fantasize to grasp how much public lying would have emanated from a new Clinton West Wing , Oval Office , and from under the President ’ s desk had we been Hillaried . Hillary would have assured the Obama Revolution a prospective permanence , endangering the future of the Republic without slowing the rise of the seas or healing the planet . Would Michelle Obama by now be the ninth Supreme Court Justice casting tie-breaking votes ? Or Barack ? Or a kindred soul ? If so , before we mourn an imperiled Second Amendment , what would have become of the First Amendment ? In a world in which the politically deranged and morally challenged Southern Poverty Law Center can defame the most decent of Christian religious-freedom advocates , groups like Alliance Defending Freedom , as “ Hate Groups , ” what would have been left of religious freedom under a Hillary ? And what of the embattled First Amendment right to speak one ’ s mind freely in an environment where there is no inducement to violence , no imminent lawless action , but a plethora of campus intolerance and university schemes aimed at taxing speech into silence by imposing exorbitant “ security fees ” and moving conservative groups and scholars to off-site inaccessible venues and to obscure dates when students are otherwise engaged ? One is reminded of the O.J . book that never saw light of day : “ If I Did It. ” If she had done it and won , would she have been less combative and vindictive against her perceived foes than is President Trump ? Just to know her was to risk wrath ( Dick Morris ) , scorn ( Gennifer Flowers , Monica Lewinsky , Paula Jones , Kathleen Willey , Juanita Broaddrick ) , termination ( seven employees of the White House Travel Office ) , and imprisonment ( Susan McDougal ; Billy Dale , director of said travel office ) . If her new book is titled “ What Happened ” — a question frequently asked , upon regaining consciousness , by those who have been knocked out for a ten-count — the answer is : American dodged a political bullet and now has a chance to recover its soul . That is what happened . And , yet , how explain the raw and brusque President Trump-the-Divider when compared to a previous modern conservative President , Ronald Reagan-the-Unifier ? Reagan , too , was the media celebrity who defied the odds , won the election that the pollsters expected him to lose , thereafter was pilloried by the left media as a buffoon actor , a pretender , and incompetent who belonged more in bed with Bonzo than with the strange bedfellows of politics . So , now that Donald Trump has won and has been in the White House for seven months , why isn ’ t he more like Reagan ? Alas , the media never have given President Trump even the begrudging chance they gave President Reagan . Yes , Ronald Reagan entered the White House with a reputation as a tough governor , a man who had dispatched the California national guard to Berkeley to delay the premature emergence of Antifa for another half century . However , he also came in as a likable guy . The leftist news media could mock him and deride First Lady Nancy ’ s dresses and chinaware , but people had seen him in the movies and on TV . Reagan played the good guys , the cowboys with white hats , the doggone Gipper . His mere smile persuaded Americans to buy light bulbs by General Electric , Royal Crown cola , Van Heusen shirts , Westinghouse refrigerators , V-8 juice , and Chesterfields . He lay in bed with impish monkeys for silliness , playing an absent-minded psychology professor in an era when professors did not penalize students ’ grades and withhold letters of recommendation from students reading Ayn Rand , Bill Buckley , or Milton Friedman . Reagan was lovable . Even die-hard liberals who hated his tough politics still knew that , at bottom , Reagan was a sweet pussycat . He told wonderful stories , funny anecdotes , delivered great one-liners with punch . And he smiled self-effacingly . That never stopped the vicious leftist media from hounding First Lady Nancy Reagan , as they later would do to Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin , over their outfits that actually cost a fraction of a Hillary Clinton pantsuit or jacket or a taxpayer-funded regal European designer couture creation commissioned by and for Michelle Obama . In the time before Fox News , Rush Limbaugh , and the internet , the media had no boundaries in hounding the President and mocking his elegant and graceful wife . But Americans liked Reagan , even more when contrasted from his immediate predecessor , the dour and sour tight-lipped Jimmy Carter , who by-the-way presided over a 14 percent inflation rate and 444 days of an Iranian hostage mess . And then a certified nut decided to impress Jodi Foster by shooting Reagan . The President ’ s personal courage and humor during the aftermath , while his life hung in the balance , sealed the deal . The Gipper took one for us . By contrast for Donald Trump , although our nation ’ s Chief Executive likewise entered the Presidency as a TV star , his stardom was rooted in being the guy who terminates prospective employees — “ You ’ re fired. ” He has a likable side , especially if you go for the superficially tough brash New Yorker macho , but also a very dislikeable side if you don ’ t . He came in hated . He was hated because he regularly escalated the rhetoric stratospherically , having divined an Achilles ’ heel in the media that assured him unbridled access to billions of dollars ( billions with a “ b ” ) of free air time on the news channels and talk shows by speaking irrepressibly and with calculated irresponsibility . He was hated because he up-ended the Republican establishment ’ s carefully laid plans for yet another four-year sequel of Bush kinder gentler rigor mortis . Trump was brazen , unscripted , out of control . An embarrassment to the party . In time , he was running against both major political parties on the ballot : Hillary-Bernie Democrats and the “ Never Trump ” GOP elite . As he became ever-predictably more unpredictable , gaining even more air time , a new sport ensued , aimed at misinterpreting his every word , his every intent . Perhaps the nadir of misstating his true meaning , the art of turning his words into something he never contemplated , came during the presidential campaign when he said that Hillary , in her prior race against Obama four years earlier , had been “ schlonged. ” Yes , that verb is the Yiddish word for the male reproductive organ . Immediately , the media shifted into overdrive , citing his using the term against a female candidate as proof of vile dark misogyny . But for those of us whose parents and neighbors actually spoke Yiddish , we who grew up in Brooklyn and Queens on the streets where Donald Trump grew up and learned life ’ s lingo , the term never was used colloquially to mean the physiological organ . Rather , it was used merely to convey that someone had gotten beaten really badly in a fair competition : “ The Mets get schlonged again yesterday , 14-3. ” “ Did you see Liston get schlonged in the first round ? ” Men clobbering men in a contest governed fairly by rules . No misogyny . That is how people tawk in Brooklyn and Queens . That leftist media feeding-frenzy , mischaracterizing Trump ’ s vocabulary , reflected early-on the degree to which he would not get a break for the duration of his political career . The fabrication of intent was akin to a contemporary commentator bemoaning a politician ’ s bad political debate performance by saying “ He ( or she ) really sucked ” — and then having media parasites , reflecting their own coarseness of mind , imputing a sexual connotation to the verb . Before long , Trump had been labeled not only a misogynist and racist but even an anti-Semite , having issued a statement thoughtfully remembering the Holocaust — written by a Jewish staffer descended of Holocaust survivors — that failed to satisfy his critics among the wordsmiths of the left . As such , the circumstances underlying media acceptance of Trump ’ s ascent to the Presidency are not comparable to those encountered by Ronald Reagan but to those that greeted a different Republican whom the media despised , Richard Nixon . Like Nixon , Trump is the Republican who never had a chance with the left media , not from Day One — and not before Day One . Nixon , who famously articulated that he knew full well that the media were devoted to kicking him around , handled the never-ending onslaught during his presidential years the “ professional ” way , the way that Trump critics now wish he would employ . When in the public eye , Nixon always acted “ presidential ” and spoke properly . He saved his cursing , his hatreds , and his vendettas for the clandestine arena of his ubiquitous recording devices and for the benefit of historians and scholars . However , as a public actor , Nixon delegated to Vice President Spiro Agnew the task to bark at the media as an attack dog , while Nixon postured above it all , parodying “ Sock it to me ! ” on NBC ’ s Laugh-In and greeting Elvis . Nevertheless , history teaches conclusively that determined aloofness from confronting the leftist media in direct fray never bought him succor , and ultimately the driven media took Nixon down , as they had set out to do from Day One . That is Trump ’ s dilemma . From before he even set foot in the White House , the media have been intent on taking him down , Nixon-style , instead of parrying with him Reagan-style . The “ presidential ” way of dealing civilly with such a merciless and continuous onslaught failed Nixon ( exacerbated when his henchman , Agnew , was revealed to be a crook ) . It simply does not work to play nice when there are too many TV stations , too many hours of too many talking heads echoing each other ’ s verbal assaults on this President , too many websites and libelous bloggers , too many self-certified psychoanalysts dissecting a mind that is at least as functional as that of Maxine Waters . And , yes , too much darn fake news . ( Remember that first day , when Time magazine already was reporting falsely that he had removed a bust of the Rev . Dr. Martin Luther King from the Oval Office ? ) That is why poor Trump — in this context , truly poor Trump — finds himself caught in the first round of a never-ending eight-year boxing match , with a binary choice : either they take him down , or he takes them down . There is no in-between , no kibitzing with a funny tale of a fictional plumber setting an appointment ten years hence to repair a leak in a Communist Russia apartment . Rather , it is a battle to the political death , no holds barred — because the attackers are armed and , as though embarking on Vicksburg , are supplied amply for laying an eight-year siege . Ronald Reagan , never the hyphenated American , nonetheless was blessed further with a fellow traveler sharing roots hailing to a common old sod . House Leader Tip O ’ Neill , his drinking buddy and erstwhile pal , would share laughs and warm moments at night with Reagan after a tough day of politics . Like an Oxford debate or a pre-season baseball game , it never was personal ; it simply was that thing we do . But Trump has no friends in D.C. with whom to muse . With uncanny certainty , everything he says , every muse , every “ what-if ? ” gets leaked , investigated , and consumes another 24-hour or week-long news cycle . Moreover , Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer , like the media whom they symbiotically feed and nourish , will not rest until they take him down and destroy him — unless he takes them down first . It is a post-Obama world , where eight years of Saul Alinsky ’ s “ rules for radicals ” have taken hold of the national culture , particularly in academia and in entertainment . A CNN-affiliated comedienne , albeit no longer CNN and never really comedic , holds a decapitated , bloodied head of the President of the United States . This is funny ? A late-night talk-show host rambles viciously about the President of the United States in terms not only disgusting and vile but also startlingly homophobic . He hosts an evening of humor sponsored by the news media ? A worn-out singer publicly wears a “ Vagina Hat ” on a rostrum ( and it is offensive to use the term “ schlonged ” ? ) and voices her wish that she could blow up the White House . A Shakespearean performance in the people ’ s park degrades into a metaphor for assassinating the President of the United States , a federal felony whose very suggestion is punishable by up to five years ’ incarceration . 18 U.S.C . § 871 . This is the coarse and degraded post-Obama society that Donald Trump inherited . In great measure , his election conforms to the laws of Physics , comprising an equal and opposite force generated by eight immediately preceding years of an unparalleled coarsening of the American culture and abandoning of traditional American morality . This brave new world evidences new bold and daring on the left . They brazenly assemble frontally like terrorists , dressed in black and masks , armed with lethal weapons , battering and pummeling even peaceful , passive conservative demonstrators who publicly condemn racism and white supremacy , and who explicitly dissociate from the associated groups of hate . The First Amendment and free speech no longer are sacrosanct at the liberal university . Eight years of Obama changed America and empowered a new tyranny . The free exchange of ideas increasingly is the province only of those who talk to themselves . Trump assuredly is a divisive person , disturbingly thriving in the role . That is a shame . But the prior eight years saw that , first , John McCain and thereafter Mitt Romney were hopelessly unsuited to counter the new tyranny and repression of academia and the media left merely by advancing ideas and postulates with the grace and gentility of “ Reasonable Minds May Differ. ” The playing field is not structured evenly for the dignified conservative . At the earliest sign of a winning conservative idea , there now will be a Candy Crowley — less a person , more a metaphor — to sabotage the debate , trample the rules , and cheat to win . When one Crowley rolls aside , a Donna Brazile emerges to find a surrogate to pass along debate questions surreptitiously . In such a volatile environment of static , of a new tyrannical left that honors none of America ’ s rules of civil engagement , the political left shamelessly rejects the voters ’ choice to render it the “ Loyal Opposition ” and instead remarkably proclaims itself “ The Resistance. ” To counter , the pugnacious and divisive Trump emerges as the new-and-improved iteration of conservatives simply trying to be heard over a media din of dogmatic liberalism pocked by their coordinated corruption of conservative ideas and proposals , augmented by their blackout of any and all positive news of the good things that conservatives do and the excellent results that implemented conservative programs accomplish . In such a public environment where the climate indeed has changed , it emerges that our flawed President is the right man for the wrong time .

Any fair assessment of our President is that he is flawed as a person. His sense of self much exceeds the norm. Some of his insults famously transcend those we associate with the meme “Politics Ain’t Beanbag.” On discrete occasions, he has disappointed staunch supporters by punctuating certain powerfully valid viewpoints with “facts” that are so demonstrably wrong that they approach the coveted Gold Standard for Public Falsehood established by the dual-gender political tag-team of Clintons and exceeded only by Barack Obama. (See also: “Shovel-ready jobs”; “If you like your [ ], you can keep your [ ]”; “More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America”; Solyndra.) President Trump infuriates his foes and leaves his supporters ofttimes squeamish. Shall we rue his election, as “Never Trumpers” continue to do? Well, first of all — He’s what we’ve got for the next 41 or 89 months. Had we gotten Hillary instead, we would not have encountered fewer lies from the Oval Office, nor from whatever new bathroom she would have selected to store her next-generation stealth computer server. In a world where Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video that almost no one saw — and which no one conceivably viewed through its painfully not-soon-enough conclusion — and in which a Secretary of State had exchanged tens of thousands of emails regarding her yoga classes and daughter’s wedding dress, one need not fantasize to grasp how much public lying would have emanated from a new Clinton West Wing, Oval Office, and from under the President’s desk had we been Hillaried. Hillary would have assured the Obama Revolution a prospective permanence, endangering the future of the Republic without slowing the rise of the seas or healing the planet. Would Michelle Obama by now be the ninth Supreme Court Justice casting tie-breaking votes? Or Barack? Or a kindred soul? If so, before we mourn an imperiled Second Amendment, what would have become of the First Amendment? In a world in which the politically deranged and morally challenged Southern Poverty Law Center can defame the most decent of Christian religious-freedom advocates, groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, as “Hate Groups,” what would have been left of religious freedom under a Hillary? And what of the embattled First Amendment right to speak one’s mind freely in an environment where there is no inducement to violence, no imminent lawless action, but a plethora of campus intolerance and university schemes aimed at taxing speech into silence by imposing exorbitant “security fees” and moving conservative groups and scholars to off-site inaccessible venues and to obscure dates when students are otherwise engaged? One is reminded of the O.J. book that never saw light of day: “If I Did It.” If she had done it and won, would she have been less combative and vindictive against her perceived foes than is President Trump? Just to know her was to risk wrath (Dick Morris), scorn (Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick), termination (seven employees of the White House Travel Office), and imprisonment (Susan McDougal; Billy Dale, director of said travel office). If her new book is titled “What Happened” — a question frequently asked, upon regaining consciousness, by those who have been knocked out for a ten-count — the answer is: American dodged a political bullet and now has a chance to recover its soul. That is what happened. And, yet, how explain the raw and brusque President Trump-the-Divider when compared to a previous modern conservative President, Ronald Reagan-the-Unifier? Reagan, too, was the media celebrity who defied the odds, won the election that the pollsters expected him to lose, thereafter was pilloried by the left media as a buffoon actor, a pretender, and incompetent who belonged more in bed with Bonzo than with the strange bedfellows of politics. So, now that Donald Trump has won and has been in the White House for seven months, why isn’t he more like Reagan? Alas, the media never have given President Trump even the begrudging chance they gave President Reagan. Yes, Ronald Reagan entered the White House with a reputation as a tough governor, a man who had dispatched the California national guard to Berkeley to delay the premature emergence of Antifa for another half century. However, he also came in as a likable guy. The leftist news media could mock him and deride First Lady Nancy’s dresses and chinaware, but people had seen him in the movies and on TV. Reagan played the good guys, the cowboys with white hats, the doggone Gipper. His mere smile persuaded Americans to buy light bulbs by General Electric, Royal Crown cola, Van Heusen shirts, Westinghouse refrigerators, V-8 juice, and Chesterfields. He lay in bed with impish monkeys for silliness, playing an absent-minded psychology professor in an era when professors did not penalize students’ grades and withhold letters of recommendation from students reading Ayn Rand, Bill Buckley, or Milton Friedman. Reagan was lovable. Even die-hard liberals who hated his tough politics still knew that, at bottom, Reagan was a sweet pussycat. He told wonderful stories, funny anecdotes, delivered great one-liners with punch. And he smiled self-effacingly. That never stopped the vicious leftist media from hounding First Lady Nancy Reagan, as they later would do to Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, over their outfits that actually cost a fraction of a Hillary Clinton pantsuit or jacket or a taxpayer-funded regal European designer couture creation commissioned by and for Michelle Obama. In the time before Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the internet, the media had no boundaries in hounding the President and mocking his elegant and graceful wife. But Americans liked Reagan, even more when contrasted from his immediate predecessor, the dour and sour tight-lipped Jimmy Carter, who by-the-way presided over a 14 percent inflation rate and 444 days of an Iranian hostage mess. And then a certified nut decided to impress Jodi Foster by shooting Reagan. The President’s personal courage and humor during the aftermath, while his life hung in the balance, sealed the deal. The Gipper took one for us. By contrast for Donald Trump, although our nation’s Chief Executive likewise entered the Presidency as a TV star, his stardom was rooted in being the guy who terminates prospective employees — “You’re fired.” He has a likable side, especially if you go for the superficially tough brash New Yorker macho, but also a very dislikeable side if you don’t. He came in hated. He was hated because he regularly escalated the rhetoric stratospherically, having divined an Achilles’ heel in the media that assured him unbridled access to billions of dollars (billions with a “b”) of free air time on the news channels and talk shows by speaking irrepressibly and with calculated irresponsibility. He was hated because he up-ended the Republican establishment’s carefully laid plans for yet another four-year sequel of Bush kinder gentler rigor mortis. Trump was brazen, unscripted, out of control. An embarrassment to the party. In time, he was running against both major political parties on the ballot: Hillary-Bernie Democrats and the “Never Trump” GOP elite. As he became ever-predictably more unpredictable, gaining even more air time, a new sport ensued, aimed at misinterpreting his every word, his every intent. Perhaps the nadir of misstating his true meaning, the art of turning his words into something he never contemplated, came during the presidential campaign when he said that Hillary, in her prior race against Obama four years earlier, had been “schlonged.” Yes, that verb is the Yiddish word for the male reproductive organ. Immediately, the media shifted into overdrive, citing his using the term against a female candidate as proof of vile dark misogyny. But for those of us whose parents and neighbors actually spoke Yiddish, we who grew up in Brooklyn and Queens on the streets where Donald Trump grew up and learned life’s lingo, the term never was used colloquially to mean the physiological organ. Rather, it was used merely to convey that someone had gotten beaten really badly in a fair competition: “The Mets get schlonged again yesterday, 14-3.” “Did you see Liston get schlonged in the first round?” Men clobbering men in a contest governed fairly by rules. No misogyny. That is how people tawk in Brooklyn and Queens. That leftist media feeding-frenzy, mischaracterizing Trump’s vocabulary, reflected early-on the degree to which he would not get a break for the duration of his political career. The fabrication of intent was akin to a contemporary commentator bemoaning a politician’s bad political debate performance by saying “He (or she) really sucked” — and then having media parasites, reflecting their own coarseness of mind, imputing a sexual connotation to the verb. Before long, Trump had been labeled not only a misogynist and racist but even an anti-Semite, having issued a statement thoughtfully remembering the Holocaust — written by a Jewish staffer descended of Holocaust survivors — that failed to satisfy his critics among the wordsmiths of the left. As such, the circumstances underlying media acceptance of Trump’s ascent to the Presidency are not comparable to those encountered by Ronald Reagan but to those that greeted a different Republican whom the media despised, Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Trump is the Republican who never had a chance with the left media, not from Day One — and not before Day One. Nixon, who famously articulated that he knew full well that the media were devoted to kicking him around, handled the never-ending onslaught during his presidential years the “professional” way, the way that Trump critics now wish he would employ. When in the public eye, Nixon always acted “presidential” and spoke properly. He saved his cursing, his hatreds, and his vendettas for the clandestine arena of his ubiquitous recording devices and for the benefit of historians and scholars. However, as a public actor, Nixon delegated to Vice President Spiro Agnew the task to bark at the media as an attack dog, while Nixon postured above it all, parodying “Sock it to me!” on NBC’s Laugh-In and greeting Elvis. Nevertheless, history teaches conclusively that determined aloofness from confronting the leftist media in direct fray never bought him succor, and ultimately the driven media took Nixon down, as they had set out to do from Day One. That is Trump’s dilemma. From before he even set foot in the White House, the media have been intent on taking him down, Nixon-style, instead of parrying with him Reagan-style. The “presidential” way of dealing civilly with such a merciless and continuous onslaught failed Nixon (exacerbated when his henchman, Agnew, was revealed to be a crook). It simply does not work to play nice when there are too many TV stations, too many hours of too many talking heads echoing each other’s verbal assaults on this President, too many websites and libelous bloggers, too many self-certified psychoanalysts dissecting a mind that is at least as functional as that of Maxine Waters. And, yes, too much darn fake news. (Remember that first day, when Time magazine already was reporting falsely that he had removed a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King from the Oval Office?) That is why poor Trump — in this context, truly poor Trump — finds himself caught in the first round of a never-ending eight-year boxing match, with a binary choice: either they take him down, or he takes them down. There is no in-between, no kibitzing with a funny tale of a fictional plumber setting an appointment ten years hence to repair a leak in a Communist Russia apartment. Rather, it is a battle to the political death, no holds barred — because the attackers are armed and, as though embarking on Vicksburg, are supplied amply for laying an eight-year siege. Ronald Reagan, never the hyphenated American, nonetheless was blessed further with a fellow traveler sharing roots hailing to a common old sod. House Leader Tip O’Neill, his drinking buddy and erstwhile pal, would share laughs and warm moments at night with Reagan after a tough day of politics. Like an Oxford debate or a pre-season baseball game, it never was personal; it simply was that thing we do. But Trump has no friends in D.C. with whom to muse. With uncanny certainty, everything he says, every muse, every “what-if?” gets leaked, investigated, and consumes another 24-hour or week-long news cycle. Moreover, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, like the media whom they symbiotically feed and nourish, will not rest until they take him down and destroy him — unless he takes them down first. It is a post-Obama world, where eight years of Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals” have taken hold of the national culture, particularly in academia and in entertainment. A CNN-affiliated comedienne, albeit no longer CNN and never really comedic, holds a decapitated, bloodied head of the President of the United States. This is funny? A late-night talk-show host rambles viciously about the President of the United States in terms not only disgusting and vile but also startlingly homophobic. He hosts an evening of humor sponsored by the news media? A worn-out singer publicly wears a “Vagina Hat” on a rostrum (and it is offensive to use the term “schlonged”?) and voices her wish that she could blow up the White House. A Shakespearean performance in the people’s park degrades into a metaphor for assassinating the President of the United States, a federal felony whose very suggestion is punishable by up to five years’ incarceration. 18 U.S.C. § 871. This is the coarse and degraded post-Obama society that Donald Trump inherited. In great measure, his election conforms to the laws of Physics, comprising an equal and opposite force generated by eight immediately preceding years of an unparalleled coarsening of the American culture and abandoning of traditional American morality. This brave new world evidences new bold and daring on the left. They brazenly assemble frontally like terrorists, dressed in black and masks, armed with lethal weapons, battering and pummeling even peaceful, passive conservative demonstrators who publicly condemn racism and white supremacy, and who explicitly dissociate from the associated groups of hate. The First Amendment and free speech no longer are sacrosanct at the liberal university. Eight years of Obama changed America and empowered a new tyranny. The free exchange of ideas increasingly is the province only of those who talk to themselves. Trump assuredly is a divisive person, disturbingly thriving in the role. That is a shame. But the prior eight years saw that, first, John McCain and thereafter Mitt Romney were hopelessly unsuited to counter the new tyranny and repression of academia and the media left merely by advancing ideas and postulates with the grace and gentility of “Reasonable Minds May Differ.” The playing field is not structured evenly for the dignified conservative. At the earliest sign of a winning conservative idea, there now will be a Candy Crowley — less a person, more a metaphor — to sabotage the debate, trample the rules, and cheat to win. When one Crowley rolls aside, a Donna Brazile emerges to find a surrogate to pass along debate questions surreptitiously. In such a volatile environment of static, of a new tyrannical left that honors none of America’s rules of civil engagement, the political left shamelessly rejects the voters’ choice to render it the “Loyal Opposition” and instead remarkably proclaims itself “The Resistance.” To counter, the pugnacious and divisive Trump emerges as the new-and-improved iteration of conservatives simply trying to be heard over a media din of dogmatic liberalism pocked by their coordinated corruption of conservative ideas and proposals, augmented by their blackout of any and all positive news of the good things that conservatives do and the excellent results that implemented conservative programs accomplish. In such a public environment where the climate indeed has changed, it emerges that our flawed President is the right man for the wrong time.

www.spectator.org

right

51Rs7ZTt46rHiuN3

test

Ml8StQsL4HAZVdxN

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/13/russia-rex-tillerson-trump-firing/

Reporters Immediately Blame Tillerson Firing On Russia Comments. There’s Just One Problem

2018-03-13

Rex Tillerson is out as secretary of state , leading many establishment journalists to falsely claim that his recent comments on Russia allegedly poisoning a spy in the United Kingdom are responsible . Tillerson commented on Monday that Sergei Skripal , an ex-Russian spy poisoned in the U.K. last week , appears to be “ clearly ” an act of the Kremlin . Prime Minister Theresa May also accused Russia of being behind the act , saying , “ Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country , or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get in the hands of others . ” This led many to claim that Tillerson was fired by Trump for blaming Russia for the poisoning . Tillerson says Russia “ clearly ” involved in poisoning of former Russian spy in UK . Trump fires Tillerson . # JustSaying — David Corn ( @ DavidCornDC ) March 13 , 2018 Tillerson committed the 1 unpardonable sin in Trump world : telling the truth about Russia . Pompeo won ’ t make same mistake . Having him as Secretary is the next worst thing to having Nunes ( his former House colleague and friend ) . Confirmation hearings should & will be explosive . — Norm Eisen ( @ NormEisen ) March 13 , 2018 Trump ’ s decision comes just hours after Tillerson broke with the White House to blame Russia for the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal in England https : //t.co/6DTqTKFfYb — Axios ( @ axios ) March 13 , 2018 Another sign of zero White House communications acumen-Tillerson canned the day after he takes tougher line on Russia than the White House and replaced by guy who took softer line on Russia than CIA – a line that was walked back by CIA but surely pleased POTUS . — Nicolle Wallace ( @ NicolleDWallace ) March 13 , 2018 Tillerson last night : “ I ’ ve become extremely concerned about Russia . We spent most of last year investing a lot into attempts to work together… And quite frankly , after a year , we didn ’ t get very far . Instead what we ’ ve seen is a pivot on their part to be more aggressive. ” — Jonathan Karl ( @ jonkarl ) March 13 , 2018 Tillerson on Monday agrees with our greatest ally that use of a WMD in Britain was by Russia and that declares there will be consequences . Then Trump fires him . Sanctions remain unenforced , solely because Trump ignoring the law . Explain , @ SpeakerRyan , @ gop , @ SenateMajLdr ? — Kurt Eichenwald ( @ kurteichenwald ) March 13 , 2018 We should not ignore that Trump fires Tillerson the day after he condemns Putin and Russia ’ s attack on the U.K. — Garrett M. Graff ( @ vermontgmg ) March 13 , 2018 Tillerson blames Russia for nerve gas attack last night . Fired this morning . — Bakari Sellers ( @ Bakari_Sellers ) March 13 , 2018 Day after Rex Tillerson backs Britain ’ s tough response to Russia , he ’ s out as secretary of state , to be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo . — Andrew Neil ( @ afneil ) March 13 , 2018 However , it turns out that Tillerson was actually asked to leave last Friday , according to the Washington Post , meaning he was fired before his comment on Russia . Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside , and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return to Washington https : //t.co/KsGYdFzLlQ — Washington Post ( @ washingtonpost ) March 13 , 2018 The @ washingtonpost suggests Tillerson was asked to leave on Friday – so he wasn ’ t fired * because * of his Russian comments , but he did make them knowing he was out the door — Andy Silvester ( @ silvesterldn ) March 13 , 2018

Rex Tillerson is out as secretary of state, leading many establishment journalists to falsely claim that his recent comments on Russia allegedly poisoning a spy in the United Kingdom are responsible. The Washington Post reported on Tillerson’s departure Tuesday morning. Tillerson commented on Monday that Sergei Skripal, an ex-Russian spy poisoned in the U.K. last week, appears to be “clearly” an act of the Kremlin. Prime Minister Theresa May also accused Russia of being behind the act, saying, “Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country, or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get in the hands of others.” This led many to claim that Tillerson was fired by Trump for blaming Russia for the poisoning. Tillerson says Russia “clearly” involved in poisoning of former Russian spy in UK. Trump fires Tillerson. #JustSaying — David Corn (@DavidCornDC) March 13, 2018 Tillerson committed the 1 unpardonable sin in Trump world: telling the truth about Russia. Pompeo won’t make same mistake. Having him as Secretary is the next worst thing to having Nunes (his former House colleague and friend). Confirmation hearings should & will be explosive. — Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) March 13, 2018 Trump’s decision comes just hours after Tillerson broke with the White House to blame Russia for the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal in England https://t.co/6DTqTKFfYb — Axios (@axios) March 13, 2018 Another sign of zero White House communications acumen-Tillerson canned the day after he takes tougher line on Russia than the White House and replaced by guy who took softer line on Russia than CIA – a line that was walked back by CIA but surely pleased POTUS. — Nicolle Wallace (@NicolleDWallace) March 13, 2018 Tillerson last night: “I’ve become extremely concerned about Russia. We spent most of last year investing a lot into attempts to work together… And quite frankly, after a year, we didn’t get very far. Instead what we’ve seen is a pivot on their part to be more aggressive.” — Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) March 13, 2018 Tillerson on Monday agrees with our greatest ally that use of a WMD in Britain was by Russia and that declares there will be consequences. Then Trump fires him. Sanctions remain unenforced, solely because Trump ignoring the law. Explain, @SpeakerRyan, @gop, @SenateMajLdr? — Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) March 13, 2018 We should not ignore that Trump fires Tillerson the day after he condemns Putin and Russia’s attack on the U.K. — Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) March 13, 2018 Tillerson blames Russia for nerve gas attack last night. Fired this morning. — Bakari Sellers (@Bakari_Sellers) March 13, 2018 Day after Rex Tillerson backs Britain’s tough response to Russia, he’s out as secretary of state, to be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. — Andrew Neil (@afneil) March 13, 2018 However, it turns out that Tillerson was actually asked to leave last Friday, according to the Washington Post, meaning he was fired before his comment on Russia. Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return to Washington https://t.co/KsGYdFzLlQ — Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 13, 2018 The @washingtonpost suggests Tillerson was asked to leave on Friday – so he wasn’t fired *because* of his Russian comments, but he did make them knowing he was out the door — Andy Silvester (@silvesterldn) March 13, 2018 Follow Justin on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

Ml8StQsL4HAZVdxN

test

XokWWMJbSDeZigHL

cybersecurity

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/06/23/the-cia-cant-protect-its-own-hacking-tools-why-should-we-trust-government-privacy-and-security-proposals/

The CIA Can't Protect Its Own Hacking Tools. Why Should We Trust Government Privacy and Security Proposals?

2020-06-23

"Andrea OSullivan", David Bernstein, Jacob Sullum, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Christian Britschgi, Billy Binion, C.J. Ciaramella, Scott Shackford, Matt Welch

We are often told that law enforcement must have a way to get around strong encryption technologies in order to catch bad guys . Such a `` backdoor '' into security techniques would only be used when necessary and would be closely guarded so it would not fall into the wrong hands , the story goes . The intelligence community does not yet have a known custom-built backdoor into encryption . But intelligence agencies do hold a trove of publicly unknown vulnerabilities , called `` zero days , '' they use to obtain hard-to-get data . One would hope that government agencies , especially those explicitly dedicated to security , could adequately protect these potent weapons . A recently released 2017 DOJ investigation into a breach of the CIA Center for Cyber Intelligence 's ( CCI ) `` Vault 7 '' hacking tools publicized in 2016 suggests that might be too big of an ask . Not only was the CCI found to be more interested in `` building up cyber tools than keeping them secure , '' the nation 's top spy agency routinely made rookie security mistakes that ultimately allowed personnel to leak the goods to Wikileaks . The released portions of the report are frankly embarrassing . The CCI cyber arsenal was not appropriately compartmentalized , users routinely shared admin-level passwords without oversight , there seemed to be little controls over what content users could access , and data was stored and available to all users indefinitely . No wonder there was a breach . It gets worse . Because the CIA servers lacked activity monitoring and audit capabilities , the agency did not even realize it was hacked until Wikileaks publicly announced it in March of 2017 . As the report notes , if the hack was the result of a hostile foreign government like , say , China , the CIA might still be in the dark about the hack . Might there be other unknown breaches that fit this bill ? The report recommended several measures the CIA should take to shore up its internal defenses . Among the few that were not redacted : do a better job of protecting zero days and vetting personnel . Okay , so do n't make all of the same mistakes again : got it . Well , it looks like even this goal was too ambitious for the CIA . Intelligence gadfly Sen. Ron Wyden ( D–Ore . ) , who first publicized the report , wrote a letter Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe stating that `` the intelligence community is still lagging behind '' three years after the report was first published . He demanded public answers for outstanding security problems in the intelligence community , such as a lack of basic practices like multi-factor and email authentication protocols . What a snafu . It is absurd enough that the CIA of all places can not even implement basic password protection programs . But when intelligence hacking units can not even manage to protect its own hacking tools , our troubles multiply . The CIA is unfortunately not uniquely incompetent among the intelligence community . The National Security Agency ( NSA ) found itself the victim of a similar zero day link in the 2016 Shadow Brokers dump . These are just two incidents that the public knows about . A culture of lax security practices invites attacks from all kinds of actors . We do n't know how many times such hacking tools may have been discovered by more secretive outfits . Many policy implications follow . There is a strong case to be made that intelligence agencies should not hoard zero-day vulnerabilities at all but should report them to the appropriate body for quick patching . This limits their toolkit , but it makes everyone safer overall . Of course , foreign and other hostile entities are unlikely to unilaterally disarm in this way . The intelligence community supposedly has a process for vetting which zero days should be reported and which are appropriate to keep secret , called the Vulnerabilities Equities Process ( VEP ) . Agencies must describe a vulnerability to a board who decides whether it 's dangerous enough to need patching or useful enough for spying purposes . For example , a vulnerability in some technology that is only used in China would probably be kept for operations . Theoretically , a vulnerability in some technology that is widely-used in the United States would be reported for fixing to keep Americans safe . As these incidents show , this does not always happen . The VEP process is clearly insufficient , given these high-profile breaches . The very least the intelligence community can do is appropriately secure the bugs they 've got . Efforts like Wyden 's seek to impose more accountability on these practices . There 's a more general lesson about government efforts to improve security and privacy as well . As implied earlier , we should strongly resist government efforts to compromise encryption in the name of law enforcement or anything else . Some of the most technically savvy government bodies can not even secure the secret weapons they have not advertised . Can you imagine the attack vectors if they publicly attain some master encryption-breaking technique ? It also demonstrates the weaknesses of many top-down proposals to promote privacy or security . Government plans often attempt to sketch out master checklists that must be followed perfectly on all levels to work well . They can be time-consuming and burdensome , which means that personnel often cut corners and shirk accountability . Then when disaster inevitably strikes , the conclusion is that `` people did n't stick to the plan hard enough , '' not that the plan was generally unrealistic to start . There is n't a lot that the public can do about seemingly out-of-control intelligence agencies failing to secure potent cyberweapons beyond making a fuss . `` National security '' and all that . But it does give us a powerful argument against granting more power to these insecure intelligence bodies to break strong encryption . Governments ca n't even protect their secret cyber weapons . They almost certainly will not be able to protect a known backdoor into encryption .

We are often told that law enforcement must have a way to get around strong encryption technologies in order to catch bad guys. Such a "backdoor" into security techniques would only be used when necessary and would be closely guarded so it would not fall into the wrong hands, the story goes. The intelligence community does not yet have a known custom-built backdoor into encryption. But intelligence agencies do hold a trove of publicly unknown vulnerabilities, called "zero days," they use to obtain hard-to-get data. One would hope that government agencies, especially those explicitly dedicated to security, could adequately protect these potent weapons. A recently released 2017 DOJ investigation into a breach of the CIA Center for Cyber Intelligence's (CCI) "Vault 7" hacking tools publicized in 2016 suggests that might be too big of an ask. Not only was the CCI found to be more interested in "building up cyber tools than keeping them secure," the nation's top spy agency routinely made rookie security mistakes that ultimately allowed personnel to leak the goods to Wikileaks. The released portions of the report are frankly embarrassing. The CCI cyber arsenal was not appropriately compartmentalized, users routinely shared admin-level passwords without oversight, there seemed to be little controls over what content users could access, and data was stored and available to all users indefinitely. No wonder there was a breach. It gets worse. Because the CIA servers lacked activity monitoring and audit capabilities, the agency did not even realize it was hacked until Wikileaks publicly announced it in March of 2017. As the report notes, if the hack was the result of a hostile foreign government like, say, China, the CIA might still be in the dark about the hack. Might there be other unknown breaches that fit this bill? The report recommended several measures the CIA should take to shore up its internal defenses. Among the few that were not redacted: do a better job of protecting zero days and vetting personnel. Okay, so don't make all of the same mistakes again: got it. Well, it looks like even this goal was too ambitious for the CIA. Intelligence gadfly Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), who first publicized the report, wrote a letter Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe stating that "the intelligence community is still lagging behind" three years after the report was first published. He demanded public answers for outstanding security problems in the intelligence community, such as a lack of basic practices like multi-factor and email authentication protocols. What a snafu. It is absurd enough that the CIA of all places cannot even implement basic password protection programs. But when intelligence hacking units cannot even manage to protect its own hacking tools, our troubles multiply. The CIA is unfortunately not uniquely incompetent among the intelligence community. The National Security Agency (NSA) found itself the victim of a similar zero day link in the 2016 Shadow Brokers dump. These are just two incidents that the public knows about. A culture of lax security practices invites attacks from all kinds of actors. We don't know how many times such hacking tools may have been discovered by more secretive outfits. Many policy implications follow. There is a strong case to be made that intelligence agencies should not hoard zero-day vulnerabilities at all but should report them to the appropriate body for quick patching. This limits their toolkit, but it makes everyone safer overall. Of course, foreign and other hostile entities are unlikely to unilaterally disarm in this way. The intelligence community supposedly has a process for vetting which zero days should be reported and which are appropriate to keep secret, called the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP). Agencies must describe a vulnerability to a board who decides whether it's dangerous enough to need patching or useful enough for spying purposes. For example, a vulnerability in some technology that is only used in China would probably be kept for operations. Theoretically, a vulnerability in some technology that is widely-used in the United States would be reported for fixing to keep Americans safe. As these incidents show, this does not always happen. The VEP process is clearly insufficient, given these high-profile breaches. The very least the intelligence community can do is appropriately secure the bugs they've got. Efforts like Wyden's seek to impose more accountability on these practices. There's a more general lesson about government efforts to improve security and privacy as well. As implied earlier, we should strongly resist government efforts to compromise encryption in the name of law enforcement or anything else. Some of the most technically savvy government bodies cannot even secure the secret weapons they have not advertised. Can you imagine the attack vectors if they publicly attain some master encryption-breaking technique? It also demonstrates the weaknesses of many top-down proposals to promote privacy or security. Government plans often attempt to sketch out master checklists that must be followed perfectly on all levels to work well. They can be time-consuming and burdensome, which means that personnel often cut corners and shirk accountability. Then when disaster inevitably strikes, the conclusion is that "people didn't stick to the plan hard enough," not that the plan was generally unrealistic to start. There isn't a lot that the public can do about seemingly out-of-control intelligence agencies failing to secure potent cyberweapons beyond making a fuss. "National security" and all that. But it does give us a powerful argument against granting more power to these insecure intelligence bodies to break strong encryption. Governments can't even protect their secret cyber weapons. They almost certainly will not be able to protect a known backdoor into encryption.

www.reason.com

right

XokWWMJbSDeZigHL

test

wmgc6r4fwDbwzDBs

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/14/standing-ovation-rand-paul-blows-away-liberal-black-audience-with-conservative-message-at-bowie-state/

Standing Ovation: Rand Paul Blows Away Liberal Audience with Conservative Message at Bowie State

2015-03-14

Matthew Boyle

BOWIE , Maryland — Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) was a hit speaker on the campus of Bowie State University on Friday , earning several rounds of applause and a standing ovation for the conservative message he delivered to a predominantly liberal audience at the historically black university—part of an outreach effort to traditionally non-Republican communities the senator and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate has been engaged in nationwide for the five-plus years he ’ s been in the U.S. Senate . Paul wove individual examples of people throughout history and in modern times who have faced unfair consequences as a result of government ’ s heavy hand , making his case to the room on the basis of the need to defend the full Bill of Rights in the Constitution—a classic Tea Party style of speech—all while citing the Founding Fathers , and making economic and social limited government conservative pitch that seemed to resonate throughout the theater inside the student center . “ Clyde Canard got out of prison the same month that I was born , which was a long time ago , in 1963 , ” Paul opened his speech with after a couple thank-yous to organizers . “ The reason that Clyde Canard went to prison is that , his crime was he was trying to get enrolled in Mississippi Southern . At that time , it was very difficult for a black man or a woman to enroll . The second time he tried to enroll they planted liquor on him—he didn ’ t drink—and gave him a $ 600 fine . Can you imagine what $ 600 was like in 1963 if you were poor in Mississippi ? One thing led to another and he declared bankruptcy . He tried to enroll a third time and he was arrested and bullied by police . But when he tried the third time , he ’ s declared bankruptcy and he goes by his farm to pick up some chicken feed— $ 25 worth of chicken feed—and you know what happens to him ? He ’ s arrested , and you know what kind of prison term he ’ s given ? Seven years in prison for stealing $ 25 worth of chicken feed which really was his—it was on his land which the bank was repossessing . People ’ s lives can spiral out of control from a $ 600 fine . ” Paul noted that “ a lot of things have improved since ” 1963 , when this particular example happened—specifically the fact that the United States has gotten rid of segregation by law . However , he said , “ we still have a problem in our country that ’ s a lot like segregation but it ’ s also like there are two systems . ” The major theme of Paul ’ s speech was a comparison back to the speech of Martin Luther King , Jr. , in 1967 , where the Civil Rights icon argued there are “ two Americas. ” Paul ’ s argument is due to the criminal justice system , the so-called “ educational establishment ” in Washington as he called it , and especially due to poverty and economic depravity in certain areas of the country , all symptoms of a larger problem that ’ s created by an out-of-touch political class that ’ s not interested in addressing the heart of the matter : there are Americans of all races and creeds who succeed in life and there are Americans of all races and creeds who don ’ t . And it ’ s unfair to those who don ’ t have a chance at success , he argued , because of a system that ’ s been created and abused by politicians . “ As Martin Luther King said in 1967 , there are two Americas , ” Paul said . “ There ’ s one America that believes in life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness . But there ’ s another America that is witness to a daily disgrace , a lack of hope , and despair . Why ? Because like Clyde Canard , there are still people in our society who are being hounded by fines , hounded by this and that . ” What ’ s notable is that Paul talked about his time in Ferguson , Missouri , and in other black communities across America—but did not blame the police for the problems . In fact , he stood for the police as law enforcement officers just trying to do their jobs—and laid out how the government as a whole , and the politicians who run it , are the real source of the problems facing the second and less fortunate of the “ two Americas ” he spoke of . “ Several cities in Missouri , over a third of their budget is gotten by fines , ” Paul said . “ In Ferguson , there ’ s 21,000 people . Last year , there were 31,000 arrests . I tell people it isn ’ t just about what happened this year . It ’ s about this building up , it ’ s about this gradual increase . I call it an undercurrent of unease in our country . There still are two Americas . Most of the people here are part of the America that does believe and can believe in life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness . Those who get a college education , those who get an education no matter the color of your skin , you are part of the America that can live the American dream . But there are many people who aren ’ t . So it ’ s a lack of education , but it ’ s also our criminal justice system . As I ’ ve learned more about the criminal justice system , I ’ ve come to believe it ’ s something that ’ s going to keep these two Americas separate . ” Paul continued by saying he specifically blames the politicians , not the police , for the problems . “ I don ’ t blame the police . I blame the politicians , ” Paul said . “ The politicians write these rules and we can change these rules at any minute . I ’ ve said I want to be part of changing some of these rules . I was at the White House last week and met with the president . Now , he and I don ’ t agree on a lot of stuff . But on criminal justice , we do . ” He said there is only a handful of lawmakers who agree with such changes . “ One of the laws that bothers me the most is something called civil forfeiture . Civil forfeiture is where the government can take your stuff whether they ’ ve convicted you of a crime or not . I think this turns justice on its head . I think that most of our judicial system , for those who believe in it , it ’ s that you are innocent until proven guilty . ” The audience at the historically black university erupted in applause for Paul . “ I want to reinforce in our judicial system that you are innocent until proven guilty . And the problem is with civil forfeiture , it ’ s the opposite , ” Paul added before diving into several examples of people across America who he argues have been wrongly targeted by civil forfeitures . One case he cited involved Christos Sourovelis , a Philadelphia man whose son was caught selling $ 40 worth of drugs off the back porch of his house . In response , the government seized his home—and the case caught national attention , which prompted the authorities to eventually abandon the home seizure under civil asset forfeiture because of the political pressure to do so . “ Their teenage son sold $ 40 worth of illegal drugs off the back porch , ” Paul said . “ The government took their house , evicted them and barricaded them . It ’ s like , how are we making anything better when we take the house ? Maybe the house is a stabilizing force in the family ? Maybe it ’ s grandma ’ s house and the kid ’ s 15 years old ? Why would we take grandma ’ s house ? Why would we take the family ’ s house based on not even a conviction but an accusation against a child who doesn ’ t even own the house ? It ’ s way out of control . ” Paul ’ s express focus on civil asset forfeiture cases in this speech is interesting , given the fact that he ’ s also vehemently opposed to U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch ’ s nomination to succeed Eric Holder as the next Attorney General of the United States on the grounds she is a leading advocate of using the practice . Lynch , who is black , is in open disagreement with even President Obama over the practice . Paul then shifted his speech into another practice he finds to be an encroachment of a big and unruly federal government : mandatory minimum sentencing rules . “ What mandatory minimums do is say that if you committed an infraction , you have to serve a mandatory sentence of 15 years—sometimes life in prison , ” Paul said . Paul cited the case of Weldon Angelos , among others , to back up his case . Angelos was in 2004 sentenced to 55 years in federal prison for selling $ 350 worth of marijuana due to a bizarre set of circumstances , and he—like anyone else in federal prison—is ineligible for parole . The judge in the case , a George W. Bush appointee , asked Bush to commute the sentence , calling it “ unjust , cruel , and irrational . ” “ That ’ s outrageous , 55 years for selling $ 350 worth of marijuana , ” Paul said . “ You can kill somebody in Kentucky and be eligible for parole within 12 years . Something is wrong here . ” Generally speaking , Paul said , he thinks federal judges “ should get more discretion . ” “ Most of the judges , Republican and Democrat , are balking at this , ” Paul said . “ They ’ re saying give us discretion to listen to what the young person did , listen to the facts of it , listen to whether they ’ re remorseful , listen to whether or not they can work , listen to whether we can have another means other than incarceration . ” Paul made his argument in a socially conservative way to the Bowie State audience , arguing that it ’ s important for families to stick together and for kids to have a proper childhood and upbringing so that future generations can be more successful than prior generations . The current way things work in the criminal justice system–in some cases wrongfully , he argued–splits families apart . “ In 1980 , there were 300,000 kids in America who didn ’ t have a father because their father was in prison , ” Paul said . “ There ’ s now 2 million kids in America who don ’ t have a father because their father is in prison . For those who think family structure is good , if we ’ re for families with a mother and father around , we need to be for fixing the criminal justice system . ” Paul then turned to his efforts to get nonviolent ex-convicts back to work in a way that they can be productive to society rather than simply drawing welfare checks because they have a criminal record that prevents them from getting hired . “ If we look at civil forfeiture , mandatory minimums , and then we look at other problems we have in our society , one of the problems we have is employment , ” Paul said . “ For us Republicans , we ’ re big on saying we don ’ t want people permanently on welfare—we want them to transition from welfare to a job . People look back at us and say well how am I supposed to get a job , I ’ m a convicted felon . I did my felony when I was 21 , I ’ m 40 years old and still nobody will hire me . There has to be a way where we figure out how to get people back to work . ” The audience broke into applause again , before Paul told a story about the brother of a friend of his from Kentucky who has found it difficult moving forward with life after a nonviolent drug offense decades ago . Thus , Paul said , he introduced the REDEEM Act with Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) . “ What it does is it takes some of these minor felonies like drug possession and some drug sales , and says if you ’ ve been punished—you ’ re out of jail and you paid your debt to society—then there ’ s a certain time you should get rid of records , ” Paul explained his and Booker ’ s legislation . “ We ’ re not talking about violent crimes , we ’ re only talking about some nonviolent crimes . We should expunge your records so you can get back to work . The bill also , that I have with Cory Booker , it gets rid of solitary confinement for teenagers . ” Applause broke out again , before Paul shifted to another bill he ’ s leading called the RESET Bill that aims to reclassify some nonviolent infractions currently listed as felonies as misdemeanors . “ I also think that part of the problem with losing your ability to get employment , and losing your ability to vote is because we have a lot of things that are felonies that could be misdemeanors , ” Paul said . “ So I have what we call the RESET Bill and we take some felonies—mostly minor , all nonviolent , but mostly drug felonies—and we make them misdemeanors . We ’ re not saying it ’ s legal . We ’ re just saying it ’ ll be a misdemeanor . You will never lose your right to vote and you won ’ t lose forever your opportunity to work by having it permanently on your record . These are things that if we do we can radically transform our country . ” And Paul then shifted into his efforts to grant voting rights back to some nonviolent felons . “ The number one thing precluding people from voting is a felony conviction , ” Paul said . “ So I have a bill with Harry Reid that would restore federal voting rights if you ’ ve served your time for a nonviolent felony and you ’ re behaving yourself , you can get your voting rights back . I think it ’ s hard for people to feel like they ’ re part of the America that has life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they can ’ t vote . So we want people to be able to work , we want people to be able to vote . ” Paul then turned into laying out conservative economic and constitutional principles that he argues are necessary to protect not just the black community in the audience he was speaking to , but all Americans . “ How do we protect all of these things and how do we make it a better , more united America ? I think we have to pay more attention to the Bill of Rights , ” Paul said . “ The Bill of Rights is there to protect all of us… It ’ s for the least popular among you . It ’ s for those who might have unorthodox ideas . It ’ s precisely for minorities . And you can be a minority because of the shade of your skin , or you can be a minority because of the shade of your ideology . You can be a minority because you ’ re African American or Hispanic , but you can also be a minority because you ’ re an evangelical Christian . There ’ s all kinds of instances where you can have minority opinions that need to be protected . The Bill of Rights should do this . ” While criticizing what ’ s called “ indefinite detention ” —which Paul describes as how the federal government can take an American citizen right now and send them “ to Guantanamo Bay forever without a trial ” —Paul questioned whether having such laws on the books could be dangerous . “ I had a debate on this with another senator on the floor and I said really , you can send an American citizen to Guantanamo Bay forever with no trial ever ? And he said , yeah , if they ’ re dangerous . So it begs the question , doesn ’ t it , who gets to decide who ’ s dangerous and who isn ’ t ? ” Paul said , referencing a fight he had recently with Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) on the Senate floor . “ I don ’ t think this president is going to round up people of a race—and that ’ s what he said when he signed the legislation , he said ‘ but I ’ m a good man and I will never do this , ’ ” Paul added . “ I ’ m not questioning whether the president is a good man . I ’ m questioning whether you want a law on the book that requires our leaders to be good people . ” Paul then brought up the Founding Fathers , citing James Madison ’ s writings about the then-young Republican and warnings he had for the future about the potential for the abuse of power . “ There have been times in our history when we have let down our guard . Madison wrote about this when Madison said that if government were comprised of angels , we wouldn ’ t need these laws , ” Paul said . “ We ’ d be fine . If government were comprised of angels , it wouldn ’ t matter if there was a potential for bias . Remember the times when you didn ’ t get due process . Remember the times in our country when there were groups like Japanese Americans in World War II who didn ’ t get due process and were incarcerated without trials . That ’ s why we have these rules . If it ’ s not this president , it ’ s the next president or the next president or the president thereafter . ” Paul also laid out how he believes the NSA spying program , where Americans ’ cell phone records are being collected by the federal government on a massive scale , is something he thinks “ goes against justice and the ideas of justice . ” “ Every one of your phone records is being collected and stored . Every cell phone record probably in America . They won ’ t tell us , but in all likelihood the vast majority of phone records are being collected , ” Paul said . “ But if you look at the warrant , it doesn ’ t have your name on it . If you look at the Fourth Amendment , it says it ’ s supposed to have your name . It ’ s supposed to specify who you are , what you did , what they want to look at and then they go to a judge and they ask for probable cause . But you know what the warrant says that has all of your phone records ? It says Verizon on it . I don ’ t know anybody named ‘ Mr . Verizon. ’ I don ’ t think you can write one single warrant and get the records of 20 million people , or 50 million people ’ s records . In fact , we fought the Revolution over this . In the Revolution , they called these things ‘ writs of assistance. ’ They were generalized warrants . That ’ s why we wrote the Fourth Amendment . ” Paul said that without these “ Constitutional protections ” in place , more and more minority groups—whether racial , ethnic , religious , or otherwise a minority—could be targeted wrongfully at some point in the future . “ Think about what happened in the 1960s . Think about how Martin Luther King ’ s phone was tapped , ” Paul said . “ Think about how hundreds of people involved in the Civil Rights Movement had their phones tapped . Think about how many people who protested against the war had their phones tapped . You have to have these protections not because there is one particularly bad person in government , but because there is the potential for bad people some day to take charge of government . ” Paul went on to note that his arguments for criminal justice reform are not along racial lines , but because of the fact that under the thumb of big government the black community across America has struggled economically for decades—and it ’ s conservative education and economic policies that are what ’ s needed to bring vibrancy back to the black community and inner cities . “ Criminal justice is not a black or white problem . It ’ s not a black or brown problem , ” Paul said . “ What it is is it ’ s a poverty problem . But the thing is we have to be careful to make sure that the Bill of Rights applies to every individual and if there ’ s one thing I want to get across to you is it ’ s we have to defend the Bill of Rights . ” With regard to education , Paul pushed for school choice and for education to be up to the parents—meaning no Common Core standards written by Washington bureaucrats from what Paul called the “ educational establishment ” —and argued that only when this happens will there be a chance for true equality in education . “ How do we equalize education ? Education is the great equalizer , ” Paul said . “ We fought for Brown V. Board of Education in the ’ 50s and we got the schools together and we got integration , but there still is a lack of equality in the schools , there ’ s no other way to put it… A lot of the problem I think can only be fixed if we allow more innovation . That means less rules from Washington . Allow competition and allow people to choose which schools they go to in each of the cities . If there ’ s a better school in the suburbs , let people drive out to the suburbs if they want to go to that school . School choice will allow schools to be equal , but right now I think our concern is that the people making the decisions are the educational establishment and not the parents . ” Paul wrapped up his speech by discussing what he calls “ economic freedom zones ” —a stimulus package where instead of the government injecting taxpayer cash into an economically deprived area , the government cuts taxes and regulations dramatically so businesses can grow freely quickly—and how those would revive downtrodden inner cities like nearby Baltimore or Detroit . “ Finally , what we have to do is we have to figure out how to get economic equality , ” Paul said . “ I ’ m not talking about some sort of equality of outcome , I ’ m talking more about equality of opportunity . I think that we have to look at something new . We ’ ve tried passing money out—look at my state . Appalachia has gotten money for 60 years . We tax everybody in the country and then we send it to Appalachia . It ’ s still poor , Appalachia is still as poor as it ever was . We have pockets of poverty in Louisville that are just as poor as they ever were . “ The problem is if you give me the money and ask me to give it to somebody , people don ’ t know who to give it to . You give it to John Smith and say open a business and we don ’ t know if John Smith or Mary Smith is good at opening a business . The marketplace does though . Every day when you go out and you spend your money in a restaurant or a Wal-Mart or a Target or a K-Mart , you ’ re spending your money and you ’ re voting on which businesses will succeed . So I say if we want to stimulate Detroit—Detroit ’ s got 20 percent unemployment , thousands of acres of abandoned housing—so if we want to do something for Detroit , why don ’ t we dramatically cut the taxes for Detroit . ” The audience applauded loudly before Paul explained more about his idea . “ Jack Kemp was the first person to really talk about something like this , he called them enterprise zones , ” Paul said . “ I call them freedom zones . What we do is we take tax cuts to areas that have high unemployment , low growth and high poverty and then what we do is we dramatically cut the taxes—not a little bit , but almost completely wipe out federal taxes so they can have more money . So in Detroit it ’ d be a $ 1.3 billion tax cut . For Baltimore , it ’ d be a $ 900 million tax cut over 10 years . ” “ Why does this work better than a government stimulus ? ” Paul said . “ We tried a government stimulus—we did it four or five years ago—we gave a bunch of money , almost a trillion dollars , I think it was $ 800 billion we gave out . But we didn ’ t know who to give it to . So when we divided it up , it was about $ 400,000 per job . But if you give it back to the people who are already succeeding—look at Baltimore . Even though Baltimore has pockets of poverty , there are businesses there that are succeeding . We don ’ t give it to the brand new person who we won ’ t know whether they ’ ll be good at business , [ instead ] give it to the person who ’ s already in business and they ’ ll hire more people . ” Paul ended the address by laying out how he believes “ the two Americas that Martin Luther King talked about can come back together ” and that because of an “ undercurrent of unease ” in America due to big government , he thinks “ it ’ s imperative that we do it . ” “ I ’ ve been to Ferguson , I ’ ve been to Chicago and Detroit and other places with a great deal of poverty , ” Paul said . “ Some of this is government—government has done the wrong things sometimes , politicians . Police are just trying to do their jobs for the most part but the politicians have done a bad job of creating criminal justice and we need to try to fix that . We need to fix our educational system but we can ’ t just let the establishment say we ’ re not going to let it change—that ’ s what ’ s been going on for 30 years now and until we allow innovation we won ’ t get better . And finally we have to have the debate about who best spends money . Are the politicians smart enough to know how to spend it ? Or should we send it back to Baltimore ? Do we want to make Baltimore richer ? Leave more money in Baltimore . Can we make Baltimore richer and have more jobs by not sending it to Washington in the first place ? “ I ’ m a big believer in freedom , I ’ m a big believer in ingenuity , I ’ d say if we give more freedom back to the people , we ’ ll see success like we haven ’ t seen in a long time . ” The audience rose in applause yet again , giving him a standing ovation before he took questions via a moderator .

BOWIE, Maryland — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was a hit speaker on the campus of Bowie State University on Friday, earning several rounds of applause and a standing ovation for the conservative message he delivered to a predominantly liberal audience at the historically black university—part of an outreach effort to traditionally non-Republican communities the senator and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate has been engaged in nationwide for the five-plus years he’s been in the U.S. Senate. Paul wove individual examples of people throughout history and in modern times who have faced unfair consequences as a result of government’s heavy hand, making his case to the room on the basis of the need to defend the full Bill of Rights in the Constitution—a classic Tea Party style of speech—all while citing the Founding Fathers, and making economic and social limited government conservative pitch that seemed to resonate throughout the theater inside the student center. “Clyde Canard got out of prison the same month that I was born, which was a long time ago, in 1963,” Paul opened his speech with after a couple thank-yous to organizers. “The reason that Clyde Canard went to prison is that, his crime was he was trying to get enrolled in Mississippi Southern. At that time, it was very difficult for a black man or a woman to enroll. The second time he tried to enroll they planted liquor on him—he didn’t drink—and gave him a $600 fine. Can you imagine what $600 was like in 1963 if you were poor in Mississippi? One thing led to another and he declared bankruptcy. He tried to enroll a third time and he was arrested and bullied by police. But when he tried the third time, he’s declared bankruptcy and he goes by his farm to pick up some chicken feed—$25 worth of chicken feed—and you know what happens to him? He’s arrested, and you know what kind of prison term he’s given? Seven years in prison for stealing $25 worth of chicken feed which really was his—it was on his land which the bank was repossessing. People’s lives can spiral out of control from a $600 fine.” Paul noted that “a lot of things have improved since” 1963, when this particular example happened—specifically the fact that the United States has gotten rid of segregation by law. However, he said, “we still have a problem in our country that’s a lot like segregation but it’s also like there are two systems.” The major theme of Paul’s speech was a comparison back to the speech of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1967, where the Civil Rights icon argued there are “two Americas.” Paul’s argument is due to the criminal justice system, the so-called “educational establishment” in Washington as he called it, and especially due to poverty and economic depravity in certain areas of the country, all symptoms of a larger problem that’s created by an out-of-touch political class that’s not interested in addressing the heart of the matter: there are Americans of all races and creeds who succeed in life and there are Americans of all races and creeds who don’t. And it’s unfair to those who don’t have a chance at success, he argued, because of a system that’s been created and abused by politicians. “As Martin Luther King said in 1967, there are two Americas,” Paul said. “There’s one America that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But there’s another America that is witness to a daily disgrace, a lack of hope, and despair. Why? Because like Clyde Canard, there are still people in our society who are being hounded by fines, hounded by this and that.” What’s notable is that Paul talked about his time in Ferguson, Missouri, and in other black communities across America—but did not blame the police for the problems. In fact, he stood for the police as law enforcement officers just trying to do their jobs—and laid out how the government as a whole, and the politicians who run it, are the real source of the problems facing the second and less fortunate of the “two Americas” he spoke of. “Several cities in Missouri, over a third of their budget is gotten by fines,” Paul said. “In Ferguson, there’s 21,000 people. Last year, there were 31,000 arrests. I tell people it isn’t just about what happened this year. It’s about this building up, it’s about this gradual increase. I call it an undercurrent of unease in our country. There still are two Americas. Most of the people here are part of the America that does believe and can believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those who get a college education, those who get an education no matter the color of your skin, you are part of the America that can live the American dream. But there are many people who aren’t. So it’s a lack of education, but it’s also our criminal justice system. As I’ve learned more about the criminal justice system, I’ve come to believe it’s something that’s going to keep these two Americas separate.” Paul continued by saying he specifically blames the politicians, not the police, for the problems. “I don’t blame the police. I blame the politicians,” Paul said. “The politicians write these rules and we can change these rules at any minute. I’ve said I want to be part of changing some of these rules. I was at the White House last week and met with the president. Now, he and I don’t agree on a lot of stuff. But on criminal justice, we do.” He said there is only a handful of lawmakers who agree with such changes. “One of the laws that bothers me the most is something called civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is where the government can take your stuff whether they’ve convicted you of a crime or not. I think this turns justice on its head. I think that most of our judicial system, for those who believe in it, it’s that you are innocent until proven guilty.” The audience at the historically black university erupted in applause for Paul. “I want to reinforce in our judicial system that you are innocent until proven guilty. And the problem is with civil forfeiture, it’s the opposite,” Paul added before diving into several examples of people across America who he argues have been wrongly targeted by civil forfeitures. One case he cited involved Christos Sourovelis, a Philadelphia man whose son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs off the back porch of his house. In response, the government seized his home—and the case caught national attention, which prompted the authorities to eventually abandon the home seizure under civil asset forfeiture because of the political pressure to do so. “Their teenage son sold $40 worth of illegal drugs off the back porch,” Paul said. “The government took their house, evicted them and barricaded them. It’s like, how are we making anything better when we take the house? Maybe the house is a stabilizing force in the family? Maybe it’s grandma’s house and the kid’s 15 years old? Why would we take grandma’s house? Why would we take the family’s house based on not even a conviction but an accusation against a child who doesn’t even own the house? It’s way out of control.” Paul’s express focus on civil asset forfeiture cases in this speech is interesting, given the fact that he’s also vehemently opposed to U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch’s nomination to succeed Eric Holder as the next Attorney General of the United States on the grounds she is a leading advocate of using the practice. Lynch, who is black, is in open disagreement with even President Obama over the practice. Paul then shifted his speech into another practice he finds to be an encroachment of a big and unruly federal government: mandatory minimum sentencing rules. “What mandatory minimums do is say that if you committed an infraction, you have to serve a mandatory sentence of 15 years—sometimes life in prison,” Paul said. Paul cited the case of Weldon Angelos, among others, to back up his case. Angelos was in 2004 sentenced to 55 years in federal prison for selling $350 worth of marijuana due to a bizarre set of circumstances, and he—like anyone else in federal prison—is ineligible for parole. The judge in the case, a George W. Bush appointee, asked Bush to commute the sentence, calling it “unjust, cruel, and irrational.” “That’s outrageous, 55 years for selling $350 worth of marijuana,” Paul said. “You can kill somebody in Kentucky and be eligible for parole within 12 years. Something is wrong here.” Generally speaking, Paul said, he thinks federal judges “should get more discretion.” “Most of the judges, Republican and Democrat, are balking at this,” Paul said. “They’re saying give us discretion to listen to what the young person did, listen to the facts of it, listen to whether they’re remorseful, listen to whether or not they can work, listen to whether we can have another means other than incarceration.” Paul made his argument in a socially conservative way to the Bowie State audience, arguing that it’s important for families to stick together and for kids to have a proper childhood and upbringing so that future generations can be more successful than prior generations. The current way things work in the criminal justice system–in some cases wrongfully, he argued–splits families apart. “In 1980, there were 300,000 kids in America who didn’t have a father because their father was in prison,” Paul said. “There’s now 2 million kids in America who don’t have a father because their father is in prison. For those who think family structure is good, if we’re for families with a mother and father around, we need to be for fixing the criminal justice system.” Paul then turned to his efforts to get nonviolent ex-convicts back to work in a way that they can be productive to society rather than simply drawing welfare checks because they have a criminal record that prevents them from getting hired. “If we look at civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums, and then we look at other problems we have in our society, one of the problems we have is employment,” Paul said. “For us Republicans, we’re big on saying we don’t want people permanently on welfare—we want them to transition from welfare to a job. People look back at us and say well how am I supposed to get a job, I’m a convicted felon. I did my felony when I was 21, I’m 40 years old and still nobody will hire me. There has to be a way where we figure out how to get people back to work.” The audience broke into applause again, before Paul told a story about the brother of a friend of his from Kentucky who has found it difficult moving forward with life after a nonviolent drug offense decades ago. Thus, Paul said, he introduced the REDEEM Act with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). “What it does is it takes some of these minor felonies like drug possession and some drug sales, and says if you’ve been punished—you’re out of jail and you paid your debt to society—then there’s a certain time you should get rid of records,” Paul explained his and Booker’s legislation. “We’re not talking about violent crimes, we’re only talking about some nonviolent crimes. We should expunge your records so you can get back to work. The bill also, that I have with Cory Booker, it gets rid of solitary confinement for teenagers.” Applause broke out again, before Paul shifted to another bill he’s leading called the RESET Bill that aims to reclassify some nonviolent infractions currently listed as felonies as misdemeanors. “I also think that part of the problem with losing your ability to get employment, and losing your ability to vote is because we have a lot of things that are felonies that could be misdemeanors,” Paul said. “So I have what we call the RESET Bill and we take some felonies—mostly minor, all nonviolent, but mostly drug felonies—and we make them misdemeanors. We’re not saying it’s legal. We’re just saying it’ll be a misdemeanor. You will never lose your right to vote and you won’t lose forever your opportunity to work by having it permanently on your record. These are things that if we do we can radically transform our country.” And Paul then shifted into his efforts to grant voting rights back to some nonviolent felons. “The number one thing precluding people from voting is a felony conviction,” Paul said. “So I have a bill with Harry Reid that would restore federal voting rights if you’ve served your time for a nonviolent felony and you’re behaving yourself, you can get your voting rights back. I think it’s hard for people to feel like they’re part of the America that has life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they can’t vote. So we want people to be able to work, we want people to be able to vote.” Paul then turned into laying out conservative economic and constitutional principles that he argues are necessary to protect not just the black community in the audience he was speaking to, but all Americans. “How do we protect all of these things and how do we make it a better, more united America? I think we have to pay more attention to the Bill of Rights,” Paul said. “The Bill of Rights is there to protect all of us… It’s for the least popular among you. It’s for those who might have unorthodox ideas. It’s precisely for minorities. And you can be a minority because of the shade of your skin, or you can be a minority because of the shade of your ideology. You can be a minority because you’re African American or Hispanic, but you can also be a minority because you’re an evangelical Christian. There’s all kinds of instances where you can have minority opinions that need to be protected. The Bill of Rights should do this.” While criticizing what’s called “indefinite detention”—which Paul describes as how the federal government can take an American citizen right now and send them “to Guantanamo Bay forever without a trial”—Paul questioned whether having such laws on the books could be dangerous. “I had a debate on this with another senator on the floor and I said really, you can send an American citizen to Guantanamo Bay forever with no trial ever? And he said, yeah, if they’re dangerous. So it begs the question, doesn’t it, who gets to decide who’s dangerous and who isn’t?” Paul said, referencing a fight he had recently with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the Senate floor. “I don’t think this president is going to round up people of a race—and that’s what he said when he signed the legislation, he said ‘but I’m a good man and I will never do this,’” Paul added. “I’m not questioning whether the president is a good man. I’m questioning whether you want a law on the book that requires our leaders to be good people.” Paul then brought up the Founding Fathers, citing James Madison’s writings about the then-young Republican and warnings he had for the future about the potential for the abuse of power. “There have been times in our history when we have let down our guard. Madison wrote about this when Madison said that if government were comprised of angels, we wouldn’t need these laws,” Paul said. “We’d be fine. If government were comprised of angels, it wouldn’t matter if there was a potential for bias. Remember the times when you didn’t get due process. Remember the times in our country when there were groups like Japanese Americans in World War II who didn’t get due process and were incarcerated without trials. That’s why we have these rules. If it’s not this president, it’s the next president or the next president or the president thereafter.” Paul also laid out how he believes the NSA spying program, where Americans’ cell phone records are being collected by the federal government on a massive scale, is something he thinks “goes against justice and the ideas of justice.” “Every one of your phone records is being collected and stored. Every cell phone record probably in America. They won’t tell us, but in all likelihood the vast majority of phone records are being collected,” Paul said. “But if you look at the warrant, it doesn’t have your name on it. If you look at the Fourth Amendment, it says it’s supposed to have your name. It’s supposed to specify who you are, what you did, what they want to look at and then they go to a judge and they ask for probable cause. But you know what the warrant says that has all of your phone records? It says Verizon on it. I don’t know anybody named ‘Mr. Verizon.’ I don’t think you can write one single warrant and get the records of 20 million people, or 50 million people’s records. In fact, we fought the Revolution over this. In the Revolution, they called these things ‘writs of assistance.’ They were generalized warrants. That’s why we wrote the Fourth Amendment.” Paul said that without these “Constitutional protections” in place, more and more minority groups—whether racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise a minority—could be targeted wrongfully at some point in the future. “Think about what happened in the 1960s. Think about how Martin Luther King’s phone was tapped,” Paul said. “Think about how hundreds of people involved in the Civil Rights Movement had their phones tapped. Think about how many people who protested against the war had their phones tapped. You have to have these protections not because there is one particularly bad person in government, but because there is the potential for bad people some day to take charge of government.” Paul went on to note that his arguments for criminal justice reform are not along racial lines, but because of the fact that under the thumb of big government the black community across America has struggled economically for decades—and it’s conservative education and economic policies that are what’s needed to bring vibrancy back to the black community and inner cities. “Criminal justice is not a black or white problem. It’s not a black or brown problem,” Paul said. “What it is is it’s a poverty problem. But the thing is we have to be careful to make sure that the Bill of Rights applies to every individual and if there’s one thing I want to get across to you is it’s we have to defend the Bill of Rights.” With regard to education, Paul pushed for school choice and for education to be up to the parents—meaning no Common Core standards written by Washington bureaucrats from what Paul called the “educational establishment”—and argued that only when this happens will there be a chance for true equality in education. “How do we equalize education? Education is the great equalizer,” Paul said. “We fought for Brown V. Board of Education in the ’50s and we got the schools together and we got integration, but there still is a lack of equality in the schools, there’s no other way to put it… A lot of the problem I think can only be fixed if we allow more innovation. That means less rules from Washington. Allow competition and allow people to choose which schools they go to in each of the cities. If there’s a better school in the suburbs, let people drive out to the suburbs if they want to go to that school. School choice will allow schools to be equal, but right now I think our concern is that the people making the decisions are the educational establishment and not the parents.” Paul wrapped up his speech by discussing what he calls “economic freedom zones”—a stimulus package where instead of the government injecting taxpayer cash into an economically deprived area, the government cuts taxes and regulations dramatically so businesses can grow freely quickly—and how those would revive downtrodden inner cities like nearby Baltimore or Detroit. “Finally, what we have to do is we have to figure out how to get economic equality,” Paul said. “I’m not talking about some sort of equality of outcome, I’m talking more about equality of opportunity. I think that we have to look at something new. We’ve tried passing money out—look at my state. Appalachia has gotten money for 60 years. We tax everybody in the country and then we send it to Appalachia. It’s still poor, Appalachia is still as poor as it ever was. We have pockets of poverty in Louisville that are just as poor as they ever were. “The problem is if you give me the money and ask me to give it to somebody, people don’t know who to give it to. You give it to John Smith and say open a business and we don’t know if John Smith or Mary Smith is good at opening a business. The marketplace does though. Every day when you go out and you spend your money in a restaurant or a Wal-Mart or a Target or a K-Mart, you’re spending your money and you’re voting on which businesses will succeed. So I say if we want to stimulate Detroit—Detroit’s got 20 percent unemployment, thousands of acres of abandoned housing—so if we want to do something for Detroit, why don’t we dramatically cut the taxes for Detroit.” The audience applauded loudly before Paul explained more about his idea. “Jack Kemp was the first person to really talk about something like this, he called them enterprise zones,” Paul said. “I call them freedom zones. What we do is we take tax cuts to areas that have high unemployment, low growth and high poverty and then what we do is we dramatically cut the taxes—not a little bit, but almost completely wipe out federal taxes so they can have more money. So in Detroit it’d be a $1.3 billion tax cut. For Baltimore, it’d be a $900 million tax cut over 10 years.” The audience erupted in applause again. “Why does this work better than a government stimulus?” Paul said. “We tried a government stimulus—we did it four or five years ago—we gave a bunch of money, almost a trillion dollars, I think it was $800 billion we gave out. But we didn’t know who to give it to. So when we divided it up, it was about $400,000 per job. But if you give it back to the people who are already succeeding—look at Baltimore. Even though Baltimore has pockets of poverty, there are businesses there that are succeeding. We don’t give it to the brand new person who we won’t know whether they’ll be good at business, [instead] give it to the person who’s already in business and they’ll hire more people.” Paul ended the address by laying out how he believes “the two Americas that Martin Luther King talked about can come back together” and that because of an “undercurrent of unease” in America due to big government, he thinks “it’s imperative that we do it.” “I’ve been to Ferguson, I’ve been to Chicago and Detroit and other places with a great deal of poverty,” Paul said. “Some of this is government—government has done the wrong things sometimes, politicians. Police are just trying to do their jobs for the most part but the politicians have done a bad job of creating criminal justice and we need to try to fix that. We need to fix our educational system but we can’t just let the establishment say we’re not going to let it change—that’s what’s been going on for 30 years now and until we allow innovation we won’t get better. And finally we have to have the debate about who best spends money. Are the politicians smart enough to know how to spend it? Or should we send it back to Baltimore? Do we want to make Baltimore richer? Leave more money in Baltimore. Can we make Baltimore richer and have more jobs by not sending it to Washington in the first place? “I’m a big believer in freedom, I’m a big believer in ingenuity, I’d say if we give more freedom back to the people, we’ll see success like we haven’t seen in a long time.” The audience rose in applause yet again, giving him a standing ovation before he took questions via a moderator. Watch Rand Paul’s full speech via C-SPAN.

www.breitbart.com

right

wmgc6r4fwDbwzDBs

test

iDIYxRGA2TdK6wVS

banking_and_finance

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-government-response-updates-deal-close-stimulus-trump/story?id=69768265

Trump wants country 'opened up' by Easter despite warnings from health experts

Cheyenne Haslett

The federal government has been rolling out its response to the coronavirus crisis , trying to slow the spread and stimulate the economy , which has taken a severe hit , and by agreeing to a massive stimulus package after midnight on Wednesday . President Donald Trump is signaling that he 's considering loosening coronavirus social distancing guidelines amid the growing economic fallout , while public health officials warn that approach could quickly overload hospital systems and cost more lives . President Donald Trump speaks with Fox News Channel Anchor Bill Hemmer during a virtual town hall , at the White House , March 24 , 2020 . Evan Vucci/AP Senate leaders and White House reach deal on a huge relief package amid increasingly bitter negotiations Tuesday is the ninth day of the president 's 15-day guidelines to slow the spread Tune into ABC at 1 p.m . ET and ███ Live at 4 p.m . ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ███ team , including the latest news , context and analysis . President Donald Trump arrives to speak about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room , March 24 , 2020 , in Washington . Alex Brandon/AP After a little under 15 hours of closed-door , bipartisan talks , White House Legislative Affairs Director Eric Ueland announced to reporters at about 1 a.m. local time that negotiators have a deal on the $ 2 trillion economic stimulus package . They are still drafting some of this deal , but negotiators say they have an agreement . `` Ladies and gentlemen , we are done . We have a deal , '' Ueland said . `` Much of the work on the bill text has been completed and I ’ m hopeful over the next few hours [ it will be finished ] … We will circulate it early in the morning . ” Ueland said they “ have either clear , explicit legislative text reflecting all parties , or we know exactly where we ’ re going to land without a legislative text , as we continue to finish . ” Sens . Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer were expected on the Senate floor overnight . Trump says any decision to relax guidelines will be based on 'hard facts and data ' At the later afternoon White House briefing , President Trump continued to lay the groundwork for rolling back social distancing guidelines as he opened the daily coronavirus task force briefing and pointed to Easter as the end of the `` historic battle '' against COVID-19 . `` Ultimately , the goal is to ease the guidelines and open things up to very large sections of our country as we near the end of our historic battle with the invisible enemy . It will go on for a while but we will win , '' Trump said . `` Easter is our timeline , what a great timeline that would be . '' As Dr. Anthony Fauci stood behind him , Trump said any decision on `` opening up '' the country would be `` based on hard facts and data . '' President Donald Trump speaks with Vice President Mike Pence and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci behind him during the coronavirus task force daily briefing at the White House in Washington , March 24 , 2020 . Jonathan Ernst/Reuters `` Our decision will be based on hard facts and data , and I 'm also hopeful to have Americans working -- again , by that beautiful Easter day . Rest assured every decision we make is grounded solely in the health , safety and well-being of our citizens , '' he said . The president said the administration is `` working very hard to make that a reality '' an that `` we will be meeting with a lot of people to see if it can be done '' although it was n't clear who , besides public health experts , would be advising him . Dr. Deborah Birx said she and Fauci remain `` concerned '' about New York City and the New York metro area and said anyone who was in the region the last few days should self-quarantine for the next 14 days , based on the time they left New York . Dr. Deborah Birx , White House coronavirus response coordinator , speaks about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room , Tuesday , March 24 , 2020 , in Washington . Alex Brandon/AP `` About 56 % of all the cases in the United States are coming out of that metro area and 50 % of all the new cases are coming out of the metro New York area , and 31 % of the people succumbing to this disease , '' Birx said . `` It means , because they are still at the 31 % mortality compared to the other regions of the country , that we could have a huge impact if we unite together . '' She continued that it `` will be very critical that those individuals do self quarantine in their homes over the next 14 days to make sure they do n't pass the virus to others based on the time they left New York , '' she said Fauci emphasized the same concerns , saying they 're now seeing people spread the disease from New York to other parts of the country . `` It 's a very serious situation and that suffered terribly through no fault of their own but what we are seeing now is understandably people want to get out of New York , '' Fauci said . `` The idea of self isolating for two weeks will be very important . '' As reporters started asking questions , Trump was asked if Easter was a realistic timeline for ending social distancing measures . `` I would love to see it come even sooner , but I think that would be a beautiful timeline , '' Trump said . When Fauci was asked a similar question , if 19 days from now is a realistic timeline , Fauci said it was a `` flexible situation '' and pointed to the importance of studying areas of the country where the outbreak is n't obvious . `` That 's very flexible . We just had a conversation with the president in the Oval Office talking about -- you can look at a date but you have to be very flexible on it , on a literal day-to-day basis , Fauci said . Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , speaks about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room , Tuesday , March 24 , 2020 , in Washington . Alex Brandon/AP `` It 's going to be looking at the data . What we do n't have right now that we really do need is we need to know what 's going on in those areas of the country , where there is n't an obvious outbreak . Is there something underneath the surface that says , wait a minute , you better be careful and clamp down ? Or , are there things there that say you do n't have to be as harsh as you are in other areas ? '' he said . `` When you look at the country , obviously no one is going to want to tone down things when you see what 's going on in a place like New York City . I mean , that 's just good public health practice and common sense , '' Fauci said . Trump : Would 'love to have the country opened up by Easter ' President Trump kept up his push to have America `` open for business very soon '' on a Fox News `` virtual town hall '' Tuesday afternoon from the White House Rose Garden . He said he would `` love to have the country opened up by Easter '' which is April 12 . President Donald Trump speaks with Fox News Channel Anchor Bill Hemmer during a virtual town hall , at the White House , March 24 , 2020 . Evan Vucci/AP `` It 's such an important day for other reasons , but I will make it an important day for this : I would love to have the country opened up , and they are just raring to go , by Easter . '' `` We lose thousands of people a year to the flu . We never turn the country off , '' Trump said , echoing what he said at his Monday night White House briefing . `` We lose much more than that to automobile accidents . We did n't call up the automobile companies and say , ‘ Stop making cars . We do n't want any cars anymore. ’ We have to get back to work . '' The president issued full-throated support for people going back to work , though he said people would have to be smart about it . `` We have to go back to work much sooner than people thought , '' Trump said , amid reports the White House is considering a gradual scaling back of social distancing guidelines based on age and location . `` We can socially distance ourselves and go to work , and you have to work a little bit harder . And you can clean your hands five times more than you used to . You do n't have to shake hands anymore , with people . That might be something good coming out of this , '' Trump said . `` I think it ’ s possible . Why isn ’ t it ? We ’ ve never closed the country before and we ’ ve had some pretty bad flus , '' Trump said . `` We have to get our country back to work ... In my opinion , more people are going to die if we allow this to continue . '' `` Look , you 're going to lose a number of people to the flu . But you 're going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession or depression . You 're going to lose people . You 're going to have suicides by the thousands . You 're going to have all sorts of things happen , '' he said . `` You 're going to have instability . You ca n't just come in and say , 'Let 's close up the United States of America , the biggest -- the most successful country in the world by far . ' Easter is less than three weeks away meaning Trump would `` reopen '' the country right about the time New York is expected to hit its peak level of cases . Amid fallout from public health officials that testing in the U.S. has lagged behind other countries , Trump emphasized a comment by Dr. Deborah Birx that the U.S. has now conducted more tests than South Korea . `` In a short period of time we ’ ve done more testing than South Korea , '' the president said , turning to Birx . `` I 'd love you to say that one more time . That 's a big number . We 've done more than South Korea -- in a short period of time . We are doing more than South Korea by a lot . '' Birx said that while the U.S. has completed over 300,000 tests , `` We have more to do . '' `` Is everything cool with you and Dr . Fauci ? '' Trump was asked . Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation 's top infectious disease expert and a key member of the coronavirus task force , has candidly contradicted the president on certain overstatements in recent days , including the president 's optimism over drugs for coronavirus treatment despite no drugs currently being approved to treat it . `` He has other things to do . We get along very well ... we 're fine , we 're fine , '' Trump said , complimenting the team of doctors on the coronavirus task force as `` extraordinary . '' `` If we delay this out , you are going to lose more people than you are losing with the situation as we know it , '' Trump said . `` I think it 's very important for our country to go back . I 've had many , many people -- when he said 'it 's a little bit controversial ' -- not to most people . Most people said I 'm right about it . '' Hours after New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo , a Democrat , blasted the federal response , but not Trump by name -- saying FEMA sending 400 ventilators did n't cut it when New York needed tens of thousands -- Trump signaled the lack of ventilators was actually Cuomo 's fault . Prepared to respond to Cuomo 's harsh criticism , Trump was handed a piece of paper from someone off camera and read it off : `` This says New York Governor Cuomo rejected buying 16,000 ventilators in 2015 , '' Trump said . `` So he had a chance to buy in 2015 , 16,000 ventilators at a very low price , and he turned it down . I 'm not blaming him or anything else . But he should n't be talking about us . He 's supposed to be buying his own ventilators . '' Later on , Trump said that the federal government 's relationship with governors is a `` two-way street , '' adding , `` Then I hear that there 's a problem with ventilators . Well we sent them ventilators . And they could have had 15 or 16,000 two years ago and all they had to do was order them . They ca n't blame us for that . '' Asked by Fox News ’ Bill Hemmer in a one-on-one interview taped after an earlier town hall why he chose Easter as the date by which he wanted the country “ opened up , ” Trump said one reason is because it would be “ beautiful ” to have the churches full . “ Easter ’ s a very special day for me . And I see it ’ s sort of in that timeline that I ’ m thinking about . And I say , wouldn ’ t it be great to have all of the churches full ? ” Trump said . “ I think Easter Sunday -- and you ’ ll have packed churches all over our country -- I think it would be a beautiful time . ” “ And it ’ s just about the timeline that I think is right , ” the president continued . “ It gives us more of a chance to work on what we ’ re doing . And I ’ m not sure that ’ s going to be the day , but I would like to aim it right at Easter Sunday . ” President Donald Trump is followed by Vice President Mike Pence as he arrives for the coronavirus response daily briefing at the White House , March 23 , 2020 . Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Moments ahead of Trump ’ s town hall , New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo , in a fiery daily news conference on COVID-19 , blasted the federal government ’ s response to the outbreak , saying that it holds the power to produce life-saving ventilators and other equipment but is n't invoking it -- at the cost of human lives . `` FEMA says , 'we 're sending 400 ventilators . ' Really ? What am I going to do with 400 ventilators when I need 30,000 ? '' Cuomo said . `` You pick the 26,000 people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators . '' `` The only way we can obtain these ventilators is from the federal government , period , '' Cuomo continued , criticizing the Trump administration ’ s delay in using the powers of the Defense Production Act . `` I need the ventilators in 14 days . Only the federal government has that power . And not to exercise that power is inexplicable to me . '' `` The president said 'it 's a war , it 's a war . ' Then act like it 's a war , '' Cuomo added . Vice President Mike Pence , appearing on a Fox News 'virtual town hall '' from the White House Rose Garden after Cuomo 's complaints , said , `` I know we started our conversation this hour on the subject ventilators and the challenges the state of New York faces . I was so pleased to confirm that earlier today that FEMA , from the national stockpile , shipped 2,000 ventilators to the state of New York -- and tomorrow there will be another 2,000 ventilators shipped from the national stockpile . '' President Trump doubled down on comments made Monday that Americans `` can not let the cure be worse than the problem itself '' referencing economic fallout amid social distancing guidelines designed to minimize fatalities due to COVID-19 . `` Our people want to return to work , '' the president tweeted Tuesday morning . `` They will practice Social Distancing and all else , and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly . We can do two things together . THE CURE CAN NOT BE WORSE ( by far ) THAN THE PROBLEM ! Congress MUST ACT NOW . We will come back strong ! '' At Monday night 's briefing , ███ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked the president if he 's worried about the virus spreading unabated if the restrictions are lifted . `` We have two very , very powerful alternatives that we have to take into consideration , '' Trump said . `` Life is fragile and economies are fragile . '' `` If it were up to the doctors , they may say , 'Let 's keep it shut down . Let 's shut down the entire world because again you 're up to 150 countries , ' '' Trump said , when asked whether any doctors on the task force agreed with his suggestion that social distancing guidelines will pay off in weeks not months . `` So , let 's shut down the entire world and when we shut it down , that 'd be wonderful , and let 's keep it shut for a couple of years . We ca n't do that , '' Trump said . The president also predicted `` there will be tremendous death '' from shutting down the economy and job losses , `` probably '' more than the disease would cause . He 's expected to expand on the topic in a town hall with Fox News Monday afternoon -- in an event appearing to replace , for now at least , the daily coronavirus task force briefing . State of the stimulus package : Negotiations continue , leaders signal Tuesday night vote After Senate Democrats successfully blocked the GOP-backed `` phase three '' $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief measure in its current form twice in 24 hours , negotiations between Senate leadership and the White House continue behind closed doors , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , left , accompanied by White House Legislative Affairs Director Eric Ueland and acting White House chief of staff Mark Meadows , walks to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. on Capitol Hill in Washington , D.C. , March 24 , 2020 . Patrick Semansky/AP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed hope that the Senate would successfully vote to move forward on the stimulus bill from the floor Tuesday morning and again slammed his Democratic colleagues for the unforeseen delays . `` The clock has run out , the buzzer is sounded , the hour for bargaining as though this were business as usual has expired , '' McConnell said . A little after midnight , Secretary Treasury Steve Mnuchin and director of White House Legislative Affairs Eric Ueland emerged from their final meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his top staff . All parties said there were a few remaining issues to lock down but that they were nearly done -- and expect a deal . `` There 's still a few little differences , '' Schumer said . `` Neither of us think they ’ re in any way going to get in the way of a final agreement . '' The Democratic leader said the Senate would `` hopefully vote on it '' Tuesday evening . Trump said in Monday 's night briefing that Republicans and Democrats `` have no choice '' but to reach a deal . `` I got a call a little while ago . I guess they 're getting closer . Should go quickly and must go quickly , '' Trump said . `` It 's not really a choice . Do n't have a choice . They have to make a deal . '' If and when the Senate bill passes , it will then go to the House for a vote . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled her own massive economic stimulus proposal , the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act , Monday afternoon on Capitol Hill , in case the Senate bill fails . `` I think there is opportunity -- real optimism that we could get something done the next few hours , '' Pelosi said , complimenting Senate Democrats for their efforts to make the bill less for corporate America and more beneficial to workers . `` If we do n't have unanimous consent , my two options with my members is to call them back to vote to amend this bill , or to pass our own bill and go to conference with that , '' she added . The president ’ s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow expressed hope that at the end of the 15-day period , the administration can reassess and -- with the sign-off health officials -- target certain areas in the country where there ’ s a low occurrence of coronavirus spread to resume more normal economic functions . White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow talks with reporters about economic impacts of the coronavirus , outside the White House , March 24 , 2020 . Evan Vucci/AP `` We will take another look at the possibility of targeting areas that are safe enough . We have to do this with the assent and help of the health specialists . No question about that . It 's just a matter of where it 's possible to open places that are not hot zones , for example , in order to try to expand the business reach and reduce the shut-in that 's taken over the economy , '' Kudlow said on FOX Business . He further expanded on the idea of targeting specific zones speaking with reporters , emphasizing that the president ’ s economic advisers aren ’ t advising an `` either/or scenario '' but arguing that `` public health includes economic health . '' `` If we can target zones where viruses is less prevalent , think it ’ s safe , '' Kudlow said . `` We 're not abandoning the health professionals advice but there is a clamor to try to reopen the economy and , perhaps , cause less of a shut in . '' I asked Kudlow specifically about the idea of letting younger people who are not in high-risk groups return to work sooner . `` I do n't want to be specific , that 's logical , '' Kudlow told me but the added jokingly `` You got some old codgers who are pretty healthy too . '' Asked about how the federal government – practically speaking – can reopen parts of the economy that have shuttered given that local governments are by and large the ones calling the shots , Kudlow said it would come in the form of `` guidance '' and conceded that local governments are pulling many of the levers . Vice President Mike Pence speaks during a coronavirus task force briefing at the White House , March 21 , 2020 , in Washington . Patrick Semansky/AP FEMA administrator says Defense Production Act powers will be used 'today ' A few hours after President Trump this morning tweeted his astonishment at the difficulty of obtaining face masks and ventilators from the international marketplace , FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor said on CNN that the administration planned to use the Defense Production Act for the first time today during the COVID-19 outbreak . `` We 're going to use the DPA for the first time today , '' Gaynor said , adding they would use `` the allocation portion of the DPA '' for `` about 60,000 test kits '' that `` we need to get our hands on . '' Gaynor also said they would use the DPA Tuesday to `` insert some language into these mask contracts we have for the 500 million masks . '' Trump tweeted hours before that the market is `` Crazy , '' as he acknowledged that it is `` not easy '' obtaining the desperately needed equipment for states . How it started and how to protect yourself : coronavirus explained Tracking the spread in the US and Worldwide : coronavirus map This report was featured in the Wednesday , March 25 , 2020 , episode of “ Start Here , ” ███ ’ daily news podcast . `` Start Here '' offers a straightforward look at the day 's top stories in 20 minutes . Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , the ███ app or wherever you get your podcasts .

The federal government has been rolling out its response to the coronavirus crisis, trying to slow the spread and stimulate the economy, which has taken a severe hit, and by agreeing to a massive stimulus package after midnight on Wednesday. President Donald Trump is signaling that he's considering loosening coronavirus social distancing guidelines amid the growing economic fallout, while public health officials warn that approach could quickly overload hospital systems and cost more lives. President Donald Trump speaks with Fox News Channel Anchor Bill Hemmer during a virtual town hall, at the White House, March 24, 2020. Evan Vucci/AP Here are the latest developments in the government response: Senate leaders and White House reach deal on a huge relief package amid increasingly bitter negotiations Trump says he wants country 'opened up' by Easter Tuesday is the ninth day of the president's 15-day guidelines to slow the spread Trump tweets 'our people want to return to work' Here is how developments unfolded on Tuesday. Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis. President Donald Trump arrives to speak about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room, March 24, 2020, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Negotiators reach deal in principle on stimulus package After a little under 15 hours of closed-door, bipartisan talks, White House Legislative Affairs Director Eric Ueland announced to reporters at about 1 a.m. local time that negotiators have a deal on the $2 trillion economic stimulus package. They are still drafting some of this deal, but negotiators say they have an agreement. "Ladies and gentlemen, we are done. We have a deal," Ueland said. "Much of the work on the bill text has been completed and I’m hopeful over the next few hours [it will be finished] … We will circulate it early in the morning.” Ueland said they “have either clear, explicit legislative text reflecting all parties, or we know exactly where we’re going to land without a legislative text, as we continue to finish.” Sens. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer were expected on the Senate floor overnight. Negotiations took some five days to complete. Trump says any decision to relax guidelines will be based on 'hard facts and data' At the later afternoon White House briefing, President Trump continued to lay the groundwork for rolling back social distancing guidelines as he opened the daily coronavirus task force briefing and pointed to Easter as the end of the "historic battle" against COVID-19. "Ultimately, the goal is to ease the guidelines and open things up to very large sections of our country as we near the end of our historic battle with the invisible enemy. It will go on for a while but we will win," Trump said. "Easter is our timeline, what a great timeline that would be." As Dr. Anthony Fauci stood behind him, Trump said any decision on "opening up" the country would be "based on hard facts and data." President Donald Trump speaks with Vice President Mike Pence and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci behind him during the coronavirus task force daily briefing at the White House in Washington, March 24, 2020. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters "Our decision will be based on hard facts and data, and I'm also hopeful to have Americans working -- again, by that beautiful Easter day. Rest assured every decision we make is grounded solely in the health, safety and well-being of our citizens," he said. The president said the administration is "working very hard to make that a reality" an that "we will be meeting with a lot of people to see if it can be done" although it wasn't clear who, besides public health experts, would be advising him. Dr. Deborah Birx said she and Fauci remain "concerned" about New York City and the New York metro area and said anyone who was in the region the last few days should self-quarantine for the next 14 days, based on the time they left New York. Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response coordinator, speaks about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room, Tuesday, March 24, 2020, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP "About 56% of all the cases in the United States are coming out of that metro area and 50% of all the new cases are coming out of the metro New York area, and 31% of the people succumbing to this disease," Birx said. "It means, because they are still at the 31% mortality compared to the other regions of the country, that we could have a huge impact if we unite together." She continued that it "will be very critical that those individuals do self quarantine in their homes over the next 14 days to make sure they don't pass the virus to others based on the time they left New York," she said Fauci emphasized the same concerns, saying they're now seeing people spread the disease from New York to other parts of the country. "It's a very serious situation and that suffered terribly through no fault of their own but what we are seeing now is understandably people want to get out of New York," Fauci said. "The idea of self isolating for two weeks will be very important." As reporters started asking questions, Trump was asked if Easter was a realistic timeline for ending social distancing measures. "I would love to see it come even sooner, but I think that would be a beautiful timeline," Trump said. President Donald Trump listens as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks in the press briefing room of the White House on March 24, 2020, in Washington. Drew Angerer/Getty Images When Fauci was asked a similar question, if 19 days from now is a realistic timeline, Fauci said it was a "flexible situation" and pointed to the importance of studying areas of the country where the outbreak isn't obvious. "That's very flexible. We just had a conversation with the president in the Oval Office talking about -- you can look at a date but you have to be very flexible on it, on a literal day-to-day basis, Fauci said. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room, Tuesday, March 24, 2020, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP "It's going to be looking at the data. What we don't have right now that we really do need is we need to know what's going on in those areas of the country, where there isn't an obvious outbreak. Is there something underneath the surface that says, wait a minute, you better be careful and clamp down? Or, are there things there that say you don't have to be as harsh as you are in other areas?" he said. "When you look at the country, obviously no one is going to want to tone down things when you see what's going on in a place like New York City. I mean, that's just good public health practice and common sense," Fauci said. Trump: Would 'love to have the country opened up by Easter' President Trump kept up his push to have America "open for business very soon" on a Fox News "virtual town hall" Tuesday afternoon from the White House Rose Garden. He said he would "love to have the country opened up by Easter" which is April 12. President Donald Trump speaks with Fox News Channel Anchor Bill Hemmer during a virtual town hall, at the White House, March 24, 2020. Evan Vucci/AP "It's such an important day for other reasons, but I will make it an important day for this: I would love to have the country opened up, and they are just raring to go, by Easter." "We lose thousands of people a year to the flu. We never turn the country off," Trump said, echoing what he said at his Monday night White House briefing. "We lose much more than that to automobile accidents. We didn't call up the automobile companies and say, ‘Stop making cars. We don't want any cars anymore.’ We have to get back to work." The president issued full-throated support for people going back to work, though he said people would have to be smart about it. "We have to go back to work much sooner than people thought," Trump said, amid reports the White House is considering a gradual scaling back of social distancing guidelines based on age and location. "We can socially distance ourselves and go to work, and you have to work a little bit harder. And you can clean your hands five times more than you used to. You don't have to shake hands anymore, with people. That might be something good coming out of this," Trump said. "I think it’s possible. Why isn’t it? We’ve never closed the country before and we’ve had some pretty bad flus," Trump said. "We have to get our country back to work ... In my opinion, more people are going to die if we allow this to continue." "Look, you're going to lose a number of people to the flu. But you're going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession or depression. You're going to lose people. You're going to have suicides by the thousands. You're going to have all sorts of things happen," he said. "You're going to have instability. You can't just come in and say, 'Let's close up the United States of America, the biggest -- the most successful country in the world by far.' Easter is less than three weeks away meaning Trump would "reopen" the country right about the time New York is expected to hit its peak level of cases. Amid fallout from public health officials that testing in the U.S. has lagged behind other countries, Trump emphasized a comment by Dr. Deborah Birx that the U.S. has now conducted more tests than South Korea. "In a short period of time we’ve done more testing than South Korea," the president said, turning to Birx. "I'd love you to say that one more time. That's a big number. We've done more than South Korea -- in a short period of time. We are doing more than South Korea by a lot." Birx said that while the U.S. has completed over 300,000 tests, "We have more to do." "Is everything cool with you and Dr. Fauci?" Trump was asked. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert and a key member of the coronavirus task force, has candidly contradicted the president on certain overstatements in recent days, including the president's optimism over drugs for coronavirus treatment despite no drugs currently being approved to treat it. "He has other things to do. We get along very well ... we're fine, we're fine," Trump said, complimenting the team of doctors on the coronavirus task force as "extraordinary." "If we delay this out, you are going to lose more people than you are losing with the situation as we know it," Trump said. "I think it's very important for our country to go back. I've had many, many people -- when he said 'it's a little bit controversial' -- not to most people. Most people said I'm right about it." Hours after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, blasted the federal response, but not Trump by name -- saying FEMA sending 400 ventilators didn't cut it when New York needed tens of thousands -- Trump signaled the lack of ventilators was actually Cuomo's fault. Prepared to respond to Cuomo's harsh criticism, Trump was handed a piece of paper from someone off camera and read it off: "This says New York Governor Cuomo rejected buying 16,000 ventilators in 2015," Trump said. "So he had a chance to buy in 2015, 16,000 ventilators at a very low price, and he turned it down. I'm not blaming him or anything else. But he shouldn't be talking about us. He's supposed to be buying his own ventilators." Later on, Trump said that the federal government's relationship with governors is a "two-way street," adding, "Then I hear that there's a problem with ventilators. Well we sent them ventilators. And they could have had 15 or 16,000 two years ago and all they had to do was order them. They can't blame us for that." Trump envisions “packed churches” for Easter Asked by Fox News’ Bill Hemmer in a one-on-one interview taped after an earlier town hall why he chose Easter as the date by which he wanted the country “opened up,” Trump said one reason is because it would be “beautiful” to have the churches full. “Easter’s a very special day for me. And I see it’s sort of in that timeline that I’m thinking about. And I say, wouldn’t it be great to have all of the churches full?” Trump said. “I think Easter Sunday -- and you’ll have packed churches all over our country -- I think it would be a beautiful time.” “And it’s just about the timeline that I think is right,” the president continued. “It gives us more of a chance to work on what we’re doing. And I’m not sure that’s going to be the day, but I would like to aim it right at Easter Sunday.” President Donald Trump is followed by Vice President Mike Pence as he arrives for the coronavirus response daily briefing at the White House, March 23, 2020. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Cuomo to Trump: "Act like it's a war" Moments ahead of Trump’s town hall, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in a fiery daily news conference on COVID-19, blasted the federal government’s response to the outbreak, saying that it holds the power to produce life-saving ventilators and other equipment but isn't invoking it -- at the cost of human lives. "FEMA says, 'we're sending 400 ventilators.' Really? What am I going to do with 400 ventilators when I need 30,000?" Cuomo said. "You pick the 26,000 people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators." "The only way we can obtain these ventilators is from the federal government, period," Cuomo continued, criticizing the Trump administration’s delay in using the powers of the Defense Production Act. "I need the ventilators in 14 days. Only the federal government has that power. And not to exercise that power is inexplicable to me." "The president said 'it's a war, it's a war.' Then act like it's a war," Cuomo added. Vice President Mike Pence, appearing on a Fox News 'virtual town hall" from the White House Rose Garden after Cuomo's complaints, said, "I know we started our conversation this hour on the subject ventilators and the challenges the state of New York faces. I was so pleased to confirm that earlier today that FEMA, from the national stockpile, shipped 2,000 ventilators to the state of New York -- and tomorrow there will be another 2,000 ventilators shipped from the national stockpile." Trump further signals rolling back social distancing guidelines President Trump doubled down on comments made Monday that Americans "cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself" referencing economic fallout amid social distancing guidelines designed to minimize fatalities due to COVID-19. "Our people want to return to work," the president tweeted Tuesday morning. "They will practice Social Distancing and all else, and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly. We can do two things together. THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM! Congress MUST ACT NOW. We will come back strong!" At Monday night's briefing, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked the president if he's worried about the virus spreading unabated if the restrictions are lifted. "We have two very, very powerful alternatives that we have to take into consideration," Trump said. "Life is fragile and economies are fragile." "If it were up to the doctors, they may say, 'Let's keep it shut down. Let's shut down the entire world because again you're up to 150 countries,'" Trump said, when asked whether any doctors on the task force agreed with his suggestion that social distancing guidelines will pay off in weeks not months. "So, let's shut down the entire world and when we shut it down, that'd be wonderful, and let's keep it shut for a couple of years. We can't do that," Trump said. The president also predicted "there will be tremendous death" from shutting down the economy and job losses, "probably" more than the disease would cause. He's expected to expand on the topic in a town hall with Fox News Monday afternoon -- in an event appearing to replace, for now at least, the daily coronavirus task force briefing. State of the stimulus package: Negotiations continue, leaders signal Tuesday night vote After Senate Democrats successfully blocked the GOP-backed "phase three" $2 trillion coronavirus relief measure in its current form twice in 24 hours, negotiations between Senate leadership and the White House continue behind closed doors, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, left, accompanied by White House Legislative Affairs Director Eric Ueland and acting White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, walks to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., March 24, 2020. Patrick Semansky/AP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed hope that the Senate would successfully vote to move forward on the stimulus bill from the floor Tuesday morning and again slammed his Democratic colleagues for the unforeseen delays. "The clock has run out, the buzzer is sounded, the hour for bargaining as though this were business as usual has expired," McConnell said. A little after midnight, Secretary Treasury Steve Mnuchin and director of White House Legislative Affairs Eric Ueland emerged from their final meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his top staff. All parties said there were a few remaining issues to lock down but that they were nearly done -- and expect a deal. "There's still a few little differences," Schumer said. "Neither of us think they’re in any way going to get in the way of a final agreement." The Democratic leader said the Senate would "hopefully vote on it" Tuesday evening. Trump said in Monday's night briefing that Republicans and Democrats "have no choice" but to reach a deal. "I got a call a little while ago. I guess they're getting closer. Should go quickly and must go quickly," Trump said. "It's not really a choice. Don't have a choice. They have to make a deal." If and when the Senate bill passes, it will then go to the House for a vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled her own massive economic stimulus proposal, the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act, Monday afternoon on Capitol Hill, in case the Senate bill fails. Pelosi outlined her options forward on CNBC this morning. "I think there is opportunity -- real optimism that we could get something done the next few hours," Pelosi said, complimenting Senate Democrats for their efforts to make the bill less for corporate America and more beneficial to workers. "If we don't have unanimous consent, my two options with my members is to call them back to vote to amend this bill, or to pass our own bill and go to conference with that," she added. Kudlow: Public health includes economic health The president’s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow expressed hope that at the end of the 15-day period, the administration can reassess and -- with the sign-off health officials -- target certain areas in the country where there’s a low occurrence of coronavirus spread to resume more normal economic functions. White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow talks with reporters about economic impacts of the coronavirus, outside the White House, March 24, 2020. Evan Vucci/AP "We will take another look at the possibility of targeting areas that are safe enough. We have to do this with the assent and help of the health specialists. No question about that. It's just a matter of where it's possible to open places that are not hot zones, for example, in order to try to expand the business reach and reduce the shut-in that's taken over the economy," Kudlow said on FOX Business. He further expanded on the idea of targeting specific zones speaking with reporters, emphasizing that the president’s economic advisers aren’t advising an "either/or scenario" but arguing that "public health includes economic health." "If we can target zones where viruses is less prevalent, think it’s safe," Kudlow said. "We're not abandoning the health professionals advice but there is a clamor to try to reopen the economy and, perhaps, cause less of a shut in." I asked Kudlow specifically about the idea of letting younger people who are not in high-risk groups return to work sooner. "I don't want to be specific, that's logical," Kudlow told me but the added jokingly "You got some old codgers who are pretty healthy too." Asked about how the federal government – practically speaking – can reopen parts of the economy that have shuttered given that local governments are by and large the ones calling the shots, Kudlow said it would come in the form of "guidance" and conceded that local governments are pulling many of the levers. Vice President Mike Pence speaks during a coronavirus task force briefing at the White House, March 21, 2020, in Washington. Patrick Semansky/AP FEMA administrator says Defense Production Act powers will be used 'today' A few hours after President Trump this morning tweeted his astonishment at the difficulty of obtaining face masks and ventilators from the international marketplace, FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor said on CNN that the administration planned to use the Defense Production Act for the first time today during the COVID-19 outbreak. "We're going to use the DPA for the first time today," Gaynor said, adding they would use "the allocation portion of the DPA" for "about 60,000 test kits" that "we need to get our hands on." Gaynor also said they would use the DPA Tuesday to "insert some language into these mask contracts we have for the 500 million masks." Trump tweeted hours before that the market is "Crazy," as he acknowledged that it is "not easy" obtaining the desperately needed equipment for states. What to know about coronavirus: How it started and how to protect yourself: coronavirus explained What to do if you have symptoms: coronavirus symptoms Tracking the spread in the US and Worldwide: coronavirus map ABC News' Ben Gittleson, Jordyn Phelps, John Parkinson, Trish Turner and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report. This report was featured in the Wednesday, March 25, 2020, episode of “Start Here,” ABC News’ daily news podcast. "Start Here" offers a straightforward look at the day's top stories in 20 minutes. Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, the ABC News app or wherever you get your podcasts.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

iDIYxRGA2TdK6wVS

test

rjHDNJ2v2rAn4KL5

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/28/cnns-month-long-nightmare/

CNN’s Month-Long Nightmare

2017-06-28

The last 30 days have been nothing short of a public relations nightmare for CNN . The network is reeling after a brutal stretch that has seen two hosts taken off-air , one story retracted and another rewritten , accusations of staged protests , the resignations of three key employees and most recently , an ongoing series of undercover videos meant to portray CNN as misleading the public about the Trump-Russia stories that have dominated media coverage of the president so far . Late on Tuesday , May 30 , TMZ published images of CNN ’ s New Years Eve co-host , Kathy Griffin , taking part in a photoshoot with a mock severed head of President Trump . The story quickly blew up . Influential news aggregator Matt Drudge placed CNN ’ s ties to Griffin front and center on his site , the Drudge Report . CNN cut ties with Griffin the next day , May 31 , but it was too late to effectively distance the network from the media tornado surrounding Griffin ’ s actions . On June 3 , the phrase “ CNN is ISIS ” trended on Twitter after Infowars host Alex Jones , a conspiracy theorist who has long supported Trump , offered $ 1,000 to “ anyone who is seen on TV with a ‘ CNN is ISIS ’ t-shirt or sign . ” That same day , June 3 , CNN host Reza Aslan — who has eaten human brain on live television — called Trump a “ piece of shit ” and an “ embarrassment to humankind. ” ( CNN has since cancelled Aslan ’ s show . ) The network called the accusations “ nonsense ” in a statement released on June 5 . “ Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs . CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so , ” CNN ’ s statement read . Days later more footage from the protest scene leaked , showing reporters milling about as they waited for protesters to get their posters . The day after CNN addressed the London protest video , the network suffered another self-inflicted wound . CNN ran a story on June 6 that claimed former FBI Director James Comey would use his testimony the next day to refute Trump ’ s claim that Comey had assured him three separate times that he was not under FBI investigation . That story was debunked the same day when Comey ’ s prepared remarks were released to the public , showing that Comey would actually confirm , rather than refute , Trump ’ s assertion . The botched story had four bylines , including those of three veteran journalists : anchor Jake Tapper , chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau , who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times . CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error . That story was among more than a dozen negative articles about CNN featured on the Drudge Report over the last month , according to a Daily Caller review of an online archive of the site . The Drudge Report often sets the tone for other conservative media sites , and Drudge has kept the pressure on CNN over the last month . ( RELATED : Time Warner Shareholders Rebuke CNN ’ s Jeff Bewkes For Network ’ s Trump Bashing ) CNN ’ s nightmare month continued last week when CNN.com published , deleted , and then retracted and apologized for , an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers . Three key members of CNN ’ s investigative team resigned on Monday for their role in the retracted story . Lichtblau , the executive editor who co-authored the botched Comey story , was among those who resigned . Late Monday night , conservative activist James O ’ Keefe released hidden-camera video that showed a CNN producer , John Bonifield , saying that Trump was “ probably right ” that the Trump-Russia story was a “ witch hunt . ” Though Bonifield ’ s focus is on health — not Russia — the story quickly took off , in part because the producer portrayed the company culture as one that treated Trump-Russia stories as a hunt for ratings rather than a pursuit of truth . He described , for example , CNN president Jeff Zucker ordering the company ’ s focus “ back to Russia ” just a day and a half after Trump pulled out from the Paris climate accords , which was portrayed by some in the media as an earth-changing decision . O ’ Keefe kept the focus on CNN by releasing on Wednesday a video of CNN commentator Van Jones describing the Trump-Russia story as a “ big nothingburger . ” The night before , Drudge ’ s lead story was a Washington Post article titled , “ CNN ’ s Russia story debacle came at the worst possible time for the network. ” Drudge ’ s headline for the article read : “ CNN IN HELL . ” Also on Wednesday , the New York Post kept alive the scandal around CNN ’ s Scaramucci story , running an exclusive that claimed the network pulled the article after the Trump associate threatened them with a $ 100 million lawsuit . The month of drama appears to be taking a toll on CNN ’ s employees . A depressed atmosphere settled over the company after the three resignations , CNN sources told BuzzFeed . “ It ’ s been a tough week but I ’ m proud to work at a place that corrects mistakes and values transparency on them , ” reporter Andrew Kaczynski wrote on Twitter Tuesday night . Kaczynski ’ s tweet came in response to a celebratory tweet from President Trump , who has regularly bashed the network as “ fake news ” and “ very fake news . ” “ Wow , CNN had to retract big story on ‘ Russia , ’ with 3 employees forced to resign , ” Trump wrote . “ What about all the other phony stories they do ? FAKE NEWS ! ”

The last 30 days have been nothing short of a public relations nightmare for CNN. The network is reeling after a brutal stretch that has seen two hosts taken off-air, one story retracted and another rewritten, accusations of staged protests, the resignations of three key employees and most recently, an ongoing series of undercover videos meant to portray CNN as misleading the public about the Trump-Russia stories that have dominated media coverage of the president so far. Late on Tuesday, May 30, TMZ published images of CNN’s New Years Eve co-host, Kathy Griffin, taking part in a photoshoot with a mock severed head of President Trump. The story quickly blew up. Influential news aggregator Matt Drudge placed CNN’s ties to Griffin front and center on his site, the Drudge Report. CNN cut ties with Griffin the next day, May 31, but it was too late to effectively distance the network from the media tornado surrounding Griffin’s actions. On June 3, the phrase “CNN is ISIS” trended on Twitter after Infowars host Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist who has long supported Trump, offered $1,000 to “anyone who is seen on TV with a ‘CNN is ISIS’ t-shirt or sign.” That same day, June 3, CNN host Reza Aslan — who has eaten human brain on live television — called Trump a “piece of shit” and an “embarrassment to humankind.” (CNN has since cancelled Aslan’s show.) Two days later, on June 5, CNN was forced to address claims that it “staged” a Muslim anti-ISIS protest after video emerged of CNN reporter Becky Anderson directing protesters where to stand with their signs. Drudge featured an article from right-wing blog The Gateway Pundit about the video titled, “SHOCK VIDEO: CNN Creates #FakeNews in London Following Terror Attacks, Stages Anti-ISIS Muslim Protesters.” The network called the accusations “nonsense” in a statement released on June 5. “Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so,” CNN’s statement read. Days later more footage from the protest scene leaked, showing reporters milling about as they waited for protesters to get their posters. The day after CNN addressed the London protest video, the network suffered another self-inflicted wound. CNN ran a story on June 6 that claimed former FBI Director James Comey would use his testimony the next day to refute Trump’s claim that Comey had assured him three separate times that he was not under FBI investigation. That story was debunked the same day when Comey’s prepared remarks were released to the public, showing that Comey would actually confirm, rather than refute, Trump’s assertion. The botched story had four bylines, including those of three veteran journalists: anchor Jake Tapper, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and executive editor Eric Lichtblau, who had recently joined CNN from The New York Times. CNN was forced to rewrite the piece with a correction noting the error. That story was among more than a dozen negative articles about CNN featured on the Drudge Report over the last month, according to a Daily Caller review of an online archive of the site. The Drudge Report often sets the tone for other conservative media sites, and Drudge has kept the pressure on CNN over the last month. (RELATED: Time Warner Shareholders Rebuke CNN’s Jeff Bewkes For Network’s Trump Bashing) CNN’s nightmare month continued last week when CNN.com published, deleted, and then retracted and apologized for, an article that claimed Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was the subject of a Senate investigation for his ties to Russian bankers. Three key members of CNN’s investigative team resigned on Monday for their role in the retracted story. Lichtblau, the executive editor who co-authored the botched Comey story, was among those who resigned. Late Monday night, conservative activist James O’Keefe released hidden-camera video that showed a CNN producer, John Bonifield, saying that Trump was “probably right” that the Trump-Russia story was a “witch hunt.” Though Bonifield’s focus is on health — not Russia — the story quickly took off, in part because the producer portrayed the company culture as one that treated Trump-Russia stories as a hunt for ratings rather than a pursuit of truth. He described, for example, CNN president Jeff Zucker ordering the company’s focus “back to Russia” just a day and a half after Trump pulled out from the Paris climate accords, which was portrayed by some in the media as an earth-changing decision. O’Keefe kept the focus on CNN by releasing on Wednesday a video of CNN commentator Van Jones describing the Trump-Russia story as a “big nothingburger.” Drudge immediately made the video the lead of his site, captioning it: “O’KEEFE STRIKES AGAIN.” The night before, Drudge’s lead story was a Washington Post article titled, “CNN’s Russia story debacle came at the worst possible time for the network.” Drudge’s headline for the article read: “CNN IN HELL.” Also on Wednesday, the New York Post kept alive the scandal around CNN’s Scaramucci story, running an exclusive that claimed the network pulled the article after the Trump associate threatened them with a $100 million lawsuit. The month of drama appears to be taking a toll on CNN’s employees. A depressed atmosphere settled over the company after the three resignations, CNN sources told BuzzFeed. “It’s been a tough week but I’m proud to work at a place that corrects mistakes and values transparency on them,” reporter Andrew Kaczynski wrote on Twitter Tuesday night. Kaczynski’s tweet came in response to a celebratory tweet from President Trump, who has regularly bashed the network as “fake news” and “very fake news.” “Wow, CNN had to retract big story on ‘Russia,’ with 3 employees forced to resign,” Trump wrote. “What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!”

www.dailycaller.com

right

rjHDNJ2v2rAn4KL5

test

rMTAtPQi9RCZW9Ln

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/31/wingnuts_are_gearing_up_for_another_government_shutdown_this_time_over_planned_parenthood/

Wingnuts are gearing up for another government shutdown - this time over Planned Parenthood

2015-07-31

Simon Maloy

The big news in conservative media land over the past couple of weeks has been a series of undercover “ sting ” videos released by a shady antiabortion rights activist group claiming to show that Planned Parenthood sells tissues procured from aborted fetuses . As is nearly always the case with videos such as these , they ’ re edited to make them look far worse than they actually are . Planned Parenthood maintains that any money it receives for procuring those tissues – which have long been used in medical research – is just reimbursement for the costs associated with the procedures . None of the videos that have been released actually show Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal , but they do show representatives of the organization speaking somewhat cavalierly about a grim topic . Many of the people promoting these videos are hoping that the emotional reaction they elicit will stoke a public and political backlash against the nation ’ s leading provider of reproductive health services . Conservatives in the media and some hard-line Republicans in Congress believe they ’ ve come up with a plan for dealing with Planned Parenthood : shut down the government again . “ Shut down the government . Now , ” demands Erick Erickson . “ The budget and appropriations fights are forthcoming , ” he writes . “ If Barack Obama is willing to risk a government shutdown because he demands our tax dollars continue funding an organization that kills our children and sells their organs , we should have that fight. ” This line of reasoning appeals to legislators like Sen. Ted Cruz – auteur of the last shutdown crisis – who is agitating for Planned Parenthood funding to be stripped as part of the upcoming appropriations battle . “ I would support any and all legislative efforts to defund Planned Parenthood , ” Cruz says . He has sympathetic ears among some of the more conservative members of the House . This plan isn ’ t quite so appealing to the Republican leadership in Congress . Republicans went into the 2014 elections promising voters that they ’ d be effective stewards of power and competent agents of governance . They haven ’ t lived up to those promises yet ( a partial shutdown was narrowly averted just two months into their reign ) and picking a fight over government funding , even when it ’ s related to a controversial issue like abortion , promises to make them look even worse . They shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act – which was quite unpopular at the time – and they paid for it in the polls . So while the GOP leadership is certainly sympathetic to the complaints of the base over Planned Parenthood , they ’ re not willing to resort to extreme measures and risk serious political blowback . This is now a familiar dynamic of the relationship between Republicans in Congress and activist conservatives . When it comes time to make new appropriations and keep the government ’ s lights on , hard-line conservatives in the media and elsewhere insist that Republicans go nuclear and threaten a government shutdown in pursuit of their preferred policy outcome , whether it be defunding Obamacare , defunding President Obama ’ s executive actions on deportations , or stripping Planned Parenthood ’ s federal funding . And they make these demands even though the chances winning these fights are slim to nonexistent – Democrats still retain filibuster authority in the Senate , and even if legislation were to get through , Obama would veto it . Twice now , on Obamacare and immigration , the Republicans have either completely caved or partially caved to these demands . Both times it blew up in their faces . At this point they are painfully aware that government shutdowns don ’ t work as a matter of policy or politics . So if they believe they have a political advantage when it comes to Planned Parenthood , then really it makes more sense to not pursue a shutdown strategy that would strip that advantage away . But once again the Republicans in Congress find themselves in a position in which the simple act of governing is made difficult by the extreme positions of their influential hard-right flank . The Republican leadership opposes abortions rights and does not support Planned Parenthood , but if they ’ re not willing to drive off the edge of the political cliff to cut funding to the group , then in the eyes of people like Erick Erickson they ’ re no better than pro-choice Democrats . “ Friends , ” he writes , “ if Republicans in Congress will not stop giving tax payer dollars to the American Joseph Mengele , we should show the party violence in the polling booth. ” Reactions like these scare Republicans in Congress . The question is whether they will ( once again ) be pressured into another shutdown fight they won ’ t win .

The big news in conservative media land over the past couple of weeks has been a series of undercover “sting” videos released by a shady antiabortion rights activist group claiming to show that Planned Parenthood sells tissues procured from aborted fetuses. As is nearly always the case with videos such as these, they’re edited to make them look far worse than they actually are. Planned Parenthood maintains that any money it receives for procuring those tissues – which have long been used in medical research – is just reimbursement for the costs associated with the procedures. None of the videos that have been released actually show Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal, but they do show representatives of the organization speaking somewhat cavalierly about a grim topic. Many of the people promoting these videos are hoping that the emotional reaction they elicit will stoke a public and political backlash against the nation’s leading provider of reproductive health services. Conservatives in the media and some hard-line Republicans in Congress believe they’ve come up with a plan for dealing with Planned Parenthood: shut down the government again. Advertisement: “Shut down the government. Now,” demands Erick Erickson. “The budget and appropriations fights are forthcoming,” he writes. “If Barack Obama is willing to risk a government shutdown because he demands our tax dollars continue funding an organization that kills our children and sells their organs, we should have that fight.” This line of reasoning appeals to legislators like Sen. Ted Cruz – auteur of the last shutdown crisis – who is agitating for Planned Parenthood funding to be stripped as part of the upcoming appropriations battle. “I would support any and all legislative efforts to defund Planned Parenthood,” Cruz says. He has sympathetic ears among some of the more conservative members of the House. This plan isn’t quite so appealing to the Republican leadership in Congress. Republicans went into the 2014 elections promising voters that they’d be effective stewards of power and competent agents of governance. They haven’t lived up to those promises yet (a partial shutdown was narrowly averted just two months into their reign) and picking a fight over government funding, even when it’s related to a controversial issue like abortion, promises to make them look even worse. They shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act – which was quite unpopular at the time – and they paid for it in the polls. So while the GOP leadership is certainly sympathetic to the complaints of the base over Planned Parenthood, they’re not willing to resort to extreme measures and risk serious political blowback. This is now a familiar dynamic of the relationship between Republicans in Congress and activist conservatives. When it comes time to make new appropriations and keep the government’s lights on, hard-line conservatives in the media and elsewhere insist that Republicans go nuclear and threaten a government shutdown in pursuit of their preferred policy outcome, whether it be defunding Obamacare, defunding President Obama’s executive actions on deportations, or stripping Planned Parenthood’s federal funding. And they make these demands even though the chances winning these fights are slim to nonexistent – Democrats still retain filibuster authority in the Senate, and even if legislation were to get through, Obama would veto it. Advertisement: Twice now, on Obamacare and immigration, the Republicans have either completely caved or partially caved to these demands. Both times it blew up in their faces. At this point they are painfully aware that government shutdowns don’t work as a matter of policy or politics. So if they believe they have a political advantage when it comes to Planned Parenthood, then really it makes more sense to not pursue a shutdown strategy that would strip that advantage away. But once again the Republicans in Congress find themselves in a position in which the simple act of governing is made difficult by the extreme positions of their influential hard-right flank. The Republican leadership opposes abortions rights and does not support Planned Parenthood, but if they’re not willing to drive off the edge of the political cliff to cut funding to the group, then in the eyes of people like Erick Erickson they’re no better than pro-choice Democrats. “Friends,” he writes, “if Republicans in Congress will not stop giving tax payer dollars to the American Joseph Mengele, we should show the party violence in the polling booth.” Reactions like these scare Republicans in Congress. The question is whether they will (once again) be pressured into another shutdown fight they won’t win.

www.salon.com

left

rMTAtPQi9RCZW9Ln

test

3Y2eiJtgg4yEp1L0

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown/u-s-government-reopens-as-clock-starts-on-funding-talks-idUSKCN1PM1EU

U.S. government reopens as clock starts on funding talks

2019-01-28

David Morgan

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - The U.S. economy was expected to lose $ 3 billion from the partial federal government shutdown over President Donald Trump ’ s demand for border wall funding , congressional researchers said on Monday as 800,000 federal employees returned to work after 35 days without pay . The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the cost of the shutdown would make the U.S. economy 0.02 percent smaller than expected in 2019 . More significant effects will be felt by individual businesses and workers , particularly those who scrambled to make ends after not being paid . Overall , the U.S. economy lost about $ 11 billion during the five-week period , the CBO said . It expects $ 8 billion to be recovered , however , as the government reopens and employees receive back pay . The longest shutdown in U.S. history ended on Friday when Trump and Congress agreed to temporary government funding - without money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall - as the effects of the shutdown intensified across the country . The Republican president had demanded that legislation to fund the government contain $ 5.7 billion for his long-promised wall . He says it is necessary to stop illegal immigration , human trafficking and drug smuggling , while Democrats call it costly and inefficient . A committee of Republican and Democratic lawmakers have scheduled an initial meeting on Wednesday , which will be open to the public , as they try to negotiate a compromise on border security before the Feb. 15 deadline . That session is likely to see little more than opening statements by lawmakers . Subsequent meetings could be conducted in private , where the hard bargaining would take place , several congressional aides said . Owing to rules governing legislation in the House of Representatives requiring a 72-hour period for lawmakers to review legislation before having to vote on it , the committee might have to wrap up its work by around Feb. 10 in order to meet a Feb. 15 deadline for congressional approval . The U.S. Capitol is shown after the U.S. government reopened with about 800,000 federal workers returning after a 35-day shutdown in Washington , U.S. , January 28 , 2019 . ███/Joshua Roberts Trump said he would be willing to shut down the government again if lawmakers do not reach a deal he finds acceptable on border security . On Sunday , he expressed skepticism such an deal could be made . Trump has also said he might declare a national emergency to get money for the border wall . Democrats would likely challenge that in court . Democratic lawmakers said the CBO report served as a stark warning to Trump against another shutdown . “ Families across the nation are still trying to recover from a month of missing paychecks and overdue bills , but the president is already threatening a second shutdown if he doesn ’ t get his way , ” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , the top U.S. Democrat . Most employees should be paid by Thursday for back wages , which one study estimated at $ 6 billion for all those who worked without pay or were furloughed . Contractors and businesses that relied on federal workers ’ business face huge losses , although some lawmakers are pushing legislation to pay contractors back as well . Federal workers poured out of Washington ’ s public transportation system on Monday . Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai greeted employees in the lobby , while the Securities and Exchange Commission offered doughnuts , fruit and coffee . The National Transportation Safety Board said on Monday it had been unable to send investigators to 22 accidents during the shutdown , including 15 aviation accidents resulting in 21 deaths . “ These 22 accidents now require investigative action , ” the safety agency said , but added that evidence “ may have been lost . ” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was reviewing five weeks of auto safety recalls that had been submitted by automakers , but has not yet begun posting them publicly .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy was expected to lose $3 billion from the partial federal government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s demand for border wall funding, congressional researchers said on Monday as 800,000 federal employees returned to work after 35 days without pay. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the cost of the shutdown would make the U.S. economy 0.02 percent smaller than expected in 2019. More significant effects will be felt by individual businesses and workers, particularly those who scrambled to make ends after not being paid. Overall, the U.S. economy lost about $11 billion during the five-week period, the CBO said. It expects $8 billion to be recovered, however, as the government reopens and employees receive back pay. The longest shutdown in U.S. history ended on Friday when Trump and Congress agreed to temporary government funding - without money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall - as the effects of the shutdown intensified across the country. The Republican president had demanded that legislation to fund the government contain $5.7 billion for his long-promised wall. He says it is necessary to stop illegal immigration, human trafficking and drug smuggling, while Democrats call it costly and inefficient. A committee of Republican and Democratic lawmakers have scheduled an initial meeting on Wednesday, which will be open to the public, as they try to negotiate a compromise on border security before the Feb. 15 deadline. That session is likely to see little more than opening statements by lawmakers. Subsequent meetings could be conducted in private, where the hard bargaining would take place, several congressional aides said. Owing to rules governing legislation in the House of Representatives requiring a 72-hour period for lawmakers to review legislation before having to vote on it, the committee might have to wrap up its work by around Feb. 10 in order to meet a Feb. 15 deadline for congressional approval. The U.S. Capitol is shown after the U.S. government reopened with about 800,000 federal workers returning after a 35-day shutdown in Washington, U.S., January 28, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts Trump said he would be willing to shut down the government again if lawmakers do not reach a deal he finds acceptable on border security. On Sunday, he expressed skepticism such an deal could be made. Trump has also said he might declare a national emergency to get money for the border wall. Democrats would likely challenge that in court. WELCOMED BACK TO WORK Democratic lawmakers said the CBO report served as a stark warning to Trump against another shutdown. “Families across the nation are still trying to recover from a month of missing paychecks and overdue bills, but the president is already threatening a second shutdown if he doesn’t get his way,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top U.S. Democrat. Slideshow (11 Images) Most employees should be paid by Thursday for back wages, which one study estimated at $6 billion for all those who worked without pay or were furloughed. Contractors and businesses that relied on federal workers’ business face huge losses, although some lawmakers are pushing legislation to pay contractors back as well. Federal workers poured out of Washington’s public transportation system on Monday. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai greeted employees in the lobby, while the Securities and Exchange Commission offered doughnuts, fruit and coffee. The National Transportation Safety Board said on Monday it had been unable to send investigators to 22 accidents during the shutdown, including 15 aviation accidents resulting in 21 deaths. “These 22 accidents now require investigative action,” the safety agency said, but added that evidence “may have been lost.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was reviewing five weeks of auto safety recalls that had been submitted by automakers, but has not yet begun posting them publicly.

www.reuters.com

center

3Y2eiJtgg4yEp1L0

test

Ze2TE3Prsllqbh2l

nuclear_weapons

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-takes-hard-line-iran-obama-deal-place/story?id=50442196

Trump takes hard line on Iran, but keeps Obama deal in place

Ali Rogin, Adam Kelsey

President Donald Trump slammed Iran Friday , calling the country a `` menace '' and announced new sanctions against its regime -- but did not take action to alter the Obama-era nuclear deal that he has denounced since his presidential campaign . Interested in Iran ? Add Iran as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Iran news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The deal , Trump said , is no longer in the national security interest of the United States . This decision , which has been referred to as “ decertification , ” is a shift in official position . It is a significant declaration that leaves the nuclear agreement in place , but puts Congress in charge of whether or not to follow up with action -- triggering a 60-day window for lawmakers to re-impose sanctions against Iran that were suspended in 2015 as part of the agreement . Trump outlined three steps as part of America 's path forward : to counter `` destabilizing activity '' in the Middle East , impose new sanctions on non-nuclear aspects of the regime and address the country 's nuclear ambitions . `` Our policy is based on clear assessment of Iranian dictatorship , its sponsorship of terrorism and its continuing aggression in the Middle East and all around the world , '' Trump said . While the president portrayed the decision as having originated with his administration , he acknowledged that Congress holds the key to the deal 's future . `` I am directing my administration to work closely with Congress and our allies to address the deal 's many serious flaws so that the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons , '' he said . Tehran and world powers in July 2015 crafted a deal that eased sanctions on Iran in exchange for stepped-up international monitoring of its nuclear development activities . The agreement reduced the amount of nuclear fuel Iran can keep and extended the `` breakout time '' needed for Iran to create a single bomb . Some of Iran 's facilities are now also subject to constant monitoring , with others subject to inspections after a waiting period . The president accused Iran of `` not living up to the spirit of the deal , '' while the U.S. abides by its promises , despite top officials on his national security team , including Defense Secretary James Mattis , saying Iran has technically complied with its restrictions . The International Atomic Energy Association , tasked with validating Iran 's adherence to the agreement , released a statement Friday further confirming the country 's compliance . `` At present , Iran is subject to the world 's most robust nuclear verification regime , '' the IAEA said in a statement . Trump 's remarks , while not alleging a specific violation of the nuclear-related terms , singled out the `` Iranian regime '' for `` continu [ ing ] to fuel conflict , terror , and turmoil throughout the Middle East and beyond . '' Iranian President Hassan Rouhani defended his country 's participation in the deal Friday after Trump 's speech and attacked the decision , saying that the U.S. was `` completely alone '' in its policy toward Iran . He added that Iran would not hesitate to respond if the deal 's other parties `` do not stay loyal . '' Rouhani further characterized Iran ’ s missile program as purely defensive in nature and necessary in the face of U.S. aggression . “ We always tried to produce weapons ourselves , ” he said . “ And from now on we will redouble that effort ... to defend ourselves . ” In a series of tweets Friday afternoon , Iran 's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif portrayed Trump as kowtowing to external interests , and describing the U.S. president 's words as `` rogue . '' Everyone knew Trump ’ s friendship was for sale to the highest bidder . We now know that his geography is too . 2/ — Javad Zarif ( @ JZarif ) October 13 , 2017 Trump also announced sanctions Friday on Iran 's Revolutionary Guard Corps , whom he accused of providing assistance to terrorist groups . He encouraged U.S. allies to take action to counter the group 's efforts `` including thorough sanctions outside the Iran deal that target the regime 's ballistic missile program in support for terrorism and all of its destructive activities , of which there are many . '' Though Trump did not go so far as to end the nuclear deal , he told reporters on the White House South Lawn after his speech that his prior threat to `` rip it up '' was still a possibility . `` I may do that . I may do that , '' Trump said . `` The deal is terrible . So what we 've done is , through the certification process , we 'll have Congress take a look at it and I may very well do that . But I like a two-step process much better . '' Republicans critical of the initial deal have urged the administration to enforce it . Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. said in a statement Friday that he agrees with Trump that the deal does n't benefit U.S. interests , but that he is interested in approving , rather than ending , it . `` I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on additional legislation to increase sanctions and other pressure to hold Iran accountable for its broader destructive behavior in the region , '' McCain said in the statement . `` I am also eager to collaborate with our partners and allies to revisit the most problematic provisions of the nuclear deal , and support a unified , forceful international front in the event that Iran materially breaches the terms of the agreement . '' On Wednesday , House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce , R-Calif. said in a hearing that while he felt the deal was `` flawed , '' he believed the U.S. `` must now enforce the hell out of it . '' “ Let ’ s work with allies to make certain that international inspectors have better access to possible nuclear sites , and we should address the fundamental sunset shortcoming , as our allies have recognized , '' said Royce . Even Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark. , one of the most vocal critics of the Iran deal and supporters of decertification , has recommended holding off on “ snapping back , ” or restoring immediately , the nuclear sanctions lifted as part of the deal . He called the move a “ backward-looking step ” and said Congress should instead impose new ballistic sanctions and lift some of the Iran agreement ’ s sunset provisions which allow some regulatory measures to expire after certain periods . The goal with such actions , according to Cotton , would be to bring Iran back to the negotiating table to strengthen the original deal . But some Obama-era officials who worked on the agreement said that hope was unrealistic . “ I would love to see Iran come back to the table , apologizes for everything and agree to all of our demands , ” Philip Gordon , White House coordinator for the Middle East during the Iran negotiations , told ███ . But he called such a notion a “ fantasy . ” Former Secretary of State John Kerry , a signatory to the agreement who personally engaged in the final negotiations , released a highly critical statement after Trump 's speech Friday . Kerry called Trump 's decision a `` dangerous '' on that `` polluted the negotiating waters , '' and expressed bewilderment at why the president would not recognize Iran 's adherence to the terms . He called on Congress to follow through in maintaining the spirit of the deal . `` Our allies and our Congress must now act as the only adults left in the room with the power to protect our national interests , '' the statement read , in part , adding , `` I ca n't think of a more important moment than this one where cooler , wiser voices have had a bigger responsibility to put a policy back on track . '' It 's all hands on deck standing up to President Trumps 's dangerous decision on Iran . Here 's my statement . pic.twitter.com/VsTBwrqBZQ — John Kerry ( @ JohnKerry ) October 13 , 2017 Sen. Bob Corker , R-Tenn. , the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who led the charge against the bill and wrote a law forcing congressional oversight of the Iran agreement , has also expressed skepticism that decertifying the deal is the right decision . “ You can only tear these things up one time . It might feel good for a second , but one of the things that 's important for us is to keep our allies with us , ” he said , referring to the other signatories of the Iran deal which include China and Russia as well as the European Union . While many of the parties to the deal spoke out against Trump 's stance , the president found supporters in a pair of regional allies who were not signatories to the agreement : the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia . The latter described the U.S. 's strategy Friday as `` resolute '' and a `` clear-eyed vision . '' Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are considered regional rivals of Iran and have made overtures to work towards a closer relationship with the Trump administration since the president 's inauguration in January . Each country expressed public support for the nuclear deal upon its signing , despite reservations .

President Donald Trump slammed Iran Friday, calling the country a "menace" and announced new sanctions against its regime -- but did not take action to alter the Obama-era nuclear deal that he has denounced since his presidential campaign. Interested in Iran? Add Iran as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Iran news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The deal, Trump said, is no longer in the national security interest of the United States. This decision, which has been referred to as “decertification,” is a shift in official position. It is a significant declaration that leaves the nuclear agreement in place, but puts Congress in charge of whether or not to follow up with action -- triggering a 60-day window for lawmakers to re-impose sanctions against Iran that were suspended in 2015 as part of the agreement. Trump outlined three steps as part of America's path forward: to counter "destabilizing activity" in the Middle East, impose new sanctions on non-nuclear aspects of the regime and address the country's nuclear ambitions. "Our policy is based on clear assessment of Iranian dictatorship, its sponsorship of terrorism and its continuing aggression in the Middle East and all around the world," Trump said. While the president portrayed the decision as having originated with his administration, he acknowledged that Congress holds the key to the deal's future. "I am directing my administration to work closely with Congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so that the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons," he said. Tehran and world powers in July 2015 crafted a deal that eased sanctions on Iran in exchange for stepped-up international monitoring of its nuclear development activities. The agreement reduced the amount of nuclear fuel Iran can keep and extended the "breakout time" needed for Iran to create a single bomb. Some of Iran's facilities are now also subject to constant monitoring, with others subject to inspections after a waiting period. The president accused Iran of "not living up to the spirit of the deal," while the U.S. abides by its promises, despite top officials on his national security team, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, saying Iran has technically complied with its restrictions. The International Atomic Energy Association, tasked with validating Iran's adherence to the agreement, released a statement Friday further confirming the country's compliance. "At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime," the IAEA said in a statement. Trump's remarks, while not alleging a specific violation of the nuclear-related terms, singled out the "Iranian regime" for "continu[ing] to fuel conflict, terror, and turmoil throughout the Middle East and beyond." Iranian President Hassan Rouhani defended his country's participation in the deal Friday after Trump's speech and attacked the decision, saying that the U.S. was "completely alone" in its policy toward Iran. He added that Iran would not hesitate to respond if the deal's other parties "do not stay loyal." Rouhani further characterized Iran’s missile program as purely defensive in nature and necessary in the face of U.S. aggression. “We always tried to produce weapons ourselves,” he said. “And from now on we will redouble that effort... to defend ourselves.” In a series of tweets Friday afternoon, Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif portrayed Trump as kowtowing to external interests, and describing the U.S. president's words as "rogue." Everyone knew Trump’s friendship was for sale to the highest bidder. We now know that his geography is too. 2/ — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) October 13, 2017 Trump also announced sanctions Friday on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, whom he accused of providing assistance to terrorist groups. He encouraged U.S. allies to take action to counter the group's efforts "including thorough sanctions outside the Iran deal that target the regime's ballistic missile program in support for terrorism and all of its destructive activities, of which there are many." Though Trump did not go so far as to end the nuclear deal, he told reporters on the White House South Lawn after his speech that his prior threat to "rip it up" was still a possibility. "I may do that. I may do that," Trump said. "The deal is terrible. So what we've done is, through the certification process, we'll have Congress take a look at it and I may very well do that. But I like a two-step process much better." Republicans critical of the initial deal have urged the administration to enforce it. IIPA via Getty Images Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. said in a statement Friday that he agrees with Trump that the deal doesn't benefit U.S. interests, but that he is interested in approving, rather than ending, it. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on additional legislation to increase sanctions and other pressure to hold Iran accountable for its broader destructive behavior in the region," McCain said in the statement. "I am also eager to collaborate with our partners and allies to revisit the most problematic provisions of the nuclear deal, and support a unified, forceful international front in the event that Iran materially breaches the terms of the agreement." On Wednesday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif. said in a hearing that while he felt the deal was "flawed," he believed the U.S. "must now enforce the hell out of it." “Let’s work with allies to make certain that international inspectors have better access to possible nuclear sites, and we should address the fundamental sunset shortcoming, as our allies have recognized," said Royce. Even Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., one of the most vocal critics of the Iran deal and supporters of decertification, has recommended holding off on “snapping back,” or restoring immediately, the nuclear sanctions lifted as part of the deal. He called the move a “backward-looking step” and said Congress should instead impose new ballistic sanctions and lift some of the Iran agreement’s sunset provisions which allow some regulatory measures to expire after certain periods. The goal with such actions, according to Cotton, would be to bring Iran back to the negotiating table to strengthen the original deal. But some Obama-era officials who worked on the agreement said that hope was unrealistic. “I would love to see Iran come back to the table, apologizes for everything and agree to all of our demands,” Philip Gordon, White House coordinator for the Middle East during the Iran negotiations, told ABC News. But he called such a notion a “fantasy.” Former Secretary of State John Kerry, a signatory to the agreement who personally engaged in the final negotiations, released a highly critical statement after Trump's speech Friday. Kerry called Trump's decision a "dangerous" on that "polluted the negotiating waters," and expressed bewilderment at why the president would not recognize Iran's adherence to the terms. He called on Congress to follow through in maintaining the spirit of the deal. "Our allies and our Congress must now act as the only adults left in the room with the power to protect our national interests," the statement read, in part, adding, "I can't think of a more important moment than this one where cooler, wiser voices have had a bigger responsibility to put a policy back on track." It's all hands on deck standing up to President Trumps's dangerous decision on Iran. Here's my statement. pic.twitter.com/VsTBwrqBZQ — John Kerry (@JohnKerry) October 13, 2017 Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who led the charge against the bill and wrote a law forcing congressional oversight of the Iran agreement, has also expressed skepticism that decertifying the deal is the right decision. “You can only tear these things up one time. It might feel good for a second, but one of the things that's important for us is to keep our allies with us,” he said, referring to the other signatories of the Iran deal which include China and Russia as well as the European Union. While many of the parties to the deal spoke out against Trump's stance, the president found supporters in a pair of regional allies who were not signatories to the agreement: the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The latter described the U.S.'s strategy Friday as "resolute" and a "clear-eyed vision." Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are considered regional rivals of Iran and have made overtures to work towards a closer relationship with the Trump administration since the president's inauguration in January. Each country expressed public support for the nuclear deal upon its signing, despite reservations. ABC News' Conor Finnegan, Kirit Radia and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

Ze2TE3Prsllqbh2l

test

Lzt9siSQo0AFcX5G

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/12/25/ideology-is-out-identity-is-in

Ideology Is Out, Identity Is In

2018-12-25

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

In 1992 , Francis Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man , an extended argument that the combination of liberal democracy and market capitalism could represent the end state for the evolution of human governance . The book was an influential , much-discussed hit , with its central idea— '' the end of history '' —becoming popular shorthand for the triumph of liberal democratic capitalism . In the process , Fukuyama became one of the nation 's most widely recognized thinkers . Fukuyama , notably , did not argue that other , more totalitarian forms of government could never return—only that in the very long term , market capitalism would prove more durable . Yet more than a quarter-century later , with the rise of populist political campaigns and democratic unrest throughout the Western world , some have wondered whether his most well-known idea remains relevant . In Identity : The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment ( Farrar , Straus and Giroux ) , the director of the Center on Democracy , Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University and fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies tackles what he sees as one of the primary driving forces behind these challenges : the rise of identity politics . In September , Fukuyama spoke with ███ 's Nick Gillespie about his new book , the Donald Trump presidency , why economic gains are n't enough to hold a society together , and whether or not we 've really reached the end of history . ███ : Start by giving me the elevator pitch for Identity , which you say you would n't have written if Donald Trump had n't won the 2016 election . Fukuyama : My view is that the nature of global politics is shifting to an identity axis and away from the economic left-right axis of the 20th century that was defined largely by ideology . And by identity I mean these fixed characteristics that link us to certain groups , usually based on things like ethnicity , race , religion . It could be gender . Sexual orientation now in the United States and other developed countries . I think that that is not good for democracy , because these fixed characteristics are supposed to be determinative of your politics . And in a way , that 's a problem in many countries like Iraq or Syria or Libya , where everyone is tied to a fixed identity group and therefore you ca n't have a modern political system . Your book revolves around a couple of key concepts . Can you please explain them briefly ? Isothymia is the desire to be recognized as equal to other people . If you 're disrespected or [ treated as ] invisible , you want to be recognized . In the United States context , that 's the Declaration of Independence : `` All men are created equal . '' And every marginalized group that says , `` You do n't see me as a human being , '' I think that 's what 's driving that . Megalothymia is not a universal characteristic , but it 's universal to almost every political order.…You get certain individuals who are not satisfied with equal recognition . They want to be better than everyone else . For a democratic political system that 's a particular problem , because you 've got to somehow limit the ability of an individual like that to hurt the rest of the political system . Are you arguing in the book that certain identity groups are now taking on that role , where they 're demanding to be recognized , or that their grievances be recognized , as separate and greater than other groups ? The first manifestation of modern identity politics was European nationalism . And there you start with the desire of the Germans [ in the 19th century ] to live within their own community , because they 're all scattered around Central and Eastern Europe ; they do n't have a single state under which they 're all ruled . And then they get that state . So they just want to be recognized like other peoples , but then the isothymia evolves into megalothymia where they say , `` Well , actually , we ought to dominate the Slavs and all these other people surrounding us . '' `` Certain individuals…are not satisfied with equal recognition . They want to be better than everyone else . For a democratic political system , that 's a particular problem . '' You have spent a lot of time studying the political philosopher Georg Hegel . How does that factor in when you talk about global identity politics ? Well , the part of Hegel that 's critical to this is his observation that politics is driven by the desire for recognition . He does n't get into the world that we live in where you 've got this pluralistic recognition of all these little groups . He did n't live in that kind of society . What he saw were masters and slaves . The masters wanted recognition from the slaves , but it was n't a satisfying recognition , because you 're only being recognized by a slave—somebody that 's not a full human being . He saw this play out in the course of the French Revolution , where the slaves were rising up against the masters , and he said that ultimately , the only solution to this problem is universal recognition , where every human being recognizes every other human being as an equal . And that 's basically the foundation for a liberal society . What I think he did n't anticipate is all of these partial recognitions or smaller group recognitions that have become so important in the way that we think about ourselves today . You write that a lot of political life is only weakly related to economic resources . What do you mean by that ? I think that dignity politics is not about an absolute level of resources . It really is your standing relative to other people . People hate being less than other people , and sometimes they want to be more than that . The ███ we desire a lot of material resources is not that we really just have to have that beautiful Ferrari . But it shows that I am better than you because you 've only got a Tesla or whatever . But what happens when everybody can buy the car that they want ? Or pretty close . I think the nature of relative status is that it 's a perpetual arms race that no one can ever win . We used to have millionaires . Now we 've got billionaires , we 've got multi-billionaires . In the book you rely somewhat on work by Cornell economist Robert Frank , who talks a lot about `` positional consumption , '' which is all about status . But I 'm curious if that 's actually an accurate reading of how most people live . Are n't most people just kind of happy to be able to live a variation of the life they want ? Flashy material resources are only one axis of status competition . There 's plenty of others . How your kid is doing , whether they 're the captain of the football team—there 's so many ways in which you can demonstrate superior status . I think this is as true in poor communities as it is in rich ones . It 's really not related to an absolute level of consumption . `` Distrust of government traps you in a kind of low-level equilibrium where you say , 'The government 's not working . Why pay my taxes ? Why give it more resources ? Why give it more authority ? ' And then because it does n't have resources or authority , it does n't do a good job , and people say , 'Ah ! See ? ' '' Take the case that recently went in front of the Supreme Court about the gay couple that wanted a Christian baker to bake them a wedding cake . Was that about dignity ? I think in general the gay marriage movement is dignity politics right from the get-go . Because if it were simply about resources , you could have joint property or survivorship inheritance under a civil union.…Conversely , I think the people that were opposed to it wanted to say , `` We believe the traditional family should have more dignity than a gay or lesbian union . '' That 's what the fight was about . You argue that nationalism , and also to a certain degree religious identities , in the U.S. and Europe are tied to economic anxiety . Especially among an anxious American white middle class . Is there a disconnect between talking about economics and more symbolic , identity-focused political transactions ? I do n't think so . My mentor , [ the late political scientist ] Samuel Huntington , made this observation back in Political Order in Changing Societies . He was actually extending an observation of Alexis de Tocqueville about the French Revolution . He said the most dangerous people are people that thought they were middle-class and are losing that status . They got fired from a job , they do n't make as much money as their father , whatever . But the status loss is really what makes them angry—that they thought they were solidly representative of the average person in their country , and it turns out they 're being dragged into an underclass . I think that 's really what distinguishes the populism that you see in North America and Northern Europe from the kind of populism you see in Latin America . Because in Latin America , the populism really is driven by poor people . Exit poll data from 2016 showed that Trump lost among voters from households making less than $ 50,000 . Hillary [ Clinton ] got them . So they 're the poor in this context . And then he beat her among voters from households making between $ 50,000 and $ 200,000 . Arguably that 's the middle class , but that is an enormous range— $ 200,000 is a lot of money anywhere in the country . Within that range there 's really different motives . If you 're a factory worker that lost your job because it was outsourced to China , you may be at the bottom of that range . That 's different , I think , from a pretty secure middle-class professional making $ 150,000 . But you can still be driven by cultural fears because you do n't like the nature of the new society that 's emerging around you where all these different people that do n't look like Americans to you are suddenly being given , in your view , advantages and so forth . You write that identity politics in America is primarily an attribute of the left . It 's replaced a traditional focus on economic security and transfer of resources from the well-off to the desperately poor , a kind of class-based argument , with all of these different types of identities . What is driving that ? You say in the book that this started happening in the '60s . What 's interesting is that that was the tail-end for a lot of immigration . The Irish , the Italians , the Jews had either been assimilated or were about to be . But today , American Indians , Asian Americans , black Americans all have moved toward identity politics . First of all , the thing is powered by actual injustice . These are all groups that are actually marginalized in various ways , disrespected , and so they have a perfectly reasonable demand that they be treated differently . I think the process of identity group formation has its own logic , where you want to affirm not just that we 're like everybody else but that we have our own characteristics and maybe , actually , we 're better in some ways . To me , Black Lives Matter makes total sense . I do n't see them as saying , `` We are superior to you . '' Which left-wing identity groups are saying , `` Shut up and listen to me because I should be the only one talking '' ? I do n't think you 've seen assertions of superiority in quite that fashion . But you certainly have seen assertions of cultural distinctness and then the demand that you respect those differences . That 's true of both African Americans and women . `` My mentor , Samuel Huntington , made this observation.…He said the most dangerous people are people that thought they were middle-class and are losing that status . '' Martin Luther King 's demand was just to be treated like other Americans , like white Americans . But in the black power movement , there was a view that black culture is not white culture . It has its own virtues and it needs to be respected as a group identity , rather than individual black people being treated as Americans . It 's even more pronounced in the feminist movement , because right from the beginning there 's a train of thought that says , `` Yeah . Women really are fundamentally different , and in certain respects they 're better . They 're not violent , they 're more empathetic , they have their own ways of approaching social cooperation . It 's really the men that are imposing this very aggressive , violent , patriarchal culture on the rest of society . '' You are not arguing that identity politics is just simply wrong . What you 're arguing is that it 's a problem when it gets to a point where it says , `` Because of my group identity I should not be criticized . I should not be forced to submit to any kind of cultural norm . '' Where does identity politics cross a boundary ? There 's a couple of different boundaries . The assertion that all cultural groups are basically equal is problematic . This has been a real issue with Muslim immigrant communities in Europe . I want to be very careful because this is kind of delicate ground . It is true that there 's a culture in these communities that does not treat women well . It does not treat homosexuality the way that mainstream society does . There 's anti-Semitism . All of these problems are embedded in their cultural values . You can take one of two positions . You can say we live in a liberal society where our values are to respect the rights of individuals , or [ you can say ] we live in this kind of pluralistic , multicultural society in which all cultures are equally valuable , even if some of those cultures oppress individuals that are members . I just think in a liberal society you can not possibly take that second position . You write that identity politics are driving political correctness and the unwillingness—particularly on college campuses but we see this throughout public discourse—to have conversations . To interrogate or even just ask an honest question about somebody 's assertion of an identity is to disrespect them . What are the ways that we get out of this stultifying moment that we 're in ? Well , I have a very simple solution , which is we need to talk more about integrative identities and particularly national identity . In many cases , that actually means fixing the national identity . In Europe , especially in continental Europe , you have identities that are tied to ethnicity . In Germany today , a German citizen of Turkish origin who does n't speak a word of Turkish—only German—gets up and says , `` I 'm a German . '' People will look at him a little bit strangely and say , `` Well , actually , you 're not a German . You 're a Turk . '' Culturally there still is not an acceptance of a non–ethnic German as a real German . That needs to change . It 's kind of a twofold thing . Immigration I think is positive . The diversity is very bracing and it stimulates a lot of creativity . But in the end , if you do n't actually shape these groups to your basic underlying political values , then you 're headed down a dangerous road . One of the things that you touch on in the book is the role of new media . We live in a globalized , networked world where you can find people like you anywhere . But there 's also a negative potential . How are the internet and social media driving fragmentation ? This whole idea of a filter bubble—that because you can search out people with identical views to your own and you can shut out , deliberately , other people 's voices—it tends to amplify the [ worrying ] kind of group-oriented beliefs . And because the internet is so expansive , you can find the six people among the 6 billion out there in the world that actually believe the crazy things that you believe . But I think the underlying drivers started well before the internet and social media got going . Part of what drives identity politics is a sense that `` the government does n't care about people like me . '' There 's a whole game theory background to this , where trust can arise in an iterated game , where you 're constantly playing against the same people , and then certain people screw you so you stop cooperating with them , but other people are honest so you do cooperate with them , and so you develop a norm of trust spontaneously . And I think that could happen with the government as well . Part of the ███ I think there was such a high level of trust in the U.S. government in the early 1950s is they had gotten the United States out of the Depression ; we won World War II ; and you had these big public works projects like the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate bridge or the Interstate Highway project . Do you think the government might actually do what is needed to encourage trust and confidence—maybe not in its efficacy , but at least that people are acting in good faith ? Well , I think you 'd need a different administration . [ Trump ] personally , I think , does everything he can to decrease trust in himself except for his core supporters . It 's hard for the federal government to do this . I think you could have that buildup of trust at lower levels of government , because there are a lot of municipal governments that do actually work pretty effectively , and so you might get some bottom-up movement in that respect . `` Immigration I think is positive.…But in the end , if you do n't actually shape these groups to your basic underlying political values , then you 're headed down a dangerous road . '' Bill Clinton famously declared the end of the era of big government , but big government is kind of like General Motors . It 'll never be the pace setter that it once was , but it 'll continue on . Or is it more like Sears , where it just disappears because it ca n't reform itself ? You know , if you look around the world , there are other rich democracies that work pretty well . People trust their government . Canada , Australia , Germany , Netherlands , most of Scandinavia . These have governments that are very big . They do a lot of stuff . But they 're seen as doing it well . I would like to think that libertarians won the argument that government is ineffective and bad most of the time . I write a lot about how that erosion of social trust , ironically , leads to calls for more government , because people in low-trust countries want more regulation of every aspect of their lives . The distrust of government traps you in a kind of low-level equilibrium where you say , `` The government 's not working . Why pay my taxes ? Why give it more resources ? Why give it more authority ? '' And then because it does n't have resources or authority , it does n't do a good job , and people say , `` Ah ! See ? '' But we are also at the end of the Bismarckian welfare state . It 's just unsustainable from an economic point of view , unless you restrict immigration . A lot of European countries , their welfare states are going to survive . Well , we 'll see how many Muslims are living in Sweden in another 10 years . Obviously the turn to identity politics starts before the Cold War . But after the Cold War ends , there 's a sharp uptick on religious and nationalist grounds . How does that either contradict or validate your thesis in The End of History ? The last several chapters are really about identity . I talk about thymos , and I talk about megalothymia and isothymia as forces that could potentially upset this democratic end of history , because generic recognition as a human being , which is what democracies do , is not enough for people . They want special forms of recognition , and that 's where I left the book . I said nationalism and religion are not going disappear and also we may not have solved the Donald Trump `` great man '' problem . Are we making too much of Donald Trump 's election ? He won as narrowly as anybody has ever done in American history . I would say that Hillary blew the election . She really ran one of the worst possible campaigns . Is he a new force , or is he a weird emanation of old coalitional politics that have been breaking down ? I think he is both cause and effect . We were very polarized before he ever arrived on the scene . We had lots of government dysfunction . He 's not the creator of this and it 'll survive him . If Hillary Clinton had been elected , she would have had a terrible time governing , because the Republicans would probably control a good part of Congress , and like Obama in his last six years , she would n't be able to do anything . There 'd be all this back-and-forth really nasty hatred on both sides . Could it have turned out like the first Clinton presidency , with people finding a lot of common ground ? The polarization got started in the Clinton years , but it 's just so much worse now . I really doubt that that would have been an outcome from a Hillary Clinton victory . On the other hand , Trump is so intent on breaking every single norm of presidential behavior [ and ] of policy in every conceivable dimension . Some of those norms can be repaired relatively easily . But others I think will probably take a much longer time . What 's an example of a norm that 's really consequential that he 's breaking ? The one that obviously worries a lot of people , including me , the most is just his willingness to attack your own legal system and to try to delegitimize it just to save your own skin . The attacks on the press are something that 's also being copied by a lot of dictators around the world . Duterte in the Philippines or Putin [ in Russia ] or Erdogan [ in Turkey ] . They all say , look , the U.S. president hates his opposition press too . We 're just shutting it down . Those things I think are probably pretty damaging and lasting . Other things ? I 'm actually kind of worried that , because he 's such a norm violator , if the Democrats come into power , the pendulum is going to swing in completely the opposite direction , and they will put into formal law these norms that had [ prior to Trump 's election ] just been informal . You 'll end up with an excessively constrained president , and I actually think that executive power does n't work without a certain amount of executive discretion . This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity and style . For an audio version , subscribe to the ███ Podcast .

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man, an extended argument that the combination of liberal democracy and market capitalism could represent the end state for the evolution of human governance. The book was an influential, much-discussed hit, with its central idea—"the end of history"—becoming popular shorthand for the triumph of liberal democratic capitalism. In the process, Fukuyama became one of the nation's most widely recognized thinkers. Fukuyama, notably, did not argue that other, more totalitarian forms of government could never return—only that in the very long term, market capitalism would prove more durable. Yet more than a quarter-century later, with the rise of populist political campaigns and democratic unrest throughout the Western world, some have wondered whether his most well-known idea remains relevant. In Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), the director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University and fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies tackles what he sees as one of the primary driving forces behind these challenges: the rise of identity politics. In September, Fukuyama spoke with Reason's Nick Gillespie about his new book, the Donald Trump presidency, why economic gains aren't enough to hold a society together, and whether or not we've really reached the end of history. Reason: Start by giving me the elevator pitch for Identity, which you say you wouldn't have written if Donald Trump hadn't won the 2016 election. Fukuyama: My view is that the nature of global politics is shifting to an identity axis and away from the economic left-right axis of the 20th century that was defined largely by ideology. And by identity I mean these fixed characteristics that link us to certain groups, usually based on things like ethnicity, race, religion. It could be gender. Sexual orientation? Sexual orientation now in the United States and other developed countries. I think that that is not good for democracy, because these fixed characteristics are supposed to be determinative of your politics. And in a way, that's a problem in many countries like Iraq or Syria or Libya, where everyone is tied to a fixed identity group and therefore you can't have a modern political system. Your book revolves around a couple of key concepts. Can you please explain them briefly? Isothymia is the desire to be recognized as equal to other people. If you're disrespected or [treated as] invisible, you want to be recognized. In the United States context, that's the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal." And every marginalized group that says, "You don't see me as a human being," I think that's what's driving that. Megalothymia is not a universal characteristic, but it's universal to almost every political order.…You get certain individuals who are not satisfied with equal recognition. They want to be better than everyone else. For a democratic political system that's a particular problem, because you've got to somehow limit the ability of an individual like that to hurt the rest of the political system. Are you arguing in the book that certain identity groups are now taking on that role, where they're demanding to be recognized, or that their grievances be recognized, as separate and greater than other groups? The first manifestation of modern identity politics was European nationalism. And there you start with the desire of the Germans [in the 19th century] to live within their own community, because they're all scattered around Central and Eastern Europe; they don't have a single state under which they're all ruled. And then they get that state. So they just want to be recognized like other peoples, but then the isothymia evolves into megalothymia where they say, "Well, actually, we ought to dominate the Slavs and all these other people surrounding us." "Certain individuals…are not satisfied with equal recognition. They want to be better than everyone else. For a democratic political system, that's a particular problem." You have spent a lot of time studying the political philosopher Georg Hegel. How does that factor in when you talk about global identity politics? Well, the part of Hegel that's critical to this is his observation that politics is driven by the desire for recognition. He doesn't get into the world that we live in where you've got this pluralistic recognition of all these little groups. He didn't live in that kind of society. What he saw were masters and slaves. The masters wanted recognition from the slaves, but it wasn't a satisfying recognition, because you're only being recognized by a slave—somebody that's not a full human being. He saw this play out in the course of the French Revolution, where the slaves were rising up against the masters, and he said that ultimately, the only solution to this problem is universal recognition, where every human being recognizes every other human being as an equal. And that's basically the foundation for a liberal society. What I think he didn't anticipate is all of these partial recognitions or smaller group recognitions that have become so important in the way that we think about ourselves today. You write that a lot of political life is only weakly related to economic resources. What do you mean by that? I think that dignity politics is not about an absolute level of resources. It really is your standing relative to other people. People hate being less than other people, and sometimes they want to be more than that. The reason we desire a lot of material resources is not that we really just have to have that beautiful Ferrari. But it shows that I am better than you because you've only got a Tesla or whatever. But what happens when everybody can buy the car that they want? Or pretty close. I think the nature of relative status is that it's a perpetual arms race that no one can ever win. We used to have millionaires. Now we've got billionaires, we've got multi-billionaires. In the book you rely somewhat on work by Cornell economist Robert Frank, who talks a lot about "positional consumption," which is all about status. But I'm curious if that's actually an accurate reading of how most people live. Aren't most people just kind of happy to be able to live a variation of the life they want? Flashy material resources are only one axis of status competition. There's plenty of others. How your kid is doing, whether they're the captain of the football team—there's so many ways in which you can demonstrate superior status. I think this is as true in poor communities as it is in rich ones. It's really not related to an absolute level of consumption. "Distrust of government traps you in a kind of low-level equilibrium where you say, 'The government's not working. Why pay my taxes? Why give it more resources? Why give it more authority?' And then because it doesn't have resources or authority, it doesn't do a good job, and people say, 'Ah! See?'" Take the case that recently went in front of the Supreme Court about the gay couple that wanted a Christian baker to bake them a wedding cake. Was that about dignity? I think in general the gay marriage movement is dignity politics right from the get-go. Because if it were simply about resources, you could have joint property or survivorship inheritance under a civil union.…Conversely, I think the people that were opposed to it wanted to say, "We believe the traditional family should have more dignity than a gay or lesbian union." That's what the fight was about. You argue that nationalism, and also to a certain degree religious identities, in the U.S. and Europe are tied to economic anxiety. Especially among an anxious American white middle class. Is there a disconnect between talking about economics and more symbolic, identity-focused political transactions? I don't think so. My mentor, [the late political scientist] Samuel Huntington, made this observation back in Political Order in Changing Societies. He was actually extending an observation of Alexis de Tocqueville about the French Revolution. He said the most dangerous people are people that thought they were middle-class and are losing that status. They got fired from a job, they don't make as much money as their father, whatever. But the status loss is really what makes them angry—that they thought they were solidly representative of the average person in their country, and it turns out they're being dragged into an underclass. I think that's really what distinguishes the populism that you see in North America and Northern Europe from the kind of populism you see in Latin America. Because in Latin America, the populism really is driven by poor people. Exit poll data from 2016 showed that Trump lost among voters from households making less than $50,000. Hillary [Clinton] got them. So they're the poor in this context. And then he beat her among voters from households making between $50,000 and $200,000. Arguably that's the middle class, but that is an enormous range—$200,000 is a lot of money anywhere in the country. Within that range there's really different motives. If you're a factory worker that lost your job because it was outsourced to China, you may be at the bottom of that range. That's different, I think, from a pretty secure middle-class professional making $150,000. But you can still be driven by cultural fears because you don't like the nature of the new society that's emerging around you where all these different people that don't look like Americans to you are suddenly being given, in your view, advantages and so forth. You write that identity politics in America is primarily an attribute of the left. It's replaced a traditional focus on economic security and transfer of resources from the well-off to the desperately poor, a kind of class-based argument, with all of these different types of identities. What is driving that? You say in the book that this started happening in the '60s. What's interesting is that that was the tail-end for a lot of immigration. The Irish, the Italians, the Jews had either been assimilated or were about to be. But today, American Indians, Asian Americans, black Americans all have moved toward identity politics. First of all, the thing is powered by actual injustice. These are all groups that are actually marginalized in various ways, disrespected, and so they have a perfectly reasonable demand that they be treated differently. I think the process of identity group formation has its own logic, where you want to affirm not just that we're like everybody else but that we have our own characteristics and maybe, actually, we're better in some ways. To me, Black Lives Matter makes total sense. I don't see them as saying, "We are superior to you." Which left-wing identity groups are saying, "Shut up and listen to me because I should be the only one talking"? I don't think you've seen assertions of superiority in quite that fashion. But you certainly have seen assertions of cultural distinctness and then the demand that you respect those differences. That's true of both African Americans and women. "My mentor, Samuel Huntington, made this observation.…He said the most dangerous people are people that thought they were middle-class and are losing that status." Martin Luther King's demand was just to be treated like other Americans, like white Americans. But in the black power movement, there was a view that black culture is not white culture. It has its own virtues and it needs to be respected as a group identity, rather than individual black people being treated as Americans. It's even more pronounced in the feminist movement, because right from the beginning there's a train of thought that says, "Yeah. Women really are fundamentally different, and in certain respects they're better. They're not violent, they're more empathetic, they have their own ways of approaching social cooperation. It's really the men that are imposing this very aggressive, violent, patriarchal culture on the rest of society." You are not arguing that identity politics is just simply wrong. Oh, no. What you're arguing is that it's a problem when it gets to a point where it says, "Because of my group identity I should not be criticized. I should not be forced to submit to any kind of cultural norm." Where does identity politics cross a boundary? There's a couple of different boundaries. The assertion that all cultural groups are basically equal is problematic. This has been a real issue with Muslim immigrant communities in Europe. I want to be very careful because this is kind of delicate ground. It is true that there's a culture in these communities that does not treat women well. It does not treat homosexuality the way that mainstream society does. There's anti-Semitism. All of these problems are embedded in their cultural values. You can take one of two positions. You can say we live in a liberal society where our values are to respect the rights of individuals, or [you can say] we live in this kind of pluralistic, multicultural society in which all cultures are equally valuable, even if some of those cultures oppress individuals that are members. I just think in a liberal society you cannot possibly take that second position. You write that identity politics are driving political correctness and the unwillingness—particularly on college campuses but we see this throughout public discourse—to have conversations. To interrogate or even just ask an honest question about somebody's assertion of an identity is to disrespect them. What are the ways that we get out of this stultifying moment that we're in? Well, I have a very simple solution, which is we need to talk more about integrative identities and particularly national identity. In many cases, that actually means fixing the national identity. In Europe, especially in continental Europe, you have identities that are tied to ethnicity. In Germany today, a German citizen of Turkish origin who doesn't speak a word of Turkish—only German—gets up and says, "I'm a German." People will look at him a little bit strangely and say, "Well, actually, you're not a German. You're a Turk." Culturally there still is not an acceptance of a non–ethnic German as a real German. That needs to change. It's kind of a twofold thing. Immigration I think is positive. The diversity is very bracing and it stimulates a lot of creativity. But in the end, if you don't actually shape these groups to your basic underlying political values, then you're headed down a dangerous road. One of the things that you touch on in the book is the role of new media. We live in a globalized, networked world where you can find people like you anywhere. But there's also a negative potential. How are the internet and social media driving fragmentation? This whole idea of a filter bubble—that because you can search out people with identical views to your own and you can shut out, deliberately, other people's voices—it tends to amplify the [worrying] kind of group-oriented beliefs. And because the internet is so expansive, you can find the six people among the 6 billion out there in the world that actually believe the crazy things that you believe. But I think the underlying drivers started well before the internet and social media got going. Part of what drives identity politics is a sense that "the government doesn't care about people like me." There's a whole game theory background to this, where trust can arise in an iterated game, where you're constantly playing against the same people, and then certain people screw you so you stop cooperating with them, but other people are honest so you do cooperate with them, and so you develop a norm of trust spontaneously. And I think that could happen with the government as well. Part of the reason I think there was such a high level of trust in the U.S. government in the early 1950s is they had gotten the United States out of the Depression; we won World War II; and you had these big public works projects like the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate bridge or the Interstate Highway project. Do you think the government might actually do what is needed to encourage trust and confidence—maybe not in its efficacy, but at least that people are acting in good faith? Well, I think you'd need a different administration. [Trump] personally, I think, does everything he can to decrease trust in himself except for his core supporters. It's hard for the federal government to do this. I think you could have that buildup of trust at lower levels of government, because there are a lot of municipal governments that do actually work pretty effectively, and so you might get some bottom-up movement in that respect. "Immigration I think is positive.…But in the end, if you don't actually shape these groups to your basic underlying political values, then you're headed down a dangerous road." Bill Clinton famously declared the end of the era of big government, but big government is kind of like General Motors. It'll never be the pace setter that it once was, but it'll continue on. Or is it more like Sears, where it just disappears because it can't reform itself? You know, if you look around the world, there are other rich democracies that work pretty well. People trust their government. Canada, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, most of Scandinavia. These have governments that are very big. They do a lot of stuff. But they're seen as doing it well. I would like to think that libertarians won the argument that government is ineffective and bad most of the time. I write a lot about how that erosion of social trust, ironically, leads to calls for more government, because people in low-trust countries want more regulation of every aspect of their lives. The distrust of government traps you in a kind of low-level equilibrium where you say, "The government's not working. Why pay my taxes? Why give it more resources? Why give it more authority?" And then because it doesn't have resources or authority, it doesn't do a good job, and people say, "Ah! See?" But we are also at the end of the Bismarckian welfare state. It's just unsustainable from an economic point of view, unless you restrict immigration. A lot of European countries, their welfare states are going to survive. Well, we'll see how many Muslims are living in Sweden in another 10 years. Obviously the turn to identity politics starts before the Cold War. But after the Cold War ends, there's a sharp uptick on religious and nationalist grounds. How does that either contradict or validate your thesis in The End of History? The last several chapters are really about identity. I talk about thymos, and I talk about megalothymia and isothymia as forces that could potentially upset this democratic end of history, because generic recognition as a human being, which is what democracies do, is not enough for people. They want special forms of recognition, and that's where I left the book. I said nationalism and religion are not going disappear and also we may not have solved the Donald Trump "great man" problem. Are we making too much of Donald Trump's election? He won as narrowly as anybody has ever done in American history. I would say that Hillary blew the election. She really ran one of the worst possible campaigns. Is he a new force, or is he a weird emanation of old coalitional politics that have been breaking down? I think he is both cause and effect. We were very polarized before he ever arrived on the scene. We had lots of government dysfunction. He's not the creator of this and it'll survive him. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, she would have had a terrible time governing, because the Republicans would probably control a good part of Congress, and like Obama in his last six years, she wouldn't be able to do anything. There'd be all this back-and-forth really nasty hatred on both sides. Could it have turned out like the first Clinton presidency, with people finding a lot of common ground? The polarization got started in the Clinton years, but it's just so much worse now. I really doubt that that would have been an outcome from a Hillary Clinton victory. On the other hand, Trump is so intent on breaking every single norm of presidential behavior [and] of policy in every conceivable dimension. Some of those norms can be repaired relatively easily. But others I think will probably take a much longer time. What's an example of a norm that's really consequential that he's breaking? The one that obviously worries a lot of people, including me, the most is just his willingness to attack your own legal system and to try to delegitimize it just to save your own skin. The attacks on the press are something that's also being copied by a lot of dictators around the world. Duterte in the Philippines or Putin [in Russia] or Erdogan [in Turkey]. They all say, look, the U.S. president hates his opposition press too. We're just shutting it down. Those things I think are probably pretty damaging and lasting. Other things? I'm actually kind of worried that, because he's such a norm violator, if the Democrats come into power, the pendulum is going to swing in completely the opposite direction, and they will put into formal law these norms that had [prior to Trump's election] just been informal. You'll end up with an excessively constrained president, and I actually think that executive power doesn't work without a certain amount of executive discretion. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity and style. For an audio version, subscribe to the Reason Podcast.

www.reason.com

right

Lzt9siSQo0AFcX5G

test

vLeEz2BjRhTxcri0

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/constantly-shifting-majority-supports-clean-govt-funding-house/story?id=20507266

Constantly Shifting Majority Supports 'Clean' Govt. Funding in House

Shushannah Walshe, Alex Lazar

Update : Get ███ ' latest count and reporting on support for a `` clean '' government funding measure HERE . Speaker John Boehner continues to insist , as he told told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos on `` This Week '' Sunday , that `` there are not the votes in the House to pass a clean CR , '' meaning he does not believe a majority of House members would support continued funding for the government without conditions attached . It looks like he might be wrong , but just barely . By ███ ' count , 218 members say they would support a `` clean '' measure to extend all government funding without other conditions attached , such as defunding or delaying the president 's health care law ; 217 is the threshold needed to pass the measure . The president today again urged Boehner to bring the vote to the floor and `` see what happens . '' `` There 's one simple way of doing it , and that is Congress going in and voting , '' President Obama said at a news conference this afternoon . `` And the fact that right now there are votes , I believe , to go ahead and take this drama off the table should at least be tested . Speaker Boehner keeps on saying he does n't have the votes for it , and what I 've said is , put it on the floor . See what happens . '' On Saturday , 195 Democrats signed a letter to Boehner that said , `` Enough is enough . … We demand a vote on a clean continuing resolution immediately so that government functioning can resume and Americans can move on with their lives . '' Aides to the five other House Democrats -- Reps. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina , Jim Matheson of Utah , Jim Cooper of Tennessee , Ron Kind of Wisconsin and John Barrow of Georgia -- told ███ Monday that they would vote for a clean `` continuing resolution , '' or CR . GOP Demands Talks With Democrats but Do n't Call It a Supercommittee Cooper and Kind wrote their own letter to Boehner Monday calling the government shutdown a `` real tragedy for America . '' `` We support a clean CR , '' Kind and Cooper wrote . `` There is more than enough bipartisan support in the House to pass a clean CR and reopen the government . … Democrats and Republicans are supposed to compromise and work together for the good of the country . '' According to ███ ' count , there are 18 Republicans who have publicly said they would support a `` clean '' CR if it were brought to the floor . Aides to 13 GOP members have told ███ their members of Congress would support a `` clean '' CR . They are : Reps. Mike Coffman of Colorado ; Michael Grimm of New York ; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania ; Peter King of New York ; Tim Griffin of Arkansas ; Frank Wolf of Virginia ; Rob Wittman of Virginia ; Scott Rigell of Virginia ; Bill Young of Florida ; Jon Runyan of New Jersey ; Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey ; Dennis Ross of Florida , and David Reichert of Washington . Five other GOP members -- Reps. Devin Nunes , R-Calif. , Lou Barletta , R-Pa. , Mike Simpson , R-Idaho , Leonard Lance , R-N.J. , and Randy Forbes , R-Va. -- had previously been on record in support of a clean CR , but said Monday and Tuesday either their previous positions were misconstrued or they had changed their minds . Two of the most recent changes essentially swapped one Republican for another . Barletta 's press secretary Tim Murtaugh told ███ Monday the congressman would support a `` clean '' CR `` should it come up , '' but Murtaugh today said Barletta had changed his mind . `` While he once expressed openness to a no-strings-attached CR , a growing number of Democrats have emerged who will support a repeal of Obamacare 's medical device tax , '' Murtaugh said in an email to ███ . `` That would open the government , and also get rid of a job-killing , cost-raising funding source of Obamacare . `` Sometimes being in Congress means pursuing the art of the possible . This would be a CR that can pass the House and Senate . '' Today , Rep. Coffman ( who 's listed in the group of 13 above ) , announced his support for a `` clean '' CR in an op-ed in the Denver Post and in a statement . `` The debate over attaching Obamacare to a spending bill must end and I will argue before my colleagues in the House that we need to pass a 'clean ' spending bill to immediately reopen the government , '' Coffman , who had not previously weighed in , wrote . Another recent addition is Rep. Reichert ( also listed above in the 13 ) , who said in a statement Monday , `` As your Representative , please know that I will continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open . '' Although Reichert did not say it explicitly , an aide told ███ that `` he will continue to support legislation that opens the government . '' Republicans Lose Ground vs. Obama in the Shutdown Blame Game Who are the other Republicans who say they support a `` clean '' CR ? Rep. Patrick Meehan , R-Pa. , said in a statement Oct. 1 he `` believe ( s ) it 's time for the House to vote for a clean , short-term funding bill to bring the Senate to the table and negotiate a responsible compromise . '' Aides to four other Republicans did not return a request for comment , but have publicly said they would support the legislation : Rep. Erik Paulsen , R-Minn. told local NBC station KARE 11 that if he `` had an opportunity just to vote to fully fund the government , I would do that . '' Rep. Charlie Dent , R-Pa. , told the Huffington Post , `` I 'm prepared to vote for a clean CR . '' Rep. Richard Hanna , R-N.Y. , told the Observer-Dispatch that he `` would take a clean [ continuing resolution ] . '' Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick , R-Pa. , told the Philadelphia Inquirer he would back a `` clean '' spending bill at current funding levels . `` Americans want their government to remain open and want to see public officials resolve our differences to put our country back on the right track , '' Fitzpatrick said in a statement to the newspaper . This story has been updated to add Rep. Walter Jones , R-NC to the list of members of congress who support a `` clean '' CR .

Update: Get ABC News' latest count and reporting on support for a "clean" government funding measure HERE. Speaker John Boehner continues to insist, as he told told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" Sunday, that "there are not the votes in the House to pass a clean CR," meaning he does not believe a majority of House members would support continued funding for the government without conditions attached. It looks like he might be wrong, but just barely. By ABC News' count, 218 members say they would support a "clean" measure to extend all government funding without other conditions attached, such as defunding or delaying the president's health care law; 217 is the threshold needed to pass the measure. The president today again urged Boehner to bring the vote to the floor and "see what happens." "There's one simple way of doing it, and that is Congress going in and voting," President Obama said at a news conference this afternoon. "And the fact that right now there are votes, I believe, to go ahead and take this drama off the table should at least be tested. Speaker Boehner keeps on saying he doesn't have the votes for it, and what I've said is, put it on the floor. See what happens." How did we get to that number? On Saturday, 195 Democrats signed a letter to Boehner that said, "Enough is enough. … We demand a vote on a clean continuing resolution immediately so that government functioning can resume and Americans can move on with their lives." Aides to the five other House Democrats -- Reps. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Jim Matheson of Utah, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Ron Kind of Wisconsin and John Barrow of Georgia -- told ABC News Monday that they would vote for a clean "continuing resolution," or CR. That makes 200 Democratic votes for a clean CR. GOP Demands Talks With Democrats but Don't Call It a Supercommittee Cooper and Kind wrote their own letter to Boehner Monday calling the government shutdown a "real tragedy for America." "We support a clean CR," Kind and Cooper wrote. "There is more than enough bipartisan support in the House to pass a clean CR and reopen the government. … Democrats and Republicans are supposed to compromise and work together for the good of the country." According to ABC News' count, there are 18 Republicans who have publicly said they would support a "clean" CR if it were brought to the floor. Aides to 13 GOP members have told ABC News their members of Congress would support a "clean" CR. They are: Reps. Mike Coffman of Colorado; Michael Grimm of New York; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; Peter King of New York; Tim Griffin of Arkansas; Frank Wolf of Virginia; Rob Wittman of Virginia; Scott Rigell of Virginia; Bill Young of Florida; Jon Runyan of New Jersey; Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey; Dennis Ross of Florida, and David Reichert of Washington. Five other GOP members -- Reps. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., Lou Barletta, R-Pa., Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, Leonard Lance, R-N.J., and Randy Forbes, R-Va. -- had previously been on record in support of a clean CR, but said Monday and Tuesday either their previous positions were misconstrued or they had changed their minds. Why does this number keep changing? Two of the most recent changes essentially swapped one Republican for another. Barletta's press secretary Tim Murtaugh told ABC News Monday the congressman would support a "clean" CR "should it come up," but Murtaugh today said Barletta had changed his mind. "While he once expressed openness to a no-strings-attached CR, a growing number of Democrats have emerged who will support a repeal of Obamacare's medical device tax," Murtaugh said in an email to ABC News. "That would open the government, and also get rid of a job-killing, cost-raising funding source of Obamacare. "Sometimes being in Congress means pursuing the art of the possible. This would be a CR that can pass the House and Senate." Today, Rep. Coffman (who's listed in the group of 13 above), announced his support for a "clean" CR in an op-ed in the Denver Post and in a statement. "The debate over attaching Obamacare to a spending bill must end and I will argue before my colleagues in the House that we need to pass a 'clean' spending bill to immediately reopen the government," Coffman, who had not previously weighed in, wrote. Another recent addition is Rep. Reichert (also listed above in the 13), who said in a statement Monday, "As your Representative, please know that I will continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open." Although Reichert did not say it explicitly, an aide told ABC News that "he will continue to support legislation that opens the government." Republicans Lose Ground vs. Obama in the Shutdown Blame Game Who are the other Republicans who say they support a "clean" CR? Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., said in a statement Oct. 1 he "believe(s) it's time for the House to vote for a clean, short-term funding bill to bring the Senate to the table and negotiate a responsible compromise." Aides to four other Republicans did not return a request for comment, but have publicly said they would support the legislation: Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minn. told local NBC station KARE 11 that if he "had an opportunity just to vote to fully fund the government, I would do that." Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., told the Huffington Post, "I'm prepared to vote for a clean CR." Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., told the Observer-Dispatch that he "would take a clean [continuing resolution]." Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., told the Philadelphia Inquirer he would back a "clean" spending bill at current funding levels. "Americans want their government to remain open and want to see public officials resolve our differences to put our country back on the right track," Fitzpatrick said in a statement to the newspaper. ABC News Abby Phillip, John Parkinson and Rick Klein contributed to this report. This story has been updated to add Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC to the list of members of congress who support a "clean" CR.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

vLeEz2BjRhTxcri0

test

WLKtuVsQeoZL26ck

cybersecurity

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/14/burisma-russia-donald-trump/

A Cybersecurity Firm Responsible For A Report On Russia Hacking Burisma Has Ties To The 2016 DNC Hacks

2020-01-14

The cybersecurity firm responsible for a report Monday suggesting Russia hacked into Burisma Holdings is representing half of the 2020 presidential candidates . Area 1 ’ s co-founder previously worked with CrowdStrike , a group responsible for not preventing hackers from gaining access to Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) emails in 2016 . Another one of the group ’ s co-founders donated money to Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s presidential campaign months before the Federal Election Commission allowed Area 1 to represent the candidates . The co-founder of a security firm behind reports suggesting Russia is targeting the company that employed Hunter Biden previously worked with a group at the center of Democratic National Committee email hacks in 2016 , according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis . Area 1 co-founder Brad Darche worked as a consultant with CrowdStrike , a group responsible for not doing more to prevent Russians from gaining access to DNC emails ahead of the 2016 election , the group ’ s website shows . Nearly half of the 2020 presidential candidates are reportedly using the group ’ s services . The group published a report Monday suggesting Russian hackers wormed their way inside Ukrainian energy company Burisma in November . Burisma employed Biden between 2014 and 2019 . Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son ’ s work with Burisma has thrust the Democrat into the heart of an impeachment trial targeting President Donald Trump . Area 1 ’ s report noted that the hack happened while Trump was facing withering scrutiny over allegations that he withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country ’ s president into opening an investigation into Hunter Biden . ( RELATED : Russians Hacked Burisma : Report ) Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts provided $ 1,300 to the firm in 2019 ostensibly for security purposes , according to a Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) filing in December . The FEC reportedly allowed the firm to provide services for the campaigns if it charges the campaigns the same price . Area 1 CEO Oren Falkowitz , a former National Security Agency hacker , for his part , donated $ 1,300 to Warren ’ s campaign in July 2019 , federal data show . He gave the same amount in September of that year to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker , a Democrat who ended his presidential campaign Monday . Falkowitz ’ s group suggested Russian hackers broke into Burisma using phishing emails , which is the same method Russia ’ s GRU used to hack into the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign chairman , John Podesta , in 2016 . The New York Times first reported on Area 1 ’ s published data Monday but did not mention Area 1 ’ s work with Warren ’ s campaign . Joe Biden ’ s campaign , for its part , said in a statement that Area 1 ’ s report is par for the course in the age of Russian meddling . “ Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan , international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can ’ t beat the vice president , ” Andrew Bates , a spokesman for the Biden campaign , told The NYT in a statement . “ You can see this attack really is starting to parallel with what we saw in 2016 , ” Falkowitz told Reuters . Area 1 provided scarce details about how it determined that the hackers ’ work was connected to the GRU , Reuters reported . Cyber experts questioned Area 1 ’ s methods after the group suggested in 2018 that China hacked European diplomatic communications , Politico noted in its report on the alleged Russian hacks . Some experts reportedly said the firm demonstrated “ a major ethical lapse ” when it shared diplomatic documents with reporters . Darche , Area 1 ’ s co-founder , said , “ We are 100 % certain ” that the GRU was behind the hacking . He told Reuters that unpublished data Area 1 collected linked the operation to a person in Moscow , whose identity is not known . Neither the Russian Embassy in Washington nor Burisma responded to the DCNF ’ s requests for comment . Area 1 has also not returned a request for comment about Falkowitz ’ s past contributions .

The cybersecurity firm responsible for a report Monday suggesting Russia hacked into Burisma Holdings is representing half of the 2020 presidential candidates. Area 1’s co-founder previously worked with CrowdStrike, a group responsible for not preventing hackers from gaining access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016. Another one of the group’s co-founders donated money to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign months before the Federal Election Commission allowed Area 1 to represent the candidates. The co-founder of a security firm behind reports suggesting Russia is targeting the company that employed Hunter Biden previously worked with a group at the center of Democratic National Committee email hacks in 2016, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis. Area 1 co-founder Brad Darche worked as a consultant with CrowdStrike, a group responsible for not doing more to prevent Russians from gaining access to DNC emails ahead of the 2016 election, the group’s website shows. Nearly half of the 2020 presidential candidates are reportedly using the group’s services. The group published a report Monday suggesting Russian hackers wormed their way inside Ukrainian energy company Burisma in November. Burisma employed Biden between 2014 and 2019. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s son’s work with Burisma has thrust the Democrat into the heart of an impeachment trial targeting President Donald Trump. Area 1’s report noted that the hack happened while Trump was facing withering scrutiny over allegations that he withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country’s president into opening an investigation into Hunter Biden. (RELATED: Russians Hacked Burisma: Report) Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts provided $1,300 to the firm in 2019 ostensibly for security purposes, according to a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing in December. The FEC reportedly allowed the firm to provide services for the campaigns if it charges the campaigns the same price. Area 1 CEO Oren Falkowitz, a former National Security Agency hacker, for his part, donated $1,300 to Warren’s campaign in July 2019, federal data show. He gave the same amount in September of that year to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat who ended his presidential campaign Monday. Falkowitz’s group suggested Russian hackers broke into Burisma using phishing emails, which is the same method Russia’s GRU used to hack into the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, in 2016. The New York Times first reported on Area 1’s published data Monday but did not mention Area 1’s work with Warren’s campaign. Joe Biden’s campaign, for its part, said in a statement that Area 1’s report is par for the course in the age of Russian meddling. “Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan, international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can’t beat the vice president,” Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, told The NYT in a statement. “You can see this attack really is starting to parallel with what we saw in 2016,” Falkowitz told Reuters. Area 1 provided scarce details about how it determined that the hackers’ work was connected to the GRU, Reuters reported. Cyber experts questioned Area 1’s methods after the group suggested in 2018 that China hacked European diplomatic communications, Politico noted in its report on the alleged Russian hacks. Some experts reportedly said the firm demonstrated “a major ethical lapse” when it shared diplomatic documents with reporters. Darche, Area 1’s co-founder, said, “We are 100% certain” that the GRU was behind the hacking. He told Reuters that unpublished data Area 1 collected linked the operation to a person in Moscow, whose identity is not known. Neither the Russian Embassy in Washington nor Burisma responded to the DCNF’s requests for comment. Area 1 has also not returned a request for comment about Falkowitz’s past contributions. 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

WLKtuVsQeoZL26ck

test

0XRTf70E1LCwlcrU

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/20/the_radical_mlk_we_need_today/

The radical MLK we need today

2014-01-20

Joan Walsh

When Nelson Mandela died last month , I envied South Africans who had worked alongside him for freedom : Americans haven ’ t gotten to see many of our icons of justice get that old . My immediate thought was of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , assassinated at 39 , though Bobby and John Kennedy , Malcolm X and Medgar Evers , quickly followed . But the inescapable image was King . Even if the freedom struggle of the 1960s didn ’ t end up letting King grow old like Mandela , let alone lead his country as president , it was hard not to compare the two , especially since Mandela so often declared his debt to his younger American ally . King and Mandela had much in common , but one thing stands out this week : As they were lionized globally , both were deradicalized , pasteurized and homogenized , made safe for mass consumption . Each was in favor of a radical redistribution of global wealth . Each crusaded against poverty and inequality and war . Both did it with an equanimity and ebullience and capacity to forgive and love their enemies that made it easy to canonize them in a secular way . White people love being given the benefit of the doubt and/or being forgiven . I speak from experience . But now , as the country turns again to issues of income inequality and poverty , and economic populism is said to be having a “ moment , ” maybe it ’ s time to remember Dr. King , the radical . The one who died trying to ignite a Poor People ’ s Movement that he saw as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement . The one who tried to branch out to fight poverty and war , but at least in his lifetime – and so far in ours – did n't succeed . I loved pretty much everything about the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington last year , except how the right got it so wrong . It seemed to be the beginning of a movement to reclaim the real MLK , especially among liberals . King was of course celebrated hugely , but so were lefty heroes who never get enough credit , like Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph . There were stories about “ The Socialists Behind the March on Washington , ” as well as about the media ’ s and the Kennedy administration ’ s wrongheaded fears of violence . Coming off of that gorgeous 50th anniversary celebration , though , where we remembered the triumph of King the strategist and organizer , let ’ s remember the King who tried and , by common measures , failed . Was n't feted , wasn ’ t lionized . King was always a radical , but at the end of his life , he was something of an outcast , criticized by liberals , the left and the right . Forget about the right , for now : King crossed some Democrats and labor leaders when he turned against the Vietnam War in 1967 , after his unparalleled Riverside Church speech . He knew the war was not only wrong , but was making Johnson 's alleged `` War on Poverty '' fiscally impossible . Meanwhile a growing black power movement mocked King 's commitment to nonviolence and integration . Even some close allies in the civil rights movement blanched when he joined Marion Wright Edelman and other organizers to start a Poor People ’ s Campaign later that year – a movement of black , white , Latino , American Indian and Asian people mired in poverty , to fight the war and get the help they deserved . They were to march on Washington and set up a camp there in April 1968 , the month King was assassinated . Harry Belafonte tells a story in his amazing memoir , “ My Song , ” about King being challenged by his SCLC deputies on his accelerating radicalism generally , and the Poor People ’ s Campaign specifically , just a week before he died . Describing King as a “ socialist and revolutionary thinker , ” Belafonte says he clashed with close ally and future Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador Andrew Young , over not only the Poor People ’ s Campaign , but King ’ s thoroughgoing critique of capitalism . Belafonte quotes King telling the group , gathered at the singer/actor/activist ’ s New York apartment : “ What deeply troubles me now is that for all the steps we ’ ve taken toward integration , I ’ ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house . ” When Belafonte asks what that means they should do , an exhausted King tells him : “ I guess we ’ re just going to have to become firemen . ” Assassinated a week later , King wouldn ’ t get to lead the Poor People ’ s Campaign . But almost 50 years later , most of us who think the way he did are still firemen in a burning house , constantly fighting the fires set by radical Republicans to make life worse for the people King cared most about , never getting around to building the sturdy , welcoming , capacious , fire-resistant dwelling that lives in our political imagination . King would be proud of our accomplishments , and also a little bit sad for us . Or maybe I 'm just projecting . Some of King ’ s closest living allies have been trying hard to right the reverend 's record . “ There have been and continue to be efforts to ‘ neuter ’ or ‘ de-radicalize ’ the Dr. King who delivered his ' I Have a Dream ' speech in August , 1963 , ” says his longtime lawyer and speechwriter Clarence B. Jones . Though the dream speech , which Jones helped write , was itself radical , he sees King ’ s April 1967 “ Beyond Vietnam : Time to Break the Silence ” speech at Riverside Church as “ the ideological turning point for King . ” Harry Belafonte likewise thinks much of American political culture “ is guilty of dealing with Dr. King ’ s life and story in grievously superficial ways . What gave us all strength to do what we did was his radical thinking. ” Acknowledging that King ’ s turn against the war and toward cross-racial , anti-poverty organizing was “ controversial ” among his closest colleagues , Belafonte notes : “ It was controversial , but controversy wasn ’ t something he shunned ; controversy became the system through which disagreement and debate could be heard . He was comfortable with that . He welcomed it . That aspect of his history is never really discussed . `` The vested interests don ’ t want us speaking of Dr. King in radical terms , '' Belafonte continues . `` The great tragedy and irony of it all is that the public hungers for voices that are driven more by these moral concerns . ” I ’ ve never waded into the debates over whether King was a “ socialist , ” though Belafonte and another close ally Julian Bond say he was ( to the chagrin of Glenn Beck , who of course tried to hijack the March on Washington anniversary a few years back ) . Socialism has been such a stigmatized and divisive and practically irrelevant notion in my lifetime ( even though I worked for a socialist newspaper ! ) that I 've never needed to claim King for its roster . But whatever we call King 's point of view , stripping him of his very obvious economic radicalism distorts not only his history but all of ours . And as a younger generation shows more curiosity about political solutions that aren ’ t on the agenda , it may limit King ’ s appeal , too . A 2011 Pew poll found 49 percent of Americans 18 to 29 say they have a positive view of socialism vs. 43 percent with a negative view . Capitalism is underwater among that age group , with 46 percent positive and 47 percent negative . And here 's one of King 's most famous , resonant quotes about capitalism , from his August 1967 speech : `` Where Do We Go From Here ? '' ( I like this version , because it 's punctuated by his SCLC audience 's replies ) : I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion , as we talk about `` Where do we go from here ? '' that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society . ( Yes ) There are forty million poor people here , and one day we must ask the question , `` Why are there forty million poor people in America ? '' And when you begin to ask that question , you are raising a question about the economic system , about a broader distribution of wealth . When you ask that question , you begin to question the capitalistic economy . ( Yes ) And I 'm simply saying that more and more , we 've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society . We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life 's marketplace . ( Yes ) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring . ( All right ) It means that questions must be raised . And you see , my friends , when you deal with this you begin to ask the question , `` Who owns the oil ? '' ( Yes ) You begin to ask the question , `` Who owns the iron ore ? '' ( Yes ) You begin to ask the question , `` Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that 's two-thirds water ? '' ( All right ) These are words that must be said . ( All right ) Now , do n't think you have me in a bind today . I 'm not talking about communism . What I 'm talking about is far beyond communism . ( Yeah ) My inspiration did n't come from Karl Marx ( Speak ) ; my inspiration did n't come from Engels ; my inspiration did n't come from Trotsky ; my inspiration did n't come from Lenin . Yes , I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago ( Well ) , and I saw that maybe Marx did n't follow Hegel enough . ( All right ) He took his dialectics , but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism . And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach , and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called `` dialectical materialism . '' ( Speak ) I have to reject that . What I 'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual . ( Yes ) Capitalism forgets that life is social . ( Yes , Go ahead ) And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism , but in a higher synthesis . ( Speak ) [ applause ] It is found in a higher synthesis ( Come on ) that combines the truths of both . ( Yes ) Now , when I say questioning the whole society , it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism , the problem of economic exploitation , and the problem of war are all tied together . ( All right ) These are the triple evils that are interrelated . Labels don ’ t matter , but solutions do . Rather than remembering King solely as a civil rights leader , we must reclaim him as a radical advocate of economic justice , looking to lead a multiracial movement of poor people to complete the unfinished business of the civil rights movement . As King put it plainly , “ What good does it do to be able to eat at a lunch counter if you can ’ t buy a hamburger ? ” Post-integration , too many black people couldn ’ t sit down at integrated lunch counters and buy a hamburger ; 50 years later , too many people of every race have the same problem . We are ready for the radical King now . President Obama , perhaps belatedly , has declared income inequality `` the defining issue of our time . '' Even poverty seems back on the agenda . The man who may be doing the most to advance these issues right now is n't a politician or a rabble rouser ; it 's Pope Francis , who 's been hailed by everyone from Obama to Paul Ryan ( Ryan gets him wrong ) as helping us make the issue of poverty central to our politics . `` If Dr. King were alive today , he would be in Rome visiting Pope Francis holding a joint press conference to summoning the world to aid the poor eradicate poverty , '' Clarence Jones says . The president promises he 's going to the Vatican to meet the new pope , and that 's a start . For now , though , all these years later , King 's allies and inheritors are still fighting fires in a burning house . It 's time to rebuild the house with room for everyone , and keep it safer from the fiery danger of injustice .

When Nelson Mandela died last month, I envied South Africans who had worked alongside him for freedom: Americans haven’t gotten to see many of our icons of justice get that old. My immediate thought was of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., assassinated at 39, though Bobby and John Kennedy, Malcolm X and Medgar Evers, quickly followed. But the inescapable image was King. Even if the freedom struggle of the 1960s didn’t end up letting King grow old like Mandela, let alone lead his country as president, it was hard not to compare the two, especially since Mandela so often declared his debt to his younger American ally. Advertisement: King and Mandela had much in common, but one thing stands out this week: As they were lionized globally, both were deradicalized, pasteurized and homogenized, made safe for mass consumption. Each was in favor of a radical redistribution of global wealth. Each crusaded against poverty and inequality and war. Both did it with an equanimity and ebullience and capacity to forgive and love their enemies that made it easy to canonize them in a secular way. White people love being given the benefit of the doubt and/or being forgiven. I speak from experience. But now, as the country turns again to issues of income inequality and poverty, and economic populism is said to be having a “moment,” maybe it’s time to remember Dr. King, the radical. The one who died trying to ignite a Poor People’s Movement that he saw as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. The one who tried to branch out to fight poverty and war, but at least in his lifetime – and so far in ours – didn't succeed. * * * Advertisement: I loved pretty much everything about the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington last year, except how the right got it so wrong. It seemed to be the beginning of a movement to reclaim the real MLK, especially among liberals. King was of course celebrated hugely, but so were lefty heroes who never get enough credit, like Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph. There were stories about “The Socialists Behind the March on Washington,” as well as about the media’s and the Kennedy administration’s wrongheaded fears of violence. Coming off of that gorgeous 50th anniversary celebration, though, where we remembered the triumph of King the strategist and organizer, let’s remember the King who tried and, by common measures, failed. Wasn't feted, wasn’t lionized. King was always a radical, but at the end of his life, he was something of an outcast, criticized by liberals, the left and the right. Forget about the right, for now: King crossed some Democrats and labor leaders when he turned against the Vietnam War in 1967, after his unparalleled Riverside Church speech. He knew the war was not only wrong, but was making Johnson's alleged "War on Poverty" fiscally impossible. Meanwhile a growing black power movement mocked King's commitment to nonviolence and integration. Even some close allies in the civil rights movement blanched when he joined Marion Wright Edelman and other organizers to start a Poor People’s Campaign later that year – a movement of black, white, Latino, American Indian and Asian people mired in poverty, to fight the war and get the help they deserved. They were to march on Washington and set up a camp there in April 1968, the month King was assassinated. Advertisement: Harry Belafonte tells a story in his amazing memoir, “My Song,” about King being challenged by his SCLC deputies on his accelerating radicalism generally, and the Poor People’s Campaign specifically, just a week before he died. Describing King as a “socialist and revolutionary thinker,” Belafonte says he clashed with close ally and future Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador Andrew Young, over not only the Poor People’s Campaign, but King’s thoroughgoing critique of capitalism. Belafonte quotes King telling the group, gathered at the singer/actor/activist’s New York apartment: “What deeply troubles me now is that for all the steps we’ve taken toward integration, I’ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house.” When Belafonte asks what that means they should do, an exhausted King tells him: “I guess we’re just going to have to become firemen.” Advertisement: Assassinated a week later, King wouldn’t get to lead the Poor People’s Campaign. But almost 50 years later, most of us who think the way he did are still firemen in a burning house, constantly fighting the fires set by radical Republicans to make life worse for the people King cared most about, never getting around to building the sturdy, welcoming, capacious, fire-resistant dwelling that lives in our political imagination. King would be proud of our accomplishments, and also a little bit sad for us. Or maybe I'm just projecting. * * * Some of King’s closest living allies have been trying hard to right the reverend's record. “There have been and continue to be efforts to ‘neuter’ or ‘de-radicalize’ the Dr. King who delivered his 'I Have a Dream' speech in August, 1963,” says his longtime lawyer and speechwriter Clarence B. Jones. Though the dream speech, which Jones helped write, was itself radical, he sees King’s April 1967 “Beyond Vietnam: Time to Break the Silence” speech at Riverside Church as “the ideological turning point for King.” Advertisement: Harry Belafonte likewise thinks much of American political culture “is guilty of dealing with Dr. King’s life and story in grievously superficial ways. What gave us all strength to do what we did was his radical thinking.” Acknowledging that King’s turn against the war and toward cross-racial, anti-poverty organizing was “controversial” among his closest colleagues, Belafonte notes: “It was controversial, but controversy wasn’t something he shunned; controversy became the system through which disagreement and debate could be heard. He was comfortable with that. He welcomed it. That aspect of his history is never really discussed. "The vested interests don’t want us speaking of Dr. King in radical terms," Belafonte continues. "The great tragedy and irony of it all is that the public hungers for voices that are driven more by these moral concerns.” I’ve never waded into the debates over whether King was a “socialist,” though Belafonte and another close ally Julian Bond say he was (to the chagrin of Glenn Beck, who of course tried to hijack the March on Washington anniversary a few years back). Socialism has been such a stigmatized and divisive and practically irrelevant notion in my lifetime (even though I worked for a socialist newspaper!) that I've never needed to claim King for its roster. But whatever we call King's point of view, stripping him of his very obvious economic radicalism distorts not only his history but all of ours. Advertisement: And as a younger generation shows more curiosity about political solutions that aren’t on the agenda, it may limit King’s appeal, too. A 2011 Pew poll found 49 percent of Americans 18 to 29 say they have a positive view of socialism vs. 43 percent with a negative view. Capitalism is underwater among that age group, with 46 percent positive and 47 percent negative. And here's one of King's most famous, resonant quotes about capitalism, from his August 1967 speech: "Where Do We Go From Here?" (I like this version, because it's punctuated by his SCLC audience's replies): I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. (Yes) There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. (Yes) And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. (All right) It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" (All right) These are words that must be said. (All right) Now, don't think you have me in a bind today. I'm not talking about communism. What I'm talking about is far beyond communism. (Yeah) My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx (Speak); my inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin. Yes, I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago (Well), and I saw that maybe Marx didn't follow Hegel enough. (All right) He took his dialectics, but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism. And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach, and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called "dialectical materialism." (Speak) I have to reject that. What I'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. (Yes) Capitalism forgets that life is social. (Yes, Go ahead) And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. (Speak) [applause] It is found in a higher synthesis (Come on) that combines the truths of both. (Yes) Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. (All right) These are the triple evils that are interrelated. Labels don’t matter, but solutions do. Rather than remembering King solely as a civil rights leader, we must reclaim him as a radical advocate of economic justice, looking to lead a multiracial movement of poor people to complete the unfinished business of the civil rights movement. As King put it plainly, “What good does it do to be able to eat at a lunch counter if you can’t buy a hamburger?” Post-integration, too many black people couldn’t sit down at integrated lunch counters and buy a hamburger; 50 years later, too many people of every race have the same problem. We are ready for the radical King now. President Obama, perhaps belatedly, has declared income inequality "the defining issue of our time." Even poverty seems back on the agenda. The man who may be doing the most to advance these issues right now isn't a politician or a rabble rouser; it's Pope Francis, who's been hailed by everyone from Obama to Paul Ryan (Ryan gets him wrong) as helping us make the issue of poverty central to our politics. "If Dr. King were alive today, he would be in Rome visiting Pope Francis holding a joint press conference to summoning the world to aid the poor eradicate poverty," Clarence Jones says. The president promises he's going to the Vatican to meet the new pope, and that's a start. For now, though, all these years later, King's allies and inheritors are still fighting fires in a burning house. It's time to rebuild the house with room for everyone, and keep it safer from the fiery danger of injustice.

www.salon.com

left

0XRTf70E1LCwlcrU

test

fpclq8cHXGH0iMH7

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/05/controlled_by_shadow_government_mike_lofgren_reveals_how_top_u_s_officials_are_at_the_mercy_of_the_deep_state/

Controlled by shadow government: Mike Lofgren reveals how top U.S. officials are at the mercy of the ?deep state?

2016-01-05

Elias Isquith

One of the predominant themes of the 2016 presidential campaign thus far — and one that is unlikely to lose significance once the primaries give way to the general election — is the American people 's exasperation with a political system they see as corrupt , self-serving , disingenuous and out of touch . It is not an especially partisan or ideological sentiment ; you can just as easily find it among supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders as among fans of Donald Trump . You can even find those who support paragons of the status quo , like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush , making similar complaints . It 's about as close to a consensus position as you 're likely to find nowadays in American politics . Yet despite the widespread agreement that something is seriously wrong with democracy in the U.S. , there 's much less of a consensus as to what that something is — and , crucially , how to fix it . The answers Bernie Sanders offers , for example , are not exactly the same as those proffered by Donald Trump . Is the problem too much government ? Not enough government ? Too much immigration ? Not enough immigration ? Too much taxing and regulating ? Not enough taxing and regulating ? Our lack of a systemic analysis of the problem is part of the reason why our answers are so diffuse and ill-fitting . And that 's just one of the reasons why `` The Deep State : The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government , '' the new book from ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren , is so valuable . Lofgren puts a name and a shape to a problem that has often been only nebulously defined ; and while his conclusions are not exactly uplifting , the logic and sophistication of his argument is hard to resist . Recently , ███ spoke over the phone with Lofgren about his book , the deep state and his read on the current sorry state of American government and politics . Our conversation , which also touched on President Obama 's relationship with the deep state , was edited for clarity and length . How should we think about the deep state ? Is it an elite conspiracy ? A loosely defined social group ? A network of specific institutions ? How should we conceive of it ? Well , first of all , it is not a conspiracy . It is something that operates in broad daylight . It is not a conspiratorial cabal . These are simply people who have evolved [ into ] a kind of position . It is in their best interest to act in this way . And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places , this is what you get : a disconnected , self-serving bureaucracy that is ... simply evolving to do what it ’ s doing now . That is , to maintain and enhance its own power . When do you think the American deep state first started ? Probably , it started in WWII , when we had the Manhattan Project , which was a huge secret project that required tens of thousands of people to be working in complete secrecy — and we actually built enormous cities [ for the project 's workers ] ... and no one knew they existed . You also had the so-called Ultra and Magic secret [ operations ] , the decoding of the Nazi and Japanese codes that required an enormous number of people to be doing absolutely top secret work that they did not reveal to anybody for decades . So , WWII created this kind of infrastructure of the deep state , which increased and consolidated during the Cold War . What are the key institutions and players within the deep state ? The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are . The military-industrial complex ; the Pentagon and all their contractors ( but also , now , our entire homeland security apparatus ) ; the Department of Treasury ; the Justice Department ; certain courts , like the southern district of Manhattan , and the eastern district of Virginia ; the FISA courts . And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership , defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what ’ s going on . The rest of Congress doesn ’ t really know or care ; they ’ re too busy looking about the next election . So that 's the governmental aspect . What about in the private sector ? You ’ ve got Wall Street . Many of these people — whether it is David Petraeus ... or someone like [ Bill ] Daley , who is the former chief of staff to President Obama ... or Hank Paulson , who came from Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary and bailed out Wall Street in 2008 ; or the people that Obama chose to be Treasury secretary — like Tim Geithner . They all have that Wall Street connection . Because they generate so much money that they are rivaling and sometimes surpassing Wall Street . The heads of Google or Apple make more money than the guys running Wall Street . They make more money than Jamie Dimon . So that ’ s the new source of cash to run the deep state . Silicon Valley provides a lot of money . But it also has access to an unfathomable amount of information . Which do you think is more valuable to the deep state — the cash or the info ? I think you can ’ t distinguish the two . There is a tremendous amount of money coming , in terms of lobbying , for Silicon Valley to get what it wants in terms of intellectual property and so forth . At the same time , NSA insiders have told me that they couldn ’ t even operate without the cooperation of Silicon Valley , because the communication backbones that are set up and operated by Silicon Valley provide the vast majority of information that the NSA and other intelligence agencies are going to exploit — and they can ’ t do it themselves . They need the willing or unwilling cooperation of Silicon Valley . But when the Snowden leaks first hit , a lot of Silicon Valley elites implied they did n't knowingly or willingly work with the government , no ? There was a certain amount of deception there , after the Edward Snowden revelations . They claimed , Oh , well , the NSA made us do all these things ! — but not really , because NSA , CIA , and these other intelligence organizations were also involved in giving seed money or subsidies to various Silicon Valley companies to do these things . Right . Which raises the question of whether the line between the public sector and the private sector even matters anymore , at least when it comes to the deep state . It is hard to distinguish them anymore . All these guys simply go through the revolving door to the point where you can hardly distinguish [ government employees from private sector workers ] . A good percentage of the people sitting at their desks right now in the Pentagon are private sector contractors . They are literally in the Pentagon , in the NSA building , in all these organizations . They are the ones who essentially run the show , by virtue of having the technical knowledge . Yes , he was a Booz Allen contractor . How is it that a Booz Allen contractor — a junior person — had access to all this information ? It certainly doesn ’ t say much for Gen. Keith Alexander , who was the director of NSA at the time . How can he bitch and moan about Snowden ? He was responsible for having him cleared , and for letting low-level contractors have that kind of access . And yet now he is working in some boutique cybersecurity firm on Wall Street and making a ton of money . Do the people who work in the deep state have a common ideology or narrative that they tell themselves and one another , something that justifies their behavior or explains why their interventions into the democratic process are `` necessary '' ? I think it 's an ideology that dare not speak its name . They claim it is not an ideology , that it is simply their technocratic expertise giving you the benefit of their knowledge . However , their knowledge is always based on a neoconservative view of foreign policy , [ and ] in domestic policy , it enforces neoliberalism . On a personal level , it is kind of , Well , we ’ re just doing the best we can or If only everyone appreciated how hard it is to decide whether to torture subject A or subject B when you are in the CIA or If only everyone appreciated how hard it is to decide to privatize this or that . You just don ’ t really appreciate how difficult things are for us . They sort of act like stoical martyrs when you ask them about why they actually do these things . Do you think that sense of martyrdom explains the revolving door problem ? I 'm imagining something along the lines of these people saying to themselves , Well , I sacrificed for my country ; so now I deserve to cash out . I am sure they all acculturate themselves to that viewpoint . And when the money is there ; you don ’ t want to leave it lying on the table . They certainly don ’ t . And our laws against that kind of behavior are nonexistent , or can be gotten around , so why not take the money ? I once made a joke to a friend that President Obama was to the deep state what the press secretary is to the president . Was I closer to the truth than I realized ? Or was I going too far ? I do n't believe so . [ Obama ] was a guy who was so carefully cultivated . You saw that already in the 2004 Democratic convention . He was going to filibuster the FISA Amendments Act regarding the telecoms illegal collusion with intelligence agencies , but somewhere in 2008 , he decided he was going to vote for it . And that was right about the time that somebody supplied him with John Brennan , the current CIA director , who was going to tutor him on what it takes to be president from the national security perspective . It does n't suggest a lot of autonomy on Obama 's part . This guy is to some extent controlled . That doesn ’ t mean he is not articulate or bright or doesn ’ t know what ’ s going on ; he is obviously more so , on all accounts , than his predecessor . But Obama , or any other president , has a very limited latitude of what he ’ s going to do on the very big issues of international finance and national security . He is very hemmed-in on those accounts . So he becomes a kind of a spokesman . Just hypothetically , what do you think would happen if he tried to push the envelope and publicly reject some foundational element of the deep state ? I don ’ t think we really know what would happen , because the incentives for these people are so carefully aligned with what they ’ re `` supposed '' to do . Obama has already had White House dinners with very rich contributors about setting up his pharaonic monument , the Obama Presidential Library ( which is going to require billions in funding ) . That already constraints how much he 's going to go rogue . And we have to only have to think back to Clinton on his way out the door . He signed a bill which took the wraps off derivatives trading . He claimed later that somehow his hand was forced and that it was going to be written anyway and all that ; I do n't think so . He ended up being paid over $ 100 million afterwards , mainly by corporate sponsors , to give speeches . It was kind of like compensation after the fact . Given the ubiquity and continuity of the deep state , will it matter whether the Republican or the Democrat wins the presidential race later this year ? Or will it be the same either way ? It matters to a certain extent . A competent rogue is probably preferable to an insane one . There are definable differences between Bush and Obama . However , the differences are so constrained . They ’ re not between the 40-yard lines ; they are between the 48-yard lines . Is there any scenario in which the deep state 's influence and power can be curtailed or eliminated ? Or does the fact that it 's evolved sort of organically suggest that only something truly revolutionary could upend it ? The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country . You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor ; and you have this perpetual war , even though we ’ re braying about freedom . We have a surveillance state , and we talk about freedom . We have internal contradictions . Who knows what this will fly into ? It may collapse like the Soviet Union ; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage — like Trump is selling us .

One of the predominant themes of the 2016 presidential campaign thus far — and one that is unlikely to lose significance once the primaries give way to the general election — is the American people's exasperation with a political system they see as corrupt, self-serving, disingenuous and out of touch. It is not an especially partisan or ideological sentiment; you can just as easily find it among supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders as among fans of Donald Trump. You can even find those who support paragons of the status quo, like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, making similar complaints. It's about as close to a consensus position as you're likely to find nowadays in American politics. Advertisement: Yet despite the widespread agreement that something is seriously wrong with democracy in the U.S., there's much less of a consensus as to what that something is — and, crucially, how to fix it. The answers Bernie Sanders offers, for example, are not exactly the same as those proffered by Donald Trump. Is the problem too much government? Not enough government? Too much immigration? Not enough immigration? Too much taxing and regulating? Not enough taxing and regulating? Our lack of a systemic analysis of the problem is part of the reason why our answers are so diffuse and ill-fitting. And that's just one of the reasons why "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government," the new book from ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, is so valuable. Lofgren puts a name and a shape to a problem that has often been only nebulously defined; and while his conclusions are not exactly uplifting, the logic and sophistication of his argument is hard to resist. Recently, Salon spoke over the phone with Lofgren about his book, the deep state and his read on the current sorry state of American government and politics. Our conversation, which also touched on President Obama's relationship with the deep state, was edited for clarity and length. Advertisement: How should we think about the deep state? Is it an elite conspiracy? A loosely defined social group? A network of specific institutions? How should we conceive of it? Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way. And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is ... simply evolving to do what it’s doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. Advertisement: When do you think the American deep state first started? Probably, it started in WWII, when we had the Manhattan Project, which was a huge secret project that required tens of thousands of people to be working in complete secrecy — and we actually built enormous cities [for the project's workers] ... and no one knew they existed. Advertisement: You also had the so-called Ultra and Magic secret [operations], the decoding of the Nazi and Japanese codes that required an enormous number of people to be doing absolutely top secret work that they did not reveal to anybody for decades. So, WWII created this kind of infrastructure of the deep state, which increased and consolidated during the Cold War. What are the key institutions and players within the deep state? The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what’s going on. The rest of Congress doesn’t really know or care; they’re too busy looking about the next election. Advertisement: So that's the governmental aspect. What about in the private sector? You’ve got Wall Street. Many of these people — whether it is David Petraeus ... or someone like [Bill] Daley, who is the former chief of staff to President Obama ... or Hank Paulson, who came from Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary and bailed out Wall Street in 2008; or the people that Obama chose to be Treasury secretary — like Tim Geithner. They all have that Wall Street connection. And the third thing now is Silicon Valley. Advertisement: Oh? Why is Silicon Valley now so central? Because they generate so much money that they are rivaling and sometimes surpassing Wall Street. The heads of Google or Apple make more money than the guys running Wall Street. They make more money than Jamie Dimon. So that’s the new source of cash to run the deep state. Silicon Valley provides a lot of money. But it also has access to an unfathomable amount of information. Which do you think is more valuable to the deep state — the cash or the info? I think you can’t distinguish the two. There is a tremendous amount of money coming, in terms of lobbying, for Silicon Valley to get what it wants in terms of intellectual property and so forth. Advertisement: At the same time, NSA insiders have told me that they couldn’t even operate without the cooperation of Silicon Valley, because the communication backbones that are set up and operated by Silicon Valley provide the vast majority of information that the NSA and other intelligence agencies are going to exploit — and they can’t do it themselves. They need the willing or unwilling cooperation of Silicon Valley. But when the Snowden leaks first hit, a lot of Silicon Valley elites implied they didn't knowingly or willingly work with the government, no? There was a certain amount of deception there, after the Edward Snowden revelations. They claimed, Oh, well, the NSA made us do all these things! — but not really, because NSA, CIA, and these other intelligence organizations were also involved in giving seed money or subsidies to various Silicon Valley companies to do these things. Right. Which raises the question of whether the line between the public sector and the private sector even matters anymore, at least when it comes to the deep state. Advertisement: It is hard to distinguish them anymore. All these guys simply go through the revolving door to the point where you can hardly distinguish [government employees from private sector workers]. A good percentage of the people sitting at their desks right now in the Pentagon are private sector contractors. They are literally in the Pentagon, in the NSA building, in all these organizations. They are the ones who essentially run the show, by virtue of having the technical knowledge. Snowden himself was a contractor. Yes, he was a Booz Allen contractor. How is it that a Booz Allen contractor — a junior person — had access to all this information? It certainly doesn’t say much for Gen. Keith Alexander, who was the director of NSA at the time. How can he bitch and moan about Snowden? He was responsible for having him cleared, and for letting low-level contractors have that kind of access. And yet now he is working in some boutique cybersecurity firm on Wall Street and making a ton of money. Do the people who work in the deep state have a common ideology or narrative that they tell themselves and one another, something that justifies their behavior or explains why their interventions into the democratic process are "necessary"? Advertisement: I think it's an ideology that dare not speak its name. They claim it is not an ideology, that it is simply their technocratic expertise giving you the benefit of their knowledge. However, their knowledge is always based on a neoconservative view of foreign policy, [and] in domestic policy, it enforces neoliberalism. On a personal level, it is kind of, Well, we’re just doing the best we can or If only everyone appreciated how hard it is to decide whether to torture subject A or subject B when you are in the CIA or If only everyone appreciated how hard it is to decide to privatize this or that. You just don’t really appreciate how difficult things are for us. They sort of act like stoical martyrs when you ask them about why they actually do these things. Do you think that sense of martyrdom explains the revolving door problem? I'm imagining something along the lines of these people saying to themselves, Well, I sacrificed for my country; so now I deserve to cash out. I am sure they all acculturate themselves to that viewpoint. And when the money is there; you don’t want to leave it lying on the table. They certainly don’t. And our laws against that kind of behavior are nonexistent, or can be gotten around, so why not take the money? I once made a joke to a friend that President Obama was to the deep state what the press secretary is to the president. Was I closer to the truth than I realized? Or was I going too far? I don't believe so. [Obama] was a guy who was so carefully cultivated. You saw that already in the 2004 Democratic convention. He was going to filibuster the FISA Amendments Act regarding the telecoms illegal collusion with intelligence agencies, but somewhere in 2008, he decided he was going to vote for it. And that was right about the time that somebody supplied him with John Brennan, the current CIA director, who was going to tutor him on what it takes to be president from the national security perspective. It doesn't suggest a lot of autonomy on Obama's part. This guy is to some extent controlled. That doesn’t mean he is not articulate or bright or doesn’t know what’s going on; he is obviously more so, on all accounts, than his predecessor. But Obama, or any other president, has a very limited latitude of what he’s going to do on the very big issues of international finance and national security. He is very hemmed-in on those accounts. So he becomes a kind of a spokesman. Just hypothetically, what do you think would happen if he tried to push the envelope and publicly reject some foundational element of the deep state? I don’t think we really know what would happen, because the incentives for these people are so carefully aligned with what they’re "supposed" to do. Obama has already had White House dinners with very rich contributors about setting up his pharaonic monument, the Obama Presidential Library (which is going to require billions in funding). That already constraints how much he's going to go rogue. And we have to only have to think back to Clinton on his way out the door. He signed a bill which took the wraps off derivatives trading. He claimed later that somehow his hand was forced and that it was going to be written anyway and all that; I don't think so. He ended up being paid over $100 million afterwards, mainly by corporate sponsors, to give speeches. It was kind of like compensation after the fact. Given the ubiquity and continuity of the deep state, will it matter whether the Republican or the Democrat wins the presidential race later this year? Or will it be the same either way? It matters to a certain extent. A competent rogue is probably preferable to an insane one. There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They’re not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines. Is there any scenario in which the deep state's influence and power can be curtailed or eliminated? Or does the fact that it's evolved sort of organically suggest that only something truly revolutionary could upend it? The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we’re braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage — like Trump is selling us.

www.salon.com

left

fpclq8cHXGH0iMH7

test

5ciXIZ3uuI7Suxdb

supreme_court

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/02/cnn-poll-health-care-ruling-changes-views-of-supreme-court/

CNN Poll: Health care ruling changes views of Supreme Court

2012-07-02

Washington ( CNN ) - The Supreme Court 's decision to uphold the national health care law may not have changed many minds regarding the controversial measure , but a new poll indicates it sure did change Americans views of the high court . According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday , the public is divided on last week 's ruling , with 50 % saying they agree with the Supreme Court 's decision and 49 % saying they disagree . And there is the expected partisan divide , with more than eight in ten Democrats agreeing with the decision , more than eight in ten Republicans disagreeing , and independent voters divided , with 52 % disagreeing and 47 % agreeing . The poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday , entirely after the high court 's ruling on the Affordable Care Act . `` Despite howls of protest from many Republican leaders , only about one in five Americans - and only 35 % of the Republican rank and file - say they are angry about the decision , '' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . `` And despite victory laps by many Democratic leaders , only one in six Americans - and only one in three Democrats nationwide - say they feel enthusiastic about the court 's ruling . '' But what have changed are perceptions of the high court . `` As recently as April , Republicans and Democrats had virtually identical positive opinions on the Supreme Court . But not any more , '' adds Holland . `` That 's the biggest change that the court decision has created . '' The court 's approval rating among Democrats jumped by 23 points ; to 73 % . Among Republicans , it fell by 21 points , to 31 % . Approval of the Supreme Court among independents edged up five points , to 53 % . Not surprisingly , opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts are also divided along partisan lines , with a majority of Democrats holding a favorable view of him compared to only three in ten Republicans . But more than a third of all Americans are unsure how they view Roberts , probably a result of the low profile that he and his colleagues have kept for many years . Roberts sided with the liberals on the high court to uphold the law . Overall , three in ten say the high court is too liberal , with 22 % saying it 's too conservative and 46 % saying it 's about right . The Republican led House of Representatives has scheduled a July 11th vote to attempt to repeal the health care law . The survey indicates that 51 % say Congress should repeal all provisions of the measure , with 47 % saying no . What about the individual mandate itself ? Forty-eight percent favor it and 51 % oppose the mandate . One thing that Americans do agree on is that the health insurance mandate is a tax , as ruled by the Supreme Court . Six in ten feel that way . `` But it is also worth noting that the number of Americans who favor all or most of the provisions in the bill has gone up a bit since last year , and despite roughly half looking to repeal all the provisions in the law , only one in eight say they oppose everything in the bill , '' says Holland . The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from 28-July 1 with 1,517 adult Americans questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points . Do you agree or disagree with Thursday 's Supreme Court ruling ? Sound off in the comments below .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the national health care law may not have changed many minds regarding the controversial measure, but a new poll indicates it sure did change Americans views of the high court. According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday, the public is divided on last week's ruling, with 50% saying they agree with the Supreme Court's decision and 49% saying they disagree. And there is the expected partisan divide, with more than eight in ten Democrats agreeing with the decision, more than eight in ten Republicans disagreeing, and independent voters divided, with 52% disagreeing and 47% agreeing. - Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker The poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday, entirely after the high court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act. "Despite howls of protest from many Republican leaders, only about one in five Americans - and only 35% of the Republican rank and file - say they are angry about the decision," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And despite victory laps by many Democratic leaders, only one in six Americans - and only one in three Democrats nationwide - say they feel enthusiastic about the court's ruling." But what have changed are perceptions of the high court. "As recently as April, Republicans and Democrats had virtually identical positive opinions on the Supreme Court. But not any more," adds Holland. "That's the biggest change that the court decision has created." The court's approval rating among Democrats jumped by 23 points; to 73%. Among Republicans, it fell by 21 points, to 31%. Approval of the Supreme Court among independents edged up five points, to 53%. Not surprisingly, opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts are also divided along partisan lines, with a majority of Democrats holding a favorable view of him compared to only three in ten Republicans. But more than a third of all Americans are unsure how they view Roberts, probably a result of the low profile that he and his colleagues have kept for many years. Roberts sided with the liberals on the high court to uphold the law. Overall, three in ten say the high court is too liberal, with 22% saying it's too conservative and 46% saying it's about right. The Republican led House of Representatives has scheduled a July 11th vote to attempt to repeal the health care law. The survey indicates that 51% say Congress should repeal all provisions of the measure, with 47% saying no. What about the individual mandate itself? Forty-eight percent favor it and 51% oppose the mandate. One thing that Americans do agree on is that the health insurance mandate is a tax, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Six in ten feel that way. "But it is also worth noting that the number of Americans who favor all or most of the provisions in the bill has gone up a bit since last year, and despite roughly half looking to repeal all the provisions in the law, only one in eight say they oppose everything in the bill," says Holland. The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from 28-July 1 with 1,517 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report Do you agree or disagree with Thursday's Supreme Court ruling? Sound off in the comments below.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

5ciXIZ3uuI7Suxdb

test

ZNz097SkODeyh7U1

education

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/18/michael-bloomberg-free-speech-is-under-attack-on-campus/

Michael Bloomberg: Free Speech Is Under Attack on Campus

2019-09-18

Tom Ciccotta

Former Democratic New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg penned a column for the New York Post this week in which he expressed concern over the state of free speech on college campuses . According to Bloomberg , the campus culture of silencing views that oppose leftist dogma “ can not sustain a liberal democracy . ” Michael Bloomberg is known by many as the politician that advocated for restrictions on the amount of soda New Yorkers could purchase . But now , the former mayor of New York City is concerned about a more legitimate issue . In a column in the New York Post that was published this week , Bloomberg condemned student activists that equate political speech with violence . Bloomberg specifically condemned academics that refuse to support the Chicago Statement , a set of principles drafted by faculty at the University of Chicago that defends academic freedom and free expression on college campuses . Although many universities around the country have adopted the principles , others have protested their adoption , citing concerns that they will be exploited by those looking to advance dangerous agendas . The lack of support for the Chicago Statement among leaders in higher education has helped allow intolerance to seep deeper into the culture . The idea that words can be a form of violence , fully as threatening as actual violence , is now commonplace . As a result , the range of views needing to be suppressed , rather than entertained , challenged and refuted , is vast . Bloomberg went on to argue that democracy is threatened by those that argue that controversial political speech should be censored to protect the “ safety ” of students . It makes little difference whether radical intolerance of disagreement is based on an exaggerated desire for “ safety ” or grounded in a more elaborate , but no less bogus , theory of speech-as-violence . It also doesn ’ t matter whether it springs from hatred of President Trump or devotion to him . Regardless , this kind of culture can not sustain a liberal democracy . The column may result in Bloomberg facing protests from leftist students if he is scheduled to speak on campus in the future .

Former Democratic New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg penned a column for the New York Post this week in which he expressed concern over the state of free speech on college campuses. According to Bloomberg, the campus culture of silencing views that oppose leftist dogma “cannot sustain a liberal democracy.” Michael Bloomberg is known by many as the politician that advocated for restrictions on the amount of soda New Yorkers could purchase. But now, the former mayor of New York City is concerned about a more legitimate issue. In a column in the New York Post that was published this week, Bloomberg condemned student activists that equate political speech with violence. Bloomberg specifically condemned academics that refuse to support the Chicago Statement, a set of principles drafted by faculty at the University of Chicago that defends academic freedom and free expression on college campuses. Although many universities around the country have adopted the principles, others have protested their adoption, citing concerns that they will be exploited by those looking to advance dangerous agendas. The lack of support for the Chicago Statement among leaders in higher education has helped allow intolerance to seep deeper into the culture. The idea that words can be a form of violence, fully as threatening as actual violence, is now commonplace. As a result, the range of views needing to be suppressed, rather than entertained, challenged and refuted, is vast. Bloomberg went on to argue that democracy is threatened by those that argue that controversial political speech should be censored to protect the “safety” of students. It makes little difference whether radical intolerance of disagreement is based on an exaggerated desire for “safety” or grounded in a more elaborate, but no less bogus, theory of speech-as-violence. It also doesn’t matter whether it springs from hatred of President Trump or devotion to him. Regardless, this kind of culture cannot sustain a liberal democracy. The column may result in Bloomberg facing protests from leftist students if he is scheduled to speak on campus in the future.

www.breitbart.com

right

ZNz097SkODeyh7U1

test

3UCFka7iAVxoOdVL

politics

Guest Writer

https://reason.com/2019/07/16/the-last-few-days-exemplify-why-im-libertarian-and-why-you-should-be-too/

The Last Few Days Exemplify Why I'm Libertarian (and Why You Should Be Too)

2019-07-16

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

Things are getting uglier by the second in American politics and the sheer awfulness of the current moment perfectly illustrates why I 'm libertarian . Do you really want to live in a world where you 're constantly living inside either Donald Trump 's mind or that of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 's ( D–N.Y . ) democratic socialist `` squad '' ? Our lives are too short , too fleeting , too important to spend all of our waking hours engaged in the systematic organization of hatreds , which is as good a working definition of politics as there is . There 's ultimately not a lot of wiggle room between Trumpian conservatism , which demands complete reverence for the Donald and includes bolder and bolder threats to stifle free speech along with free trade , and Ocasio-Cortez 's Green New Dealism , which explicitly uses the totalist regimentation of all aspects of American life during World War II as its model . If I wanted to deal with politics all the time , I 'd move to a totalitarian country already . Libertarians are not anarchists but believers in limited government . Certain rights can not be voted away but we believe that there are areas of life where consensus legitimately rules and that policy should be set by the group rather than the individual . Precisely because politics is a form of force and coercion , though , the parts of our lives governed by consensus should be as small as possible , limited to essential services such as basic infrastructure , law enforcement , safety standards , welfare for the indigent , and some education . The government should treat all people as individuals and all individuals as equal before the law . Over the years , I 've become less dogmatic about exactly how little or how much the state should do , preferring instead to talk about libertarian as an adjective or a pre-political sensibility , `` an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy , open-mindedness , pluralism , tolerance , innovation , and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible . '' Where you and I will draw those lines will likely differ depending on a variety of things and , by all means , let 's have fierce yet civil debates over the scope and efficacy of specific policies and actions . But let 's also avoid the shit show currently on display . Leading the parade of fools is , of course , President Trump , whose recent tweets are not simply racist or in poor taste but deeply un-American . Where exactly does he get off telling people that if they do n't like everything about the United States , they should leave ? That only one of the four Democratic representatives he was originally attacking was actually born in a foreign country underscores his lack of cognitive functioning and the deep-seated nativism of his mindset . Even if you 're born here , he 's saying , you 're not really American unless you look like him . So interesting to see `` Progressive '' Democrat Congresswomen , who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe , the worst , most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world ( if they even have a functioning government at all ) , now loudly…… — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) July 14 , 2019 ….and viciously telling the people of the United States , the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth , how our government is to be run . Why do n't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came . Then come back and show us how… . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) July 14 , 2019 More importantly , Trump 's aggressively banal jingoism stands in direct and obvious contradiction to the origins of the United States , both as colonial havens populated by religious dissenters and people seeking economic opportunity , and later as a breakaway republic from an oppressive government . `` Our Country is Free , Beautiful and Very Successful . If you hate our Country , or if you are not happy here , you can leave , '' the president counseled today , as if exit is the only legitimate option when it comes to lobbying for political change . If he read books , I 'd suggest that Trump pick up a copy of Albert O. Hirschman 's 1970 treatise on `` responses to declines in firms , organizations , and states . '' Exit , Voice , and Loyalty discusses the different ways individuals can effect change . Leaving to go elsewhere—exit—is indeed an option , but so is basically sucking it up and becoming an uncritical organization man ( loyalty ) , or complaining and working to change the system ( voice ) . Trump 's basic argument is reductio ad Archie Bunkerism—love it or leave it . It 's not worth engaging seriously and indeed , the only reason he is n't being more roundly mocked is that he 's wrapped his dumb canard in ugly , divisive language that participates in long traditions of racial and ethnic exclusion . Our Country is Free , Beautiful and Very Successful . If you hate our Country , or if you are not happy here , you can leave ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) July 16 , 2019 By the same token , the Ocasio-Cortez squad offers no hope of escaping politics , either . Instead , it seeks to fully regulate expression in the name of political purposes . One of its members , Rep. Ayanna Pressley ( D–Mass . ) , effectively channels Trump 's `` you 're with us or against us '' mindset when she declares , `` We do n't need any more brown faces that do n't want to be a brown voice . We do n't need black faces that do n't want to be a black voice . We do n't need Muslims that do n't want to be a Muslim voice . We do n't need queers that do n't want to be a queer voice . '' Rep Ayanna Pressley ( D-MA ) `` We do n't need any more brown faces that do n't want to be a brown voice . We do n't need black faces that do n't want to be a black voice . We do n't need Muslims that do n't want to be a Muslim voice . We do n't need queers that do n't want to be a queer voice '' pic.twitter.com/2NIj5Vvcor — Ryan Saavedra ( @ RealSaavedra ) July 15 , 2019 The unwillingness of Ocasio-Cortez to acknowledge good-faith disagreements even with her political allies—she 's accused Rep. Nancy Pelosi ( D–Calif . ) of `` explicitly singling out newly elected women of color , '' insinuating that the Democratic Speaker of the House is racist like the president—is a tactic used by Trump and his supporters . This is politics at its absolute worst . It helps explain why the long-term trend of Americans refusing to identify as a Democrat or a Republican proceeds apace . Last month , Gallup found just 27 percent of respondents admitting that they are Democrats and only 26 percent admitting that they are Republicans . Each of those numbers is at or near historic lows . Who can blame us , really ? Especially when there is a legitimate alternative to reducing your entire existence to political grudge matches between repellent teams who explicitly tell you to check your brain at the door ? `` The Libertarian Moment '' did n't materialize when Matt Welch and I first coined the phrase in 2008 , nor did it materialize when it was being talked about in the pages of The New York Times Magazine , that 's for sure . But the idea of living in a world beyond politics , where we can agree to disagree about how to live most of our lives , is looking better and better all the time .

Things are getting uglier by the second in American politics and the sheer awfulness of the current moment perfectly illustrates why I'm libertarian. Do you really want to live in a world where you're constantly living inside either Donald Trump's mind or that of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D–N.Y.) democratic socialist "squad"? Our lives are too short, too fleeting, too important to spend all of our waking hours engaged in the systematic organization of hatreds, which is as good a working definition of politics as there is. There's ultimately not a lot of wiggle room between Trumpian conservatism, which demands complete reverence for the Donald and includes bolder and bolder threats to stifle free speech along with free trade, and Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Dealism, which explicitly uses the totalist regimentation of all aspects of American life during World War II as its model. If I wanted to deal with politics all the time, I'd move to a totalitarian country already. Libertarians are not anarchists but believers in limited government. Certain rights cannot be voted away but we believe that there are areas of life where consensus legitimately rules and that policy should be set by the group rather than the individual. Precisely because politics is a form of force and coercion, though, the parts of our lives governed by consensus should be as small as possible, limited to essential services such as basic infrastructure, law enforcement, safety standards, welfare for the indigent, and some education. The government should treat all people as individuals and all individuals as equal before the law. Over the years, I've become less dogmatic about exactly how little or how much the state should do, preferring instead to talk about libertarian as an adjective or a pre-political sensibility, "an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy, open-mindedness, pluralism, tolerance, innovation, and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible." Where you and I will draw those lines will likely differ depending on a variety of things and, by all means, let's have fierce yet civil debates over the scope and efficacy of specific policies and actions. But let's also avoid the shit show currently on display. Leading the parade of fools is, of course, President Trump, whose recent tweets are not simply racist or in poor taste but deeply un-American. Where exactly does he get off telling people that if they don't like everything about the United States, they should leave? That only one of the four Democratic representatives he was originally attacking was actually born in a foreign country underscores his lack of cognitive functioning and the deep-seated nativism of his mindset. Even if you're born here, he's saying, you're not really American unless you look like him. So interesting to see "Progressive" Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly…… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019 ….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019 More importantly, Trump's aggressively banal jingoism stands in direct and obvious contradiction to the origins of the United States, both as colonial havens populated by religious dissenters and people seeking economic opportunity, and later as a breakaway republic from an oppressive government. "Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave," the president counseled today, as if exit is the only legitimate option when it comes to lobbying for political change. If he read books, I'd suggest that Trump pick up a copy of Albert O. Hirschman's 1970 treatise on "responses to declines in firms, organizations, and states." Exit, Voice, and Loyalty discusses the different ways individuals can effect change. Leaving to go elsewhere—exit—is indeed an option, but so is basically sucking it up and becoming an uncritical organization man (loyalty), or complaining and working to change the system (voice). Trump's basic argument is reductio ad Archie Bunkerism—love it or leave it. It's not worth engaging seriously and indeed, the only reason he isn't being more roundly mocked is that he's wrapped his dumb canard in ugly, divisive language that participates in long traditions of racial and ethnic exclusion. Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 16, 2019 By the same token, the Ocasio-Cortez squad offers no hope of escaping politics, either. Instead, it seeks to fully regulate expression in the name of political purposes. One of its members, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.), effectively channels Trump's "you're with us or against us" mindset when she declares, "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don't want to be a Muslim voice. We don't need queers that don't want to be a queer voice." Rep Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don't want to be a Muslim voice. We don't need queers that don't want to be a queer voice" pic.twitter.com/2NIj5Vvcor — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 15, 2019 The unwillingness of Ocasio-Cortez to acknowledge good-faith disagreements even with her political allies—she's accused Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) of "explicitly singling out newly elected women of color," insinuating that the Democratic Speaker of the House is racist like the president—is a tactic used by Trump and his supporters. This is politics at its absolute worst. It helps explain why the long-term trend of Americans refusing to identify as a Democrat or a Republican proceeds apace. Last month, Gallup found just 27 percent of respondents admitting that they are Democrats and only 26 percent admitting that they are Republicans. Each of those numbers is at or near historic lows. Who can blame us, really? Especially when there is a legitimate alternative to reducing your entire existence to political grudge matches between repellent teams who explicitly tell you to check your brain at the door? "The Libertarian Moment" didn't materialize when Matt Welch and I first coined the phrase in 2008, nor did it materialize when it was being talked about in the pages of The New York Times Magazine, that's for sure. But the idea of living in a world beyond politics, where we can agree to disagree about how to live most of our lives, is looking better and better all the time.

www.reason.com

center

3UCFka7iAVxoOdVL

test

8cAcO78HMb8Xmmbn

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/28/exclusive-rep-mark-amodei-does-not-support-impeachment-inquiry-despite-fake-news-claims/

Exclusive—Rep. Mark Amodei Does Not Support Impeachment Inquiry Despite Fake News Claims

2019-09-28

Matthew Boyle

Rep. Mark Amodei ( R-NV ) , Nevada ’ s only Republican U.S. House member , confirmed to ███ on Saturday afternoon in an exclusive phone interview that media and leftist claims that he supports an “ impeachment inquiry ” are inaccurate : he does not support an “ impeachment inquiry ” into President Donald Trump . “ Right , ” Amodei told ███ when asked to confirm he does not support an impeachment inquiry that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are now conducting into President Trump . “ You ’ re sitting there going wow , look at this guy ’ s history , ” Amodei said in an exclusive interview on Saturday . “ I ’ m not a household name or anything like that , so you think I just lost my mind one day and ate some loco weed and called all the Nevada people in and said , ‘ Here we go ’ ? I guess the reason I ’ m not phenomenally agitated or whatever is is quite frankly I think that Humberto Sanchez ’ s article was fair and accurate . There ’ s confusion throughout the nation between what we did with the UC to send it to the appropriate committees , which the White House supports , and what Pelosi is doing . So it would certainly be news if that ’ s what I was saying I was in favor of . We got into some discussions about ‘ what ifs ’ and it ’ s like hey , let the committees do their work and see where it leads . Wherever it leads , it leads—let the chips fall where they may . But how you get from that discussion in context to ‘ Oh my god he supports Pelosi ’ s thing ’ is not true . ” What he does support is what every other member of the House of Representatives and the Senate—in addition to the White House—supports , which is a resolution that passed both the House and Senate unanimously with White House backing earlier this week calling for the so-called “ whistleblower complaint ” and other information to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees . In the House , that was H. Res 576 . It passed the House 421-0 . Amodei told ███ that he has been misquoted by many in the national media who say that means he supports an “ impeachment inquiry , ” but that he does not support one . “ No , ” Amodei again told ███ when asked if he supports what Pelosi and Democrats are doing in what they call an “ impeachment inquiry ” through the various House committees including the Intelligence , Judiciary , Foreign Affairs , Financial Services , and other committees . Several national media outlets have raced Amodei ’ s comments out into the public sphere to use them to create the appearance of dissent in GOP ranks when it comes to Pelosi ’ s “ impeachment inquiry ” of the president . Among them are the New York Times , MSNBC , CBS News , and several others who claim Amodei became the first Republican to support an “ impeachment inquiry ” of Trump . But Amodei , in a lengthy interview with ███ on Saturday afternoon , confirmed that no he does not support an “ impeachment inquiry ” of Trump and in fact does not have a position that is different from the White House or other Republicans in Congress at this point . The way this all started was Amodei , in the interest of transparency with his local in-state media , held a press call on Friday to explain where he was on all of the news this week in Washington . “ We did this news conference at the end of the week via telephone because quite frankly I hadn ’ t said much about it , ” Amodei told ███ . “ Some of the Nevada outlets were like hey , so we said here ’ s the conference call-in let ’ s do a call . We did a conference call . Tt lasted about 40 minutes ; I ’ m sure there are tapes of it from people who participated . So it ’ s like hey , you can listen to the tapes to form your own opinion . But I don ’ t think it was a close call throughout the 40 minutes , it was that I support the resolution that came through UC [ unanimous consent ] in the Senate , I support the resolution that we did in the House earlier in the week that basically got rid of all the Pelosi poison-pill stuff and they changed it to mirror the Senate wording exactly . The White House supports it . I support it too . I ’ m a process guy , let ’ s send it to the committees and see what it ’ s all about . So you ’ re like what the heck are you talking about for ‘ it ’ ? ‘ It ’ is all this recent stuff for transcripts and quid pro quo and Ukraine and all that other sort of stuff—that ’ s it . I support this thing that has 535 other votes and the White House ’ s support . ” The Nevada Independent published an article about it all . It explained the congressman ’ s position on it , and he has no issue with that article . What he does have an issue with is other people using it to claim he supports an “ impeachment inquiry ” like what Pelosi is doing when he does not support any such thing—and has no different position from the rest of the Republicans in the House . An “ impeachment inquiry ” is what Pelosi has announced the Democrats are doing—something most Democrats have announced they agree with—not the bipartisan , unanimously-backed oversight investigations that are perfunctory and normal in Washington as part of the unanimous resolutions . Also , Amodei , on both Wednesday and Friday before Congress broke for the two-week recess it is currently on , voted with all the Republicans in the House in favor of a resolution from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to express disapproval with the way in which Pelosi had launched Democrats ’ impeachment proceedings against Trump . All the Democrats voted against it . Nonetheless , the New York Times added him to a column in a list it is keeping , saying he is the first Republican to support an “ impeachment inquiry. ” Several others in national media have pushed the same inaccuracy , which all forced Amodei to issue a statement on Friday night further clarifying he is not in favor of impeachment of Trump and explaining the investigations . But many in media have still not corrected their inaccurate claims he supports an “ impeachment inquiry , ” to the point where Amodei has even directed his staff to contact the New York Times and pull him out of the list of members supporting an “ impeachment inquiry . ” The first Republican House member has announced support for the impeachment inquiry against President Trump : Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada See the full list : https : //t.co/nnYylNUBSA pic.twitter.com/7SUfyj48Sq — The New York Times ( @ nytimes ) September 27 , 2019 “ We asked them to take it down out of the column , ” Amodei told ███ . “ We gave them a real simple ask this morning . They got columns on who ’ s in , who ’ s out , et cetera . I had my comms person who you ’ ve been talking to send them an email and say , ‘ Hey this is not accurate , please take him out of that column. ’ I ’ m shocked she ’ s gotten crickets so far , which I expect she will continue to get . But when you say how I do I feel about the New York Times thing , quite frankly , after the Kavanaugh stuff and some of the other stuff recently it ’ s like—if it were like the old days , and I ’ m 61 so you can attach to that whatever meaning you want , the New York Times came out and said you were whatever that was usually pretty strong . But in these times , the fact that the New York Times says quite frankly means ‘ better check further . ’ ” The Times has not backed down , and continues to—even though it is aware the inclusion of Amodei in this column is inaccurate—keep him included in it . Multiple inquiries from ███ to New York Times spokeswomen Eileen Murphy and Danielle Rhoades-Ha have not been returned , but both—as well as newspaper editorial staff—are aware Amodei does not support an “ impeachment inquiry , ” and still the newspaper will not correct the error . Amodei ’ s staff has asked the Times multiple times to correct the inaccuracy , but its staff refuses to do so , even though the Times knows it is not correct . For Amodei , he ’ s not even that upset or surprised given the hyper-charged political atmosphere and the media ’ s transparent hatred of Trump . He just wishes the national media would have done a little more research before getting this story so badly wrong by falsely saying he supports an impeachment inquiry into Trump . He noted that when the Access Hollywood tapes came out in the 2016 election , he actually publicly defended Trump—and has been a longtime supporter of the president and the White House . “ I ’ m okay with the people who are highly charged and hyper emotional and all that stuff—it ’ s been that way for a long time , ” Amodei said . “ The sad part about all this is when that is the sole thing that ’ s focused on instead of the facts , which by the way are not buried here . It would be news , because here is a guy who has really been a pretty loyal soldier and has supported the White House back to before they were the White House , when the Billy Bush tapes came out . I came out and basically said , ‘ hey , ’ I wrote a letter then that everybody published . So it would absolutely be news if that guy said , ‘ you know what ? I want to be with Democrats in the House on this thing. ’ You see how naive I am , I figured everyone would ask a couple questions . Nothing . Basically nothing . Just off to the races and they think I have lost my mind—or I guess depending on your view , found my mind . ” While the New York Times and several others got it wrong , not everyone did . The congressman said that he read the original ███ account of it , and thanked this outlet for getting it correct . ███ did not , like much of the rest of the media , jump out and publish the inaccurate claims that Amodei had joined calls for an “ impeachment inquiry ” but instead reached out to his office to check and got confirmation that he did not . Then ███ accurately reported that the rest of the media had printed fake news , and Amodei was not supporting impeachment or an impeachment inquiry . “ When it ’ s like actually , if you really care about the news conference that he basically set up to be open with my media in my state , it ’ s like wow . And listen , I think they did a decent job . I don ’ t think anybody in my state hatcheted me . It ’ s incredible that folks who don ’ t even know who I am didn ’ t even bother to check out a few things . But you guys did—you guys ran an article that said , ‘ This is fake news. ’ I don ’ t know what you call it , but it isn ’ t what I said in the thing . Everyone else who wrote about it , they didn ’ t write it in their articles . Were they asleep on the call just snoring ? ” Only one other reporter , Politico ’ s Kyle Cheney , did not falsely jump to the conclusion that Amodei was supporting an impeachment inquiry .

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), Nevada’s only Republican U.S. House member, confirmed to Breitbart News on Saturday afternoon in an exclusive phone interview that media and leftist claims that he supports an “impeachment inquiry” are inaccurate: he does not support an “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. “Right,” Amodei told Breitbart News when asked to confirm he does not support an impeachment inquiry that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are now conducting into President Trump. “You’re sitting there going wow, look at this guy’s history,” Amodei said in an exclusive interview on Saturday. “I’m not a household name or anything like that, so you think I just lost my mind one day and ate some loco weed and called all the Nevada people in and said, ‘Here we go’? I guess the reason I’m not phenomenally agitated or whatever is is quite frankly I think that Humberto Sanchez’s article was fair and accurate. There’s confusion throughout the nation between what we did with the UC to send it to the appropriate committees, which the White House supports, and what Pelosi is doing. So it would certainly be news if that’s what I was saying I was in favor of. We got into some discussions about ‘what ifs’ and it’s like hey, let the committees do their work and see where it leads. Wherever it leads, it leads—let the chips fall where they may. But how you get from that discussion in context to ‘Oh my god he supports Pelosi’s thing’ is not true.” What he does support is what every other member of the House of Representatives and the Senate—in addition to the White House—supports, which is a resolution that passed both the House and Senate unanimously with White House backing earlier this week calling for the so-called “whistleblower complaint” and other information to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In the House, that was H. Res 576. It passed the House 421-0. Amodei told Breitbart News that he has been misquoted by many in the national media who say that means he supports an “impeachment inquiry,” but that he does not support one. “No,” Amodei again told Breitbart News when asked if he supports what Pelosi and Democrats are doing in what they call an “impeachment inquiry” through the various House committees including the Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, and other committees. Several national media outlets have raced Amodei’s comments out into the public sphere to use them to create the appearance of dissent in GOP ranks when it comes to Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry” of the president. Among them are the New York Times, MSNBC, CBS News, and several others who claim Amodei became the first Republican to support an “impeachment inquiry” of Trump. But Amodei, in a lengthy interview with Breitbart News on Saturday afternoon, confirmed that no he does not support an “impeachment inquiry” of Trump and in fact does not have a position that is different from the White House or other Republicans in Congress at this point. The way this all started was Amodei, in the interest of transparency with his local in-state media, held a press call on Friday to explain where he was on all of the news this week in Washington. “We did this news conference at the end of the week via telephone because quite frankly I hadn’t said much about it,” Amodei told Breitbart News. “Some of the Nevada outlets were like hey, so we said here’s the conference call-in let’s do a call. We did a conference call. Tt lasted about 40 minutes; I’m sure there are tapes of it from people who participated. So it’s like hey, you can listen to the tapes to form your own opinion. But I don’t think it was a close call throughout the 40 minutes, it was that I support the resolution that came through UC [unanimous consent] in the Senate, I support the resolution that we did in the House earlier in the week that basically got rid of all the Pelosi poison-pill stuff and they changed it to mirror the Senate wording exactly. The White House supports it. I support it too. I’m a process guy, let’s send it to the committees and see what it’s all about. So you’re like what the heck are you talking about for ‘it’? ‘It’ is all this recent stuff for transcripts and quid pro quo and Ukraine and all that other sort of stuff—that’s it. I support this thing that has 535 other votes and the White House’s support.” The Nevada Independent published an article about it all. It explained the congressman’s position on it, and he has no issue with that article. What he does have an issue with is other people using it to claim he supports an “impeachment inquiry” like what Pelosi is doing when he does not support any such thing—and has no different position from the rest of the Republicans in the House. An “impeachment inquiry” is what Pelosi has announced the Democrats are doing—something most Democrats have announced they agree with—not the bipartisan, unanimously-backed oversight investigations that are perfunctory and normal in Washington as part of the unanimous resolutions. Also, Amodei, on both Wednesday and Friday before Congress broke for the two-week recess it is currently on, voted with all the Republicans in the House in favor of a resolution from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to express disapproval with the way in which Pelosi had launched Democrats’ impeachment proceedings against Trump. All the Democrats voted against it. Nonetheless, the New York Times added him to a column in a list it is keeping, saying he is the first Republican to support an “impeachment inquiry.” Several others in national media have pushed the same inaccuracy, which all forced Amodei to issue a statement on Friday night further clarifying he is not in favor of impeachment of Trump and explaining the investigations. But many in media have still not corrected their inaccurate claims he supports an “impeachment inquiry,” to the point where Amodei has even directed his staff to contact the New York Times and pull him out of the list of members supporting an “impeachment inquiry.” The first Republican House member has announced support for the impeachment inquiry against President Trump: Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada See the full list: https://t.co/nnYylNUBSA pic.twitter.com/7SUfyj48Sq — The New York Times (@nytimes) September 27, 2019 “We asked them to take it down out of the column,” Amodei told Breitbart News. “We gave them a real simple ask this morning. They got columns on who’s in, who’s out, et cetera. I had my comms person who you’ve been talking to send them an email and say, ‘Hey this is not accurate, please take him out of that column.’ I’m shocked she’s gotten crickets so far, which I expect she will continue to get. But when you say how I do I feel about the New York Times thing, quite frankly, after the Kavanaugh stuff and some of the other stuff recently it’s like—if it were like the old days, and I’m 61 so you can attach to that whatever meaning you want, the New York Times came out and said you were whatever that was usually pretty strong. But in these times, the fact that the New York Times says quite frankly means ‘better check further.’” The Times has not backed down, and continues to—even though it is aware the inclusion of Amodei in this column is inaccurate—keep him included in it. Multiple inquiries from Breitbart News to New York Times spokeswomen Eileen Murphy and Danielle Rhoades-Ha have not been returned, but both—as well as newspaper editorial staff—are aware Amodei does not support an “impeachment inquiry,” and still the newspaper will not correct the error. Amodei’s staff has asked the Times multiple times to correct the inaccuracy, but its staff refuses to do so, even though the Times knows it is not correct. For Amodei, he’s not even that upset or surprised given the hyper-charged political atmosphere and the media’s transparent hatred of Trump. He just wishes the national media would have done a little more research before getting this story so badly wrong by falsely saying he supports an impeachment inquiry into Trump. He noted that when the Access Hollywood tapes came out in the 2016 election, he actually publicly defended Trump—and has been a longtime supporter of the president and the White House. “I’m okay with the people who are highly charged and hyper emotional and all that stuff—it’s been that way for a long time,” Amodei said. “The sad part about all this is when that is the sole thing that’s focused on instead of the facts, which by the way are not buried here. It would be news, because here is a guy who has really been a pretty loyal soldier and has supported the White House back to before they were the White House, when the Billy Bush tapes came out. I came out and basically said, ‘hey,’ I wrote a letter then that everybody published. So it would absolutely be news if that guy said, ‘you know what? I want to be with Democrats in the House on this thing.’ You see how naive I am, I figured everyone would ask a couple questions. Nothing. Basically nothing. Just off to the races and they think I have lost my mind—or I guess depending on your view, found my mind.” While the New York Times and several others got it wrong, not everyone did. The congressman said that he read the original Breitbart News account of it, and thanked this outlet for getting it correct. Breitbart News did not, like much of the rest of the media, jump out and publish the inaccurate claims that Amodei had joined calls for an “impeachment inquiry” but instead reached out to his office to check and got confirmation that he did not. Then Breitbart News accurately reported that the rest of the media had printed fake news, and Amodei was not supporting impeachment or an impeachment inquiry. “When it’s like actually, if you really care about the news conference that he basically set up to be open with my media in my state, it’s like wow. And listen, I think they did a decent job. I don’t think anybody in my state hatcheted me. It’s incredible that folks who don’t even know who I am didn’t even bother to check out a few things. But you guys did—you guys ran an article that said, ‘This is fake news.’ I don’t know what you call it, but it isn’t what I said in the thing. Everyone else who wrote about it, they didn’t write it in their articles. Were they asleep on the call just snoring?” Only one other reporter, Politico’s Kyle Cheney, did not falsely jump to the conclusion that Amodei was supporting an impeachment inquiry.

www.breitbart.com

right

8cAcO78HMb8Xmmbn

test

8m9ONlyJ3DCAFbxT

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/defense-secretary-gen-james-mattis-roasts-donald-trump/story?id=66358021

Former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis roasts Donald Trump: 'I earned my spurs on the battlefield'

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis roasted his former boss at the Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York City on Thursday night . Interested in Trump Administration ? Add Trump Administration as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Trump Administration news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Mattis took the stage at the annual dinner -- an opportunity to crack jokes about local and national politics -- with an introduction from comic legend Martin Short . `` According to the president he ’ s the 'most overrated general , ' '' Short cracked in his intro . `` I think he ’ s an American hero . '' `` I 'm not just an overrated general . I ’ m the world ’ s greatest overrated general , '' joked Mattis , who received a standing ovation as he stepped to the dais . `` I 'm honored to be called that by Donald Trump , because he also called Meryl Streep an overrated actor . So I guess I ’ m the Meryl Streep of generals . '' The rebuttal came a day after President Donald Trump called Mattis “ the world ’ s most overrated general ” during a meeting with lawmakers about the situation in Syria . Mattis had said in an interview in August that his silence about Trump was `` not going to be forever . ” One of the general 's most biting jokes came in relation to Trump 's infamous deferment of military service in Vietnam over alleged bone spurs in his feet . `` I earned my spurs on the battlefield ; Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor , '' Mattis said . Mattis , a retired Marine Corps four-star general , served as Trump 's first defense secretary , but resigned in December 2018 over policy differences , particularly Trump 's plans to pull out American troops from Syria , writing in his resignation letter that Trump should have a defense secretary `` whose views are better aligned '' with his own . He joked on Thursday that his work in combat zones overseas was easier than being in Trump ’ s Washington . “ I tried to bring some peace and order to the places with no organized government , chaotic and warring factions , irrational fears , and toxic hatred . It was hard work , but it wasn ’ t until I started working in Washington , D.C. , that I realized how easy I had it overseas in the combat zone . ” NEW : Former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis roasts Pres . Trump : `` I earned my spurs on the battlefield . '' https : //t.co/KWUs9cJPvX pic.twitter.com/zdexSTSfCg — ███ ( @ ABC ) October 18 , 2019 He also knocked Trump for his many hours of executive time : “ It ’ s been a year since I ’ ve left the administration , the recovery process is going well , '' he joked . `` The counselor says I ’ ll graduate soon . A year according to White House time is about 9,000 hours of executive time or 1,800 holes of golf . '' Mattis , who has been critical of many of Trump 's foreign policy decisions since leaving office , also got serious for a moment Thursday , mentioning the U.S. 's Kurdish allies in Syria . He called for the U.S. to again back the population , which has been attacked by Turkey . The president was onstage in Dallas at the same time as Mattis ' keynote , delivering a campaign speech to a packed crowd at American Airlines Center .

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis roasted his former boss at the Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York City on Thursday night. Interested in Trump Administration? Add Trump Administration as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Trump Administration news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Mattis took the stage at the annual dinner -- an opportunity to crack jokes about local and national politics -- with an introduction from comic legend Martin Short. "According to the president he’s the 'most overrated general,'" Short cracked in his intro. "I think he’s an American hero." Mary Altaffer/AP "I'm not just an overrated general. I’m the world’s greatest overrated general," joked Mattis, who received a standing ovation as he stepped to the dais. "I'm honored to be called that by Donald Trump, because he also called Meryl Streep an overrated actor. So I guess I’m the Meryl Streep of generals." The rebuttal came a day after President Donald Trump called Mattis “the world’s most overrated general” during a meeting with lawmakers about the situation in Syria. Mattis had said in an interview in August that his silence about Trump was "not going to be forever.” One of the general's most biting jokes came in relation to Trump's infamous deferment of military service in Vietnam over alleged bone spurs in his feet. "I earned my spurs on the battlefield; Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor," Mattis said. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general, served as Trump's first defense secretary, but resigned in December 2018 over policy differences, particularly Trump's plans to pull out American troops from Syria, writing in his resignation letter that Trump should have a defense secretary "whose views are better aligned" with his own. He joked on Thursday that his work in combat zones overseas was easier than being in Trump’s Washington. “I tried to bring some peace and order to the places with no organized government, chaotic and warring factions, irrational fears, and toxic hatred. It was hard work, but it wasn’t until I started working in Washington, D.C., that I realized how easy I had it overseas in the combat zone.” NEW: Former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis roasts Pres. Trump: "I earned my spurs on the battlefield." https://t.co/KWUs9cJPvX pic.twitter.com/zdexSTSfCg — ABC News (@ABC) October 18, 2019 He also knocked Trump for his many hours of executive time: “It’s been a year since I’ve left the administration, the recovery process is going well," he joked. "The counselor says I’ll graduate soon. A year according to White House time is about 9,000 hours of executive time or 1,800 holes of golf." Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE Mattis, who has been critical of many of Trump's foreign policy decisions since leaving office, also got serious for a moment Thursday, mentioning the U.S.'s Kurdish allies in Syria. He called for the U.S. to again back the population, which has been attacked by Turkey. "Let us restore trust in one another," Mattis said. The president was onstage in Dallas at the same time as Mattis' keynote, delivering a campaign speech to a packed crowd at American Airlines Center.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

8m9ONlyJ3DCAFbxT

test

tCGKVDsgeRm5hxUT

race_and_racism

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reagan-daughter-writes-op-ed-fathers-newly-surfaced/story?id=64731945&cid=clicksource_77_null_bsq_hed

Reagan daughter calls father's newly-surfaced comments about 'monkeys' in Africa an aberration

Elizabeth Thomas

Reagan daughter calls father 's newly-surfaced comments about 'monkeys ' in Africa an aberration President Ronald Reagan in 1971 tapes called African U.N. delegates 'monkeys . ' The daughter of former President Ronald Reagan has written an op-ed in the Washington Post denouncing her father 's recently uncovered racist remarks as `` ugliness '' but asking for forgiveness . Patti Davis , daughter of President Ronald Reagan poses for a picture at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley , Calif. , Nov. 20 , 2004 . Chris Pizzello/AP , FILE “ There is no defense , no rationalization , no suitable explanation for what my father said on that taped phone conversation , ” Patti Davis said in the op-ed posted Thursday . The recording was released by the National Archives and published Tuesday by The Atlantic . On the private phone call from October 1971 between Reagan , then-governor of California , and then-President Richard Nixon , Reagan can be heard on the recording calling United Nation delegates from African countries “ monkeys , ” venting about delegates who voted against the U.S. to have the United Nations recognize the People ’ s Republic of China . “ Last night , I tell you , to watch that thing on television as I did , ” Reagan said . “ To see those , those monkeys from those African countries—damn them , they ’ re still uncomfortable wearing shoes ! ” Reagan added . Davis , in her op-ed , asked the public to forgive her late father for words “ that should never have been uttered in any conversation , ” but that these remarks were an “ aberration . ” “ The words he used in his conversation with Nixon can not be interpreted as anything but ugliness . That ’ s what makes this so painful , ” she wrote . “ Legacies are complicated , though , and for people to be judged fairly , the landscape of a lifetime has to be looked at . ” `` If I had read his words as a quotation , and not heard them , I ’ d have said they were fabricated , '' Davis writes . `` That he would never say such things . Because I never heard anything like that from him . In fact , when I was growing up , bigotry and racism were addressed in my family by making it clear that these were toxic and sinister beliefs that should always be called out and shunned . I can ’ t tell you about the man who was on the phone with Richard Nixon that day in 1971 . He ’ s not a man I knew . '' However , this is not the first time the former Republican president has been criticized for racist remarks . During his 1966 campaign for governor in California Reagan told a crowd of supporters that , “ If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house , it is his right to do so , ” according to Politico . He also , famously , began the “ welfare queen ” stereotype against black women , helping create a narrative that black women abuse taxpayer dollars to support lazy and lavish lifestyles . Historians have also cited “ racist policies ” he implemented during his presidency to disproportionately harm people of color which laid the groundwork for his “ War on Drugs . ” This previously unheard audio recording has surfaced during President Donald Trump ’ s relentless Twitter attacks on four minority progressive congresswomen and Baltimore Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings . President Donald Trump pauses during an address at a campaign rally in Cincinnati , Ohio , Aug. 1 , 2019 . Bryan Woolston/Reuters Trump has often referenced Reagan during his presidency and even shares a slogan Reagan used during his 1980 campaign , ‘ Make America Great Again . ’ Trump has repeatedly defended his statements including tweeting that he doesn ’ t have “ a racist bone in his body . ” A July Quinnipiac poll found that 51 % of Americans view Trump as a racist .

Reagan daughter calls father's newly-surfaced comments about 'monkeys' in Africa an aberration President Ronald Reagan in 1971 tapes called African U.N. delegates 'monkeys.' The daughter of former President Ronald Reagan has written an op-ed in the Washington Post denouncing her father's recently uncovered racist remarks as "ugliness" but asking for forgiveness. Patti Davis, daughter of President Ronald Reagan poses for a picture at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Nov. 20, 2004. Chris Pizzello/AP, FILE “There is no defense, no rationalization, no suitable explanation for what my father said on that taped phone conversation,” Patti Davis said in the op-ed posted Thursday. The recording was released by the National Archives and published Tuesday by The Atlantic. On the private phone call from October 1971 between Reagan, then-governor of California, and then-President Richard Nixon, Reagan can be heard on the recording calling United Nation delegates from African countries “monkeys,” venting about delegates who voted against the U.S. to have the United Nations recognize the People’s Republic of China. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon replied. “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Reagan added. Nixon responded with a huge laugh. Ronald Reagan Speaking at the Republican National Convention, Aug. 17, 1992. Corbis via Getty Images, FILE Davis, in her op-ed, asked the public to forgive her late father for words “that should never have been uttered in any conversation,” but that these remarks were an “aberration.” “The words he used in his conversation with Nixon cannot be interpreted as anything but ugliness. That’s what makes this so painful,” she wrote. “Legacies are complicated, though, and for people to be judged fairly, the landscape of a lifetime has to be looked at.” "If I had read his words as a quotation, and not heard them, I’d have said they were fabricated," Davis writes. "That he would never say such things. Because I never heard anything like that from him. In fact, when I was growing up, bigotry and racism were addressed in my family by making it clear that these were toxic and sinister beliefs that should always be called out and shunned. I can’t tell you about the man who was on the phone with Richard Nixon that day in 1971. He’s not a man I knew." However, this is not the first time the former Republican president has been criticized for racist remarks. During his 1966 campaign for governor in California Reagan told a crowd of supporters that, “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so,” according to Politico. He also, famously, began the “welfare queen” stereotype against black women, helping create a narrative that black women abuse taxpayer dollars to support lazy and lavish lifestyles. Historians have also cited “racist policies” he implemented during his presidency to disproportionately harm people of color which laid the groundwork for his “War on Drugs.” This previously unheard audio recording has surfaced during President Donald Trump’s relentless Twitter attacks on four minority progressive congresswomen and Baltimore Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings. President Donald Trump pauses during an address at a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, Aug. 1, 2019. Bryan Woolston/Reuters Trump has often referenced Reagan during his presidency and even shares a slogan Reagan used during his 1980 campaign, ‘Make America Great Again.’ Trump has repeatedly defended his statements including tweeting that he doesn’t have “a racist bone in his body.” A July Quinnipiac poll found that 51% of Americans view Trump as a racist.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

tCGKVDsgeRm5hxUT

test

hwA2On5e1gbGAZE6

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/ex-trump-aide-manafort-faces-charges-in-first-trial-of-russia-probe-idUSKBN1KL1BJ

Ex-Trump aide Manafort faces charges in first trial of Russia probe

2018-08-01

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - Prosecutors portrayed U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort as a tax cheat who used offshore accounts to hide tens of millions of dollars from political work in Ukraine , as the first trial from a probe into Russia ’ s meddling in the 2016 election got off to a quick start on Tuesday . Manafort lived an extravagant lifestyle , snapping up expensive homes and cars , and spending more than half a million dollars on “ fancy clothes ” and $ 21,000 for a watch , a prosecutor said in the government ’ s opening statement at the trial in a Virginia federal court . “ A man in this courtroom believed the law did not apply to him . Not tax , not banking law , ” said Uzo Asonye , a member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team looking at possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016 . In describing the 18 counts facing Manafort , Asonye said that Manafort did not pay taxes on a large portion of the $ 60 million he earned working for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine , hid the income in a web of 30 overseas bank accounts , and lied to U.S. banks to borrow millions of dollars against his real estate holdings once the money from Ukraine dried up . “ All of these charges boil down to one simple issue : that Paul Manafort lied , ” Asonye said . Manafort ’ s attorney Thomas Zehnle painted a drastically different portrait of Manafort , calling him a successful political consultant of 40 years who left the day-to-day operations of his company to his former associate Rick Gates , who betrayed him . Zehnle made it clear that attacking the credibility of Gates , who pleaded guilty in February and agreed to cooperate with Mueller ’ s investigation , would be a central plank of the defense . Gates is expected to be a star witness at the trial . “ Rick Gates had his hand in the cookie jar , ” Zehnle said , claiming that Gates was not truthful with the accountants who prepared Manafort ’ s tax returns and kept his name on offshore accounts to conceal an embezzlement scheme . Thomas Green , who represents Gates , did not respond to a request for comment on the new accusations . The government also presented its first witness , Tad Devine , a political consultant who recalled his work with Manafort in Ukraine to help pro-Russian political figure Viktor Yanukovych , who was swept from power and fled to Russia in 2014 . Devine , a strategist on Democrat Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign , described how Manafort used Western-style polling and advertising to lift Yanukovych to victory in a 2010 election . Prosecutors appeared to be using his testimony to establish the nature of Manafort ’ s work in Ukraine . Devine was also asked about Konstantin Kilimnik , a Russian-Ukranian political consultant who he described as a translator for Manafort . Kilimnik , who prosecutors have said has ties to Russian intelligence , was indicted last month along with Manafort on charges of witness tampering . Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is shown in a court room sketch , as he sits in federal court on the opening day of his trial on bank and tax fraud charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election , in Alexandria , Virginia , U.S. July 31 , 2018 . ███/Bill Hennessy Outside the courthouse , a handful of protesters displayed a life-sized puppet of Trump and held signs saying , “ Trump won ’ t do time for you , ” “ It ’ s Mueller time , ” and “ I like your new suit ” alongside a photo of Manafort ’ s mug shot . A Manafort conviction would give momentum to Mueller , who has indicted or secured guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies since his probe started 14 months ago . An acquittal would support efforts by Trump and his allies to portray the investigation as a “ witch hunt . ” Trump has denied that his campaign colluded with Russia , and on Tuesday tried to make the case publicly that collusion would not be a crime anyway . Prosecutors have said they would not present evidence of collusion at this trial . The charges against Manafort largely pre-date his five months of work for the Trump campaign , some of them as campaign chairman . Trump has vacillated between showing sympathy for Manafort and trying to distance himself . Manafort attended a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians that is a focal point of Mueller ’ s probe . Earlier in the day , U.S. District Judge T.S . Ellis presided over selection of a 12-member jury , six men and six women . Manafort , 69 , was wearing a black suit , white shirt and a tie . He was actively involved in the jury selection , conferring with his attorneys and passing notes . As he was leaving the courtroom at the end of day , he blew a kiss and mouthed “ I love you ” to his wife , Kathleen , who was seated in the first row . On Wednesday , prosecutors are planning to call Daniel Rabin , another political consultant who worked with Manafort in Ukraine , along with an unidentified FBI agent . Manafort faces a second trial in September in Washington , where he is charged with money laundering , failing to register as a foreign agent and witness tampering . He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Prosecutors portrayed U.S. President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort as a tax cheat who used offshore accounts to hide tens of millions of dollars from political work in Ukraine, as the first trial from a probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election got off to a quick start on Tuesday. Manafort lived an extravagant lifestyle, snapping up expensive homes and cars, and spending more than half a million dollars on “fancy clothes” and $21,000 for a watch, a prosecutor said in the government’s opening statement at the trial in a Virginia federal court. “A man in this courtroom believed the law did not apply to him. Not tax, not banking law,” said Uzo Asonye, a member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team looking at possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016. In describing the 18 counts facing Manafort, Asonye said that Manafort did not pay taxes on a large portion of the $60 million he earned working for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, hid the income in a web of 30 overseas bank accounts, and lied to U.S. banks to borrow millions of dollars against his real estate holdings once the money from Ukraine dried up. “All of these charges boil down to one simple issue: that Paul Manafort lied,” Asonye said. Manafort’s attorney Thomas Zehnle painted a drastically different portrait of Manafort, calling him a successful political consultant of 40 years who left the day-to-day operations of his company to his former associate Rick Gates, who betrayed him. Zehnle made it clear that attacking the credibility of Gates, who pleaded guilty in February and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation, would be a central plank of the defense. Gates is expected to be a star witness at the trial. “Rick Gates had his hand in the cookie jar,” Zehnle said, claiming that Gates was not truthful with the accountants who prepared Manafort’s tax returns and kept his name on offshore accounts to conceal an embezzlement scheme. Thomas Green, who represents Gates, did not respond to a request for comment on the new accusations. The government also presented its first witness, Tad Devine, a political consultant who recalled his work with Manafort in Ukraine to help pro-Russian political figure Viktor Yanukovych, who was swept from power and fled to Russia in 2014. Devine, a strategist on Democrat Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign, described how Manafort used Western-style polling and advertising to lift Yanukovych to victory in a 2010 election. Prosecutors appeared to be using his testimony to establish the nature of Manafort’s work in Ukraine. Devine was also asked about Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukranian political consultant who he described as a translator for Manafort. Kilimnik, who prosecutors have said has ties to Russian intelligence, was indicted last month along with Manafort on charges of witness tampering. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is shown in a court room sketch, as he sits in federal court on the opening day of his trial on bank and tax fraud charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. July 31, 2018. REUTERS/Bill Hennessy BLOWING A KISS Outside the courthouse, a handful of protesters displayed a life-sized puppet of Trump and held signs saying, “Trump won’t do time for you,” “It’s Mueller time,” and “I like your new suit” alongside a photo of Manafort’s mug shot. A Manafort conviction would give momentum to Mueller, who has indicted or secured guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies since his probe started 14 months ago. An acquittal would support efforts by Trump and his allies to portray the investigation as a “witch hunt.” Trump has denied that his campaign colluded with Russia, and on Tuesday tried to make the case publicly that collusion would not be a crime anyway. Prosecutors have said they would not present evidence of collusion at this trial. The charges against Manafort largely pre-date his five months of work for the Trump campaign, some of them as campaign chairman. Trump has vacillated between showing sympathy for Manafort and trying to distance himself. Manafort attended a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians that is a focal point of Mueller’s probe. Earlier in the day, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis presided over selection of a 12-member jury, six men and six women. Manafort, 69, was wearing a black suit, white shirt and a tie. He was actively involved in the jury selection, conferring with his attorneys and passing notes. As he was leaving the courtroom at the end of day, he blew a kiss and mouthed “I love you” to his wife, Kathleen, who was seated in the first row. Slideshow (6 Images) On Wednesday, prosecutors are planning to call Daniel Rabin, another political consultant who worked with Manafort in Ukraine, along with an unidentified FBI agent. The trial is expected to last about three weeks. Manafort faces a second trial in September in Washington, where he is charged with money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent and witness tampering. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.

www.reuters.com

center

hwA2On5e1gbGAZE6

test

Pamdk3gwzW9dEwTn

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48735097

US 'launched cyber-attack on Iran weapons systems'

The US launched a cyber-attack on Iranian weapons systems on Thursday as President Trump pulled out of air strikes on the country , US reports say . The cyber-attack disabled computer systems controlling rocket and missile launchers , the Washington Post said . It was in retaliation for the shooting down of a US drone as well as attacks on oil tankers that the US has blamed Iran for , the New York Times said . There is no independent confirmation of damage to Iranian systems . The US is set to impose further sanctions on Iran that President Trump has described as `` major '' . He said the sanctions were needed to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons , and economic pressure would be maintained unless Tehran changed course . Speaking in Jerusalem , US National Security Adviser John Bolton said the details of the new sanctions were likely to be announced on Monday . Nobody had granted Iran `` a hunting licence in the Middle East , '' he added . Tensions between the US and Iran have risen since the US last year pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers and reinstated sanctions , triggering economic meltdown in Iran . Last week Iran said it would exceed internationally agreed limits on its nuclear programme . Mr Trump has said he does not want war with Iran , but warned the country would face `` obliteration '' if conflict broke out . The attack had been planned for several weeks , the sources told US media outlets , and was suggested as a way of responding to the mine attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman . It was aimed at weapons systems used by Iran 's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) , which shot down the US drone last Thursday and which the US says also attacked the tankers . Both the Washington Post and AP news agency said the cyber-attack had disabled the systems . The New York Times said it was intended to take the systems offline for a period of time . On Saturday the US Department for Homeland Security warned that Iran was stepping up its own cyber-attacks on the US . Christopher Krebs , the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , said `` malicious cyberactivity '' was being directed at US industries and government agencies by `` Iranian regime actors and their proxies '' . They were using `` destructive 'wiper ' attacks '' , he said , using tactics such as `` spear phishing , password spraying and credential stuffing '' in a bid to take control of entire networks . Iran has also been trying to hack US naval ship systems , the Washington Post reported . He has n't commented on the cyber-attack reports . On Friday he said he had pulled out of launching conventional strikes on Iran because he had been told that 150 Iranians would be killed . On Saturday he said he was open to talks with the Iranians . `` If Iran wants to become a prosperous nation ... it 's OK with me , '' Mr Trump said . `` But they 're never going to do it if they think in five or six years they 're going to have nuclear weapons . '' `` Let 's make Iran great again , '' he added , echoing his campaign slogan from the 2016 presidential election . The reinstatement of US sanctions last year - particularly those imposed on the energy , shipping and financial sectors - caused foreign investment to dry up and hit oil exports . The sanctions bar US companies from trading with Iran , but also with foreign firms or countries that are dealing with Iran . This has led to shortages of imported goods and products that are made with raw materials from abroad , most notably babies ' nappies . The plunging value of the rial has also affected the cost of locally produced staples such as meat and eggs , which have soared in price . Iran 's IRGC said the drone 's downing was a `` clear message '' to the US that Iran 's borders were `` our red line '' . But US military officials maintain the drone was in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz at the time . Amir Ali Hajizadeh , a high-ranking officer in the IRGC , said another military aircraft , carrying 35 passengers , had been flying close to the drone . `` We could have shot down that one too , but we did not , '' he said .

Image copyright EPA Image caption The attack targeted rocket and missile systems operated by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps The US launched a cyber-attack on Iranian weapons systems on Thursday as President Trump pulled out of air strikes on the country, US reports say. The cyber-attack disabled computer systems controlling rocket and missile launchers, the Washington Post said. It was in retaliation for the shooting down of a US drone as well as attacks on oil tankers that the US has blamed Iran for, the New York Times said. There is no independent confirmation of damage to Iranian systems. The US is set to impose further sanctions on Iran that President Trump has described as "major". He said the sanctions were needed to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and economic pressure would be maintained unless Tehran changed course. Speaking in Jerusalem, US National Security Adviser John Bolton said the details of the new sanctions were likely to be announced on Monday. Nobody had granted Iran "a hunting licence in the Middle East," he added. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Bolton: Iran does not have a Mid-East 'hunting licence' Tensions between the US and Iran have risen since the US last year pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers and reinstated sanctions, triggering economic meltdown in Iran. Last week Iran said it would exceed internationally agreed limits on its nuclear programme. Mr Trump has said he does not want war with Iran, but warned the country would face "obliteration" if conflict broke out. What did the US cyber-attack do? The attack had been planned for several weeks, the sources told US media outlets, and was suggested as a way of responding to the mine attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman. It was aimed at weapons systems used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which shot down the US drone last Thursday and which the US says also attacked the tankers. Both the Washington Post and AP news agency said the cyber-attack had disabled the systems. The New York Times said it was intended to take the systems offline for a period of time. On Saturday the US Department for Homeland Security warned that Iran was stepping up its own cyber-attacks on the US. Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said "malicious cyberactivity" was being directed at US industries and government agencies by "Iranian regime actors and their proxies". They were using "destructive 'wiper' attacks", he said, using tactics such as "spear phishing, password spraying and credential stuffing" in a bid to take control of entire networks. Iran has also been trying to hack US naval ship systems, the Washington Post reported. What has Trump said? He hasn't commented on the cyber-attack reports. On Friday he said he had pulled out of launching conventional strikes on Iran because he had been told that 150 Iranians would be killed. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump: "Let's make Iran great again" On Saturday he said he was open to talks with the Iranians. "If Iran wants to become a prosperous nation... it's OK with me," Mr Trump said. "But they're never going to do it if they think in five or six years they're going to have nuclear weapons." "Let's make Iran great again," he added, echoing his campaign slogan from the 2016 presidential election. How have US sanctions hit Iran? The reinstatement of US sanctions last year - particularly those imposed on the energy, shipping and financial sectors - caused foreign investment to dry up and hit oil exports. The sanctions bar US companies from trading with Iran, but also with foreign firms or countries that are dealing with Iran. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's James Landale went to Tehran's Grand Bazaar see what people think of the stringent sanctions This has led to shortages of imported goods and products that are made with raw materials from abroad, most notably babies' nappies. The plunging value of the rial has also affected the cost of locally produced staples such as meat and eggs, which have soared in price. What happened to the US drone? Iran's IRGC said the drone's downing was a "clear message" to the US that Iran's borders were "our red line". But US military officials maintain the drone was in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz at the time. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a high-ranking officer in the IRGC, said another military aircraft, carrying 35 passengers, had been flying close to the drone. "We could have shot down that one too, but we did not," he said.

www.bbc.com

center

Pamdk3gwzW9dEwTn

test

NAmgTUan89umPLkC

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gays-catholic-teachings-us/2015/08/09/id/669230/

Catholics Wrestle with Teachings as Gay Employees Dismissed

2015-08-09

Maryclaire Dale

Pope Francis refined his vision for the church last week when he said long-spurned divorced and remarried Catholics should be welcomed with `` open doors . '' And he has famously parsed centuries of thought on homosexuality into a five-word quip : `` Who am I to judge ? '' Yet the Archdiocese of Philadelphia opened its door only briefly when married gay teacher Margie Winters , trailed by supporters , arrived Monday with 23,000 petitions seeking reinstatement to her job at a Catholic elementary school . `` The school and the Sisters of Mercy allowed me to work there for eight years . Once the diocese was notified , something changed , '' said Winters , who was disappointed that a security guard , and not a church official , took her petitions at the chancery door . Winters , 50 , lost her job at Waldron Mercy Academy in June after a parent complained about her 2007 marriage to a woman . Her case highlights the shifting fault lines over gays in the church — and in church workplaces — just before the pope visits Philadelphia next month for the World Meeting of Families . Jesuit-run Fordham University is standing by its theology chairman whose same-sex marriage made the New York Times wedding section this year , while Seton Hall University , with ties to the Newark , New Jersey , archdiocese , recently dismissed a chaplain who denounced gay bullying and later came out as gay . Around the country , more than 50 people have reported losing their jobs at Catholic institutions since 2010 over their sexual orientation or identity , according to New Ways Ministries , an advocacy group for gay , lesbian , bisexual and transgender Catholics based in Mount Ranier , Maryland . Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput , wading into the issue amid Winters ' case , stressed that Catholic schools are responsible for `` teaching and witnessing the Catholic faith in a manner true to Catholic belief , '' referring to the church 's condemnation of homosexual activity . He said the Mercy officials showed `` character and common sense '' for sticking to church teachings . `` A great number of people like to pick apart the remarks of the Holy Father and manipulate them to drive their own agendas , '' his spokesman , Ken Gavin , said Thursday in response to questions about the pope 's latest comments . `` Keeping the doors open does not mean that basic church teachings will be changed . ... The Holy Father has not given any signals that teaching on the meaning and sanctity of marriage will be changing . '' Winters and her wife , Andrea Vettori , clinical director at a health center for the homeless , met in their mid-30s when they entered the Sisters of Mercy as candidates for religious life . Instead , they felt called to build a life with each other , and married in Massachusetts in May 2007 . Winters was hired that August as director of religious education , leading service and outreach efforts at the school in suburban Merion Station . On the advice of her principal , she was open about her marriage with colleagues , but kept mum around students and families . Many came to see her as the heart of the school . `` She was really able to instill in the kids that helping those less fortunate is something you do every day . It was n't just something she would pull together on a holiday , '' said parent Jerry Dever , a Philadelphia lawyer with two children at Waldron . Waldron is run by the Mercy sisters , independent of the archdiocese , but the local church has the power to pull the `` Catholic identity '' of any institution seen to stray from church teaching . Gavin said that no such threat was made to Waldron . In a pained July 3 letter to parents that noted Winters ' `` amazing contribution '' to the school community , principal Nell Stetser said the nuns must recognize `` the authority of the archbishop of Philadelphia , especially in the teaching of religion . '' `` My hope is the pain we experience today adds to the urgency of engaging in an open and honest discussion about this and other divisive issues at the intersection of our society and our church , '' she wrote . With same-sex marriage now legal across the U.S. , more gays employed in church settings are likely to get married and live openly . That brings more potential conflict for their employers , who can claim a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws . Winters hopes to sneak in a word with Pope Francis on his visit and push for a moratorium on LGBT firings . `` The pattern that I see is that schools themselves , many of them , have been supportive of their gay and lesbian employees , even those who have chosen to marry . The problem always arises when something becomes public , or a parent complains , '' said Francis DeBernardo , executive director of New Ways Ministries . `` It 's bringing out the worst in the leadership , and it 's bringing out the best in the people . ''

Pope Francis refined his vision for the church last week when he said long-spurned divorced and remarried Catholics should be welcomed with "open doors." And he has famously parsed centuries of thought on homosexuality into a five-word quip: "Who am I to judge?" Yet the Archdiocese of Philadelphia opened its door only briefly when married gay teacher Margie Winters, trailed by supporters, arrived Monday with 23,000 petitions seeking reinstatement to her job at a Catholic elementary school. "The school and the Sisters of Mercy allowed me to work there for eight years. Once the diocese was notified, something changed," said Winters, who was disappointed that a security guard, and not a church official, took her petitions at the chancery door. Winters, 50, lost her job at Waldron Mercy Academy in June after a parent complained about her 2007 marriage to a woman. Her case highlights the shifting fault lines over gays in the church — and in church workplaces — just before the pope visits Philadelphia next month for the World Meeting of Families. Jesuit-run Fordham University is standing by its theology chairman whose same-sex marriage made the New York Times wedding section this year, while Seton Hall University, with ties to the Newark, New Jersey, archdiocese, recently dismissed a chaplain who denounced gay bullying and later came out as gay. Around the country, more than 50 people have reported losing their jobs at Catholic institutions since 2010 over their sexual orientation or identity, according to New Ways Ministries, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics based in Mount Ranier, Maryland. Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, wading into the issue amid Winters' case, stressed that Catholic schools are responsible for "teaching and witnessing the Catholic faith in a manner true to Catholic belief," referring to the church's condemnation of homosexual activity. He said the Mercy officials showed "character and common sense" for sticking to church teachings. "A great number of people like to pick apart the remarks of the Holy Father and manipulate them to drive their own agendas," his spokesman, Ken Gavin, said Thursday in response to questions about the pope's latest comments. "Keeping the doors open does not mean that basic church teachings will be changed. ... The Holy Father has not given any signals that teaching on the meaning and sanctity of marriage will be changing." Winters and her wife, Andrea Vettori, clinical director at a health center for the homeless, met in their mid-30s when they entered the Sisters of Mercy as candidates for religious life. Instead, they felt called to build a life with each other, and married in Massachusetts in May 2007. Winters was hired that August as director of religious education, leading service and outreach efforts at the school in suburban Merion Station. On the advice of her principal, she was open about her marriage with colleagues, but kept mum around students and families. Many came to see her as the heart of the school. "She was really able to instill in the kids that helping those less fortunate is something you do every day. It wasn't just something she would pull together on a holiday," said parent Jerry Dever, a Philadelphia lawyer with two children at Waldron. Waldron is run by the Mercy sisters, independent of the archdiocese, but the local church has the power to pull the "Catholic identity" of any institution seen to stray from church teaching. Gavin said that no such threat was made to Waldron. In a pained July 3 letter to parents that noted Winters' "amazing contribution" to the school community, principal Nell Stetser said the nuns must recognize "the authority of the archbishop of Philadelphia, especially in the teaching of religion." "My hope is the pain we experience today adds to the urgency of engaging in an open and honest discussion about this and other divisive issues at the intersection of our society and our church," she wrote. With same-sex marriage now legal across the U.S., more gays employed in church settings are likely to get married and live openly. That brings more potential conflict for their employers, who can claim a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Winters hopes to sneak in a word with Pope Francis on his visit and push for a moratorium on LGBT firings. "The pattern that I see is that schools themselves, many of them, have been supportive of their gay and lesbian employees, even those who have chosen to marry. The problem always arises when something becomes public, or a parent complains," said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministries. "It's bringing out the worst in the leadership, and it's bringing out the best in the people."

www.newsmax.com

right

NAmgTUan89umPLkC

test

4bMbxwXJi0fQ9pyG

politics

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/us/trump/2020/05/27/id/969318/

Trump to Sign Executive Order on Social Media on Thursday, WH Says

2020-05-27

Jeff Mason, Nandita Bose

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on social media companies on Thursday , White House officials said after Trump threatened to shut down websites he accused of stifling conservative voices . The officials gave no further details . It was unclear how Trump could follow through on the threat of shutting down privately owned companies including Twitter Inc . The company declined comment . The dispute erupted after Twitter on Tuesday for the first time tagged Trump 's tweets about unsubstantiated claims of fraud in mail-in voting with a warning prompting readers to fact check the posts . Separately , a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by a conservative group and right-wing YouTube personality against Google , Facebook , Twitter and Apple accusing them of conspiring to suppress conservative political views . In an interview with Fox News Channel on Wednesday , Facebook 's Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said censoring a platform would not be the `` right reflex '' for a government worried about censorship . Fox played a clip of the interview and said it would be aired in full on Thursday . Facebook left Trump 's post on mail-in ballots on Tuesday untouched . The American Civil Liberties Union said the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution limits any action Trump could take . Facebook and Google declined comment . Apple did not respond to a request for comment . `` Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices . We will strongly regulate , or close them down , before we can ever allow this to happen , '' Trump said in a pair of additional posts on Twitter on Wednesday . The president , a heavy user of Twitter with more than 80 million followers , added : `` Clean up your act , NOW ! ! ! ! '' Republican Trump has an eye on the November election . `` Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election , '' Trump tweeted on Wednesday night . `` If that happens , we no longer have our freedom . '' Trump 's threat is his strongest yet within a broader conservative backlash against Big Tech . Shares of both Twitter and Facebook fell on Wednesday . Last year the White House circulated drafts of a proposed executive order about anti-conservative bias which never gained traction . The Internet Association , which includes Twitter and Facebook among its members , said online platforms do not have a political bias and they offer `` more people a chance to be heard than at any point in history . '' Asked during Twitter 's annual meeting on Wednesday why the company decided to affix the label to Trump 's mail-in ballot tweets , General Counsel Sean Edgett said decisions about handling misinformation are made as a group . `` We have a group and committee of folks who take a look at these things and make decisions on what 's getting a lot of visibility and traction ... , '' he said . In recent years Twitter has tightened its policies amid criticism that its hands-off approach allowed fake accounts and misinformation to thrive . Tech companies have been accused of anti-competitive practices and violating user privacy . Apple , Google , Facebook and Amazon face antitrust probes by federal and state authorities and a U.S. congressional panel . Republican and Democratic lawmakers , along with the U.S. Justice Department , have been considering changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their users post . Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits . Republican Senator Josh Hawley , a frequent critic of Big Tech companies , sent a letter to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey asking why the company should continue to receive legal immunity after `` choosing to editorialize on President Trump 's tweets . ''

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on social media companies on Thursday, White House officials said after Trump threatened to shut down websites he accused of stifling conservative voices. The officials gave no further details. It was unclear how Trump could follow through on the threat of shutting down privately owned companies including Twitter Inc. The company declined comment. The dispute erupted after Twitter on Tuesday for the first time tagged Trump's tweets about unsubstantiated claims of fraud in mail-in voting with a warning prompting readers to fact check the posts. Separately, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by a conservative group and right-wing YouTube personality against Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple accusing them of conspiring to suppress conservative political views. In an interview with Fox News Channel on Wednesday, Facebook's Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said censoring a platform would not be the "right reflex" for a government worried about censorship. Fox played a clip of the interview and said it would be aired in full on Thursday. Facebook left Trump's post on mail-in ballots on Tuesday untouched. The American Civil Liberties Union said the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution limits any action Trump could take. Facebook and Google declined comment. Apple did not respond to a request for comment. "Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen," Trump said in a pair of additional posts on Twitter on Wednesday. The president, a heavy user of Twitter with more than 80 million followers, added: "Clean up your act, NOW!!!!" Republican Trump has an eye on the November election. "Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election," Trump tweeted on Wednesday night. "If that happens, we no longer have our freedom." STRONGEST THREAT YET Trump's threat is his strongest yet within a broader conservative backlash against Big Tech. Shares of both Twitter and Facebook fell on Wednesday. Last year the White House circulated drafts of a proposed executive order about anti-conservative bias which never gained traction. The Internet Association, which includes Twitter and Facebook among its members, said online platforms do not have a political bias and they offer "more people a chance to be heard than at any point in history." Asked during Twitter's annual meeting on Wednesday why the company decided to affix the label to Trump's mail-in ballot tweets, General Counsel Sean Edgett said decisions about handling misinformation are made as a group. "We have a group and committee of folks who take a look at these things and make decisions on what's getting a lot of visibility and traction ...," he said. In recent years Twitter has tightened its policies amid criticism that its hands-off approach allowed fake accounts and misinformation to thrive. Tech companies have been accused of anti-competitive practices and violating user privacy. Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon face antitrust probes by federal and state authorities and a U.S. congressional panel. Republican and Democratic lawmakers, along with the U.S. Justice Department, have been considering changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their users post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits. Republican Senator Josh Hawley, a frequent critic of Big Tech companies, sent a letter to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey asking why the company should continue to receive legal immunity after "choosing to editorialize on President Trump's tweets."

www.newsmax.com

right

4bMbxwXJi0fQ9pyG

test

oSL23GY5gc8kS5ff

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-silentsam/teardown-of-north-carolina-confederate-statue-sparks-criminal-probe-idUSKCN1L60A6

Teardown of North Carolina Confederate statue sparks criminal probe

2018-08-21

Jonathan Drake

CHAPEL HILL , N.C. ( ███ ) - University of North Carolina police on Tuesday were reviewing video to find the protesters who toppled a statue of Confederate soldier on campus , part of a recent movement to dismantle U.S. Civil War symbols that critics say glorify the South ’ s legacy of slavery . About 300 demonstrators gathered on Monday evening for a protest and march at the base of Silent Sam , a memorial erected in 1913 to soldiers of the pro-slavery Confederacy killed during the Civil War . Protesters pulled the statue down with rope , cheering as it lay face down in the mud , its head and back covered in dirt . The university system ’ s board chair , Harry Smith , and president , Margaret Spellings , denounced the toppling of the statue in a joint statement . “ The actions last evening were unacceptable , dangerous , and incomprehensible , ” they said . “ We are a nation of laws and mob rule and the intentional destruction of public property will not be tolerated . ” Last year UNC students threatened to sue the school , alleging that the university violated federal anti-discrimination laws by allowing the statue to remain on campus . North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper , a Democrat , said in a statement he shared protesters “ frustration ” over statues but condemned the violent destruction of public property . Campus police arrested at least one person at the protest for wearing a mask and resisting arrest , according to Audrey Smith , a university spokeswoman . The efforts by civil rights groups and others to do away with Confederate monuments such as Silent Sam gained momentum three years ago after avowed white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine black people at a church in Charleston , South Carolina . The shooting rampage ultimately led to the removal of a Confederate flag from the statehouse in Columbia . Since then , more than 110 symbols of the Confederacy have been removed across the nation with more than 1,700 still standing , according to the Southern Poverty Law Center , a civil rights group . Many of the monuments were erected in the early 20th century , decades after the Civil War ’ s end in 1865 . A statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee was vandalized and later removed by school officials last year at neighboring Duke University in Durham , North Carolina . Many Americans see such statues as symbols of racism and glorifications of the southern states ’ defense of slavery . Others view them as important symbols of American history . The head of the United Daughters of the Confederacy said on Tuesday the group denounced hate groups and asked people to leave Confederate monuments alone . “ We are grieved that certain hate groups have taken the Confederate flag and other symbols as their own , ” the group ’ s president , Patricia Bryson , said in a statement .

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (Reuters) - University of North Carolina police on Tuesday were reviewing video to find the protesters who toppled a statue of Confederate soldier on campus, part of a recent movement to dismantle U.S. Civil War symbols that critics say glorify the South’s legacy of slavery. About 300 demonstrators gathered on Monday evening for a protest and march at the base of Silent Sam, a memorial erected in 1913 to soldiers of the pro-slavery Confederacy killed during the Civil War. Protesters pulled the statue down with rope, cheering as it lay face down in the mud, its head and back covered in dirt. The university system’s board chair, Harry Smith, and president, Margaret Spellings, denounced the toppling of the statue in a joint statement. “The actions last evening were unacceptable, dangerous, and incomprehensible,” they said. “We are a nation of laws and mob rule and the intentional destruction of public property will not be tolerated.” Last year UNC students threatened to sue the school, alleging that the university violated federal anti-discrimination laws by allowing the statue to remain on campus. North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat, said in a statement he shared protesters “frustration” over statues but condemned the violent destruction of public property. Campus police arrested at least one person at the protest for wearing a mask and resisting arrest, according to Audrey Smith, a university spokeswoman. The efforts by civil rights groups and others to do away with Confederate monuments such as Silent Sam gained momentum three years ago after avowed white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine black people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooting rampage ultimately led to the removal of a Confederate flag from the statehouse in Columbia. Since then, more than 110 symbols of the Confederacy have been removed across the nation with more than 1,700 still standing, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group. Many of the monuments were erected in the early 20th century, decades after the Civil War’s end in 1865. A statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee was vandalized and later removed by school officials last year at neighboring Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Slideshow (9 Images) Many Americans see such statues as symbols of racism and glorifications of the southern states’ defense of slavery. Others view them as important symbols of American history. The head of the United Daughters of the Confederacy said on Tuesday the group denounced hate groups and asked people to leave Confederate monuments alone. “We are grieved that certain hate groups have taken the Confederate flag and other symbols as their own,” the group’s president, Patricia Bryson, said in a statement.

www.reuters.com

center

oSL23GY5gc8kS5ff

test

710BLc7AaibyNVtA

fbi

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43094840

Florida school shooting: FBI under pressure over failure to act

Pressure is mounting on the FBI over the agency 's failure to act on a tip that Florida school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz might carry out an attack . Florida Governor Rick Scott said the agency 's director must resign , while Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review , lamenting FBI `` failures '' . Some of those close to the 17 victims of Wednesday 's shooting also voiced dismay at the FBI 's actions . President Donald Trump on Friday met survivors of the attack in Parkland . Mr Trump and First Lady Melania Trump visited a hospital and later the local sheriff 's office , thanking them for their response to the tragedy . `` What a great job you 've done , '' Mr Trump told law enforcement officials , adding : `` I hope you get credit for it because believe me , you deserve it . '' Nikolas Cruz , 19 , has confessed to carrying out Wednesday 's attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland and has been charged with 17 counts of murder . It was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012 and has re-ignited debates about gun control , with many students from the school weighing in . It comes after the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted it did not properly follow up on a warning about Mr Cruz . On 5 January a person close to the suspect contacted the FBI tipline to provide `` information about Cruz 's gun ownership , desire to kill people , erratic behaviour , and disturbing social media posts , as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting '' , an FBI statement said . The FBI said that information should have been assessed as a potential threat to life and passed on to the Miami field office but that `` we have determined these protocols were not followed '' . FBI Director Christopher Wray said the bureau was `` still investigating the facts '' and was committed to `` getting to the bottom of what happened '' . `` We have spoken with victims and families , and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy , '' he added . The 5 January tip was not the only information the FBI received about Nikolas Cruz . In September , a Mississippi man reported to the law enforcement agency a disturbing comment left on a YouTube video by a user called `` nikolas cruz '' which said : `` I 'm going to be a professional school shooter . '' Ben Bennight said he spoke to FBI representatives for about 20 minutes and that they contacted him again following the Parkland shooting . The FBI on Thursday said they had conducted `` checks '' at the time , but were unable to identify the person behind the comment . Questions are also being asked about how local police responded to concern about Nikolas Cruz . Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said his office had received 20 `` calls for service '' about him . Each one would be scrutinised , he said , without going into detail about the nature of the calls . Governor Scott said in a statement that `` the FBI 's failure to take action against this killer is unacceptable '' . He said that an apology would never give families `` the answers they desperately need '' and said that Mr Wray had to resign . `` We constantly promote 'see something , say something , ' and a courageous person did just that to the FBI . And the FBI failed to act , '' he said . At a funeral for 18-year-old victim Meadow Pollack , Jeff Richman , a family friend , questioned the value of the FBI 's apology . `` The FBI apologised ? Tell that to families , '' he told Reuters news agency . Meanwhile , Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the FBI 's `` failures '' had led to `` tragic consequences '' , and announced a review at the justice department and FBI into how `` indications of potential violence '' are responded to . The FBI has been criticised before for having been aware of a possible threat and then failing to thwart an attack : The gunman of the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas was known to the FBI The bureau had information about one of the two brothers behind the deadly Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 The gunman who killed 49 people in a gay club in Orlando , Florida , in 2016 was on the FBI 's radar In 2016 , the FBI received about 1,300 tips a day through its website , which is staffed around the clock by two dozen people . In addition to online tips , FBI field offices receive dozens of calls . About 100 of the tips are considered `` actionable '' . Mr Cruz had been expelled from the school he has confessed to attacking and some students said they had previously joked he would one day `` shoot up the school '' . One former schoolmate , Chad Williams , said Mr Cruz was an `` outcast '' who was `` crazy about guns '' . His interest in weapons was apparent on his social media profiles , which the Broward County sheriff said were `` very , very disturbing '' . Mr Cruz had reportedly been treated for mental health issues at a clinic .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Florida survivors on gun laws: 'Something has to change' Pressure is mounting on the FBI over the agency's failure to act on a tip that Florida school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz might carry out an attack. Florida Governor Rick Scott said the agency's director must resign, while Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review, lamenting FBI "failures". Some of those close to the 17 victims of Wednesday's shooting also voiced dismay at the FBI's actions. President Donald Trump on Friday met survivors of the attack in Parkland. Mr Trump and First Lady Melania Trump visited a hospital and later the local sheriff's office, thanking them for their response to the tragedy. "What a great job you've done," Mr Trump told law enforcement officials, adding: "I hope you get credit for it because believe me, you deserve it." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Inside the classroom: 'We watched gunman shoot our friends' Nikolas Cruz, 19, has confessed to carrying out Wednesday's attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland and has been charged with 17 counts of murder. It was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012 and has re-ignited debates about gun control, with many students from the school weighing in. What triggered strong criticism of the FBI? It comes after the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted it did not properly follow up on a warning about Mr Cruz. On 5 January a person close to the suspect contacted the FBI tipline to provide "information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behaviour, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting", an FBI statement said. The FBI said that information should have been assessed as a potential threat to life and passed on to the Miami field office but that "we have determined these protocols were not followed". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Chicago Cubs' Anthony Rizzo speaks at Florida shooting vigil FBI Director Christopher Wray said the bureau was "still investigating the facts" and was committed to "getting to the bottom of what happened". "We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy," he added. The 5 January tip was not the only information the FBI received about Nikolas Cruz. In September, a Mississippi man reported to the law enforcement agency a disturbing comment left on a YouTube video by a user called "nikolas cruz" which said: "I'm going to be a professional school shooter." Ben Bennight said he spoke to FBI representatives for about 20 minutes and that they contacted him again following the Parkland shooting. The FBI on Thursday said they had conducted "checks" at the time, but were unable to identify the person behind the comment. Questions are also being asked about how local police responded to concern about Nikolas Cruz. Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said his office had received 20 "calls for service" about him. Each one would be scrutinised, he said, without going into detail about the nature of the calls. What's being said about the FBI? Governor Scott said in a statement that "the FBI's failure to take action against this killer is unacceptable". He said that an apology would never give families "the answers they desperately need" and said that Mr Wray had to resign. "We constantly promote 'see something, say something,' and a courageous person did just that to the FBI. And the FBI failed to act," he said. At a funeral for 18-year-old victim Meadow Pollack, Jeff Richman, a family friend, questioned the value of the FBI's apology. "The FBI apologised? Tell that to families," he told Reuters news agency. Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the FBI's "failures" had led to "tragic consequences", and announced a review at the justice department and FBI into how "indications of potential violence" are responded to. The FBI has been criticised before for having been aware of a possible threat and then failing to thwart an attack: The gunman of the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas was known to the FBI The bureau had information about one of the two brothers behind the deadly Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 The gunman who killed 49 people in a gay club in Orlando, Florida, in 2016 was on the FBI's radar In 2016, the FBI received about 1,300 tips a day through its website, which is staffed around the clock by two dozen people. In addition to online tips, FBI field offices receive dozens of calls. About 100 of the tips are considered "actionable". What do we know about the suspect? Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Florida shooting suspect appears in court Mr Cruz had been expelled from the school he has confessed to attacking and some students said they had previously joked he would one day "shoot up the school". One former schoolmate, Chad Williams, said Mr Cruz was an "outcast" who was "crazy about guns". His interest in weapons was apparent on his social media profiles, which the Broward County sheriff said were "very, very disturbing". Mr Cruz had reportedly been treated for mental health issues at a clinic.

www.bbc.com

center

710BLc7AaibyNVtA

test

cayISqzjcRPaobcs

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/inauguration-boycott-donald-trump-martin-luther-king-iii-john-lewis

Inauguration boycott grows as Donald Trump meets Martin Luther King III

2017-01-16

Joanna Walters, Jill Abramson, Jamie Weinstein, Jonathan Freedland

As son of civil rights hero attends Trump Tower for ‘ constructive ’ meeting , more than 30 Democrats say they will not attend after Trump spat with John Lewis More than 30 members of Congress will boycott Donald Trump ’ s inauguration on Friday , amid escalating outrage over alleged connections between the president-elect ’ s team and Russia and disparaging remarks about civil rights veteran John Lewis . Jared Kushner has Trump ’ s trust but lacks experience for Middle East role Read more As the US marked its national holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr on Monday , the number of Democrats pledging to shun Friday ’ s ceremony and celebrations rose . Keith Ellison , the first Muslim elected to Congress and a candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee , joined them . Their extraordinary step was praised by progressive leaders . A little before 1pm , however , Martin Luther King III , the oldest child of Martin Luther King Jr , arrived at Trump Tower in New York to meet the president-elect . Around 50 minutes later , King emerged from the building ’ s elevators and spoke to reporters . Asked why he had met Trump , who did not talk to the press but was seen shaking his guest ’ s hand , he said it was a constructive meeting and added : “ We have got to move forward . ” King and William Wachtel , a New York lawyer , said they spoke to Trump about voter participation and how to carry forward King ’ s father ’ s legacy by making it “ easier for everyone to vote ” . “ President-elect Trump has committed to working with us , ” Wachtel said . In 2013 , a supreme court decision struck down key elements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act , a central achievement of the civil rights movement designed to protect minority voters . “ This president may well ” be in adherence with the spirit of the Voting Rights Act “ and once again make it easy for all Americans to vote ” , Wachtel said . Asked about Lewis , King said : “ Things get said on both sides in the heat of emotion . And at some point in this nation we ’ ve got to move forward. ” He added that he would “ continue to evaluate ” Trump ’ s commitment to representing all Americans . “ I believe we have to consistently engage with pressure , public pressure , ” King said . “ It doesn ’ t happen automatically , my father and his team understood that , did that . “ I think my father would be very concerned about the 50 to 60 million people living in poverty . It ’ s insanity that we have poor people in this nation , it ’ s unacceptable . We need to be talking about how to clothe people , how do we feed people . ” One civil rights veteran told ███ she supported the Trump-King meeting but also praised members of Congress who plan to boycott the inauguration . “ Those members of Congress feel that not attending the inauguration is making a statement that they are against the politics put forth by Donald Trump , ” Doris Crenshaw , who campaigned with Rosa Parks and met Martin Luther King Jr before his assassination in 1968 , told ███ . She called on Trump to call Lewis and “ have a conversation ” . Cornell William Brooks , president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ) , has demanded that Trump apologize to Lewis , the long-time Georgia congressman who had his skull broken by the police during the pivotal Selma to Montgomery march of 1965 . Lewis said last week he would not attend the inauguration and did not regard Trump as a legitimate president , following intelligence reports of Russian interference in the election . Trump launched a fierce counterattack on Twitter in which he accused Lewis of being “ all talk ” and warned him to focus on his district which was “ crime infested ” . Donald Trump starts MLK weekend by attacking civil rights hero John Lewis Read more On Monday in Miami , Lewis spoke at a breakfast to celebrate the MLK holiday . He did not mention Trump but invoked King ’ s philosophy of non-violence in a hinted rebuke at the president-elect ’ s vitriolic style . “ You must never , ever hate , ” he said . “ Stand up , speak up , when you see something that is not right and not fair and not just , you have a moral obligation to do something and say something . ” Lewis spoke of his childhood , of trying out his voice as a preacher while tending chickens at his family farm . “ The chickens listened better than some of my fellow members in Congress listen to me now , ” he said , to laugher . He also told of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who once beat him up later coming to his office on Capitol Hill , where he has been a congressman since 1987 , to apologize and ask for forgiveness . Lewis added that he did now know where his career – or America – would be without Martin Luther King Jr. “ He freed us , he liberated us , ” he said . Martin Luther King III was ushered into Trump Tower by the president-elect ’ s surrogate and former reality TV participant Omarosa Manigault . The agenda for the meeting was not publicised beforehand . “ I think it ’ s good that he meets Trump , ” said Crenshaw , who was vice-president of the NAACP youth council during the civil rights years . “ You can not operate with a ‘ no talk ’ policy : someone has to get in there and talk to Donald Trump and I think King should be congratulated for his efforts . It ’ s important to address poverty and education problems that we have nationwide . ” Some of the members of Congress boycotting the inauguration , such as Luis Gutierrez of Illinois , Nydia Velazquez of New York and Pramila Jayapal of Washington , have said they will attend the Women ’ s March on Washington on Saturday instead . The Women ’ s March is expected to attract hundreds of thousands rallying for progressive causes , from women ’ s and racial equality to reproductive rights , the environment and the minimum wage . Kaylin Whittingham , president of the Association of Black Women Attorneys , a partner organization of the march , said those marching instead of going to the inauguration were showing Trump the power of action over words . Women 's March on Washington set to be one of America 's biggest protests Read more “ If you go to the inauguration and you do not go to the march it looks like you are supporting whatever Donald Trump stands for , ” she said . “ But if you go to the march you are lending your voice and being part of this movement . ” Whittingham said Trump had shown great disrespect to Lewis . “ John Lewis has been in action since Trump was a little boy , ” she said . Trump ’ s remarks about Lewis brought anger among congressional opponents to boiling point . Some planning to boycott the inauguration followed Lewis in citing Trump ’ s alleged links with Russia , which are the subject of controversial reports ranging from business dealings to whether Russian intelligence has compromising material on him . Trump has said he thinks Russia was behind hacks against Democratic party bodies , but he has also deepened a potentially damaging rift with the intelligence agencies . Congressman Mark DeSaulnier of California said in a video statement he would not attend the inauguration because he believes Trump as president will be in violation of the constitution , because of conflicts of interest with his business empire .

As son of civil rights hero attends Trump Tower for ‘constructive’ meeting, more than 30 Democrats say they will not attend after Trump spat with John Lewis This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old More than 30 members of Congress will boycott Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday, amid escalating outrage over alleged connections between the president-elect’s team and Russia and disparaging remarks about civil rights veteran John Lewis. Jared Kushner has Trump’s trust but lacks experience for Middle East role Read more As the US marked its national holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr on Monday, the number of Democrats pledging to shun Friday’s ceremony and celebrations rose. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress and a candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee, joined them. Their extraordinary step was praised by progressive leaders. A little before 1pm, however, Martin Luther King III, the oldest child of Martin Luther King Jr, arrived at Trump Tower in New York to meet the president-elect. Around 50 minutes later, King emerged from the building’s elevators and spoke to reporters. Asked why he had met Trump, who did not talk to the press but was seen shaking his guest’s hand, he said it was a constructive meeting and added: “We have got to move forward.” King and William Wachtel, a New York lawyer, said they spoke to Trump about voter participation and how to carry forward King’s father’s legacy by making it “easier for everyone to vote”. “President-elect Trump has committed to working with us,” Wachtel said. In 2013, a supreme court decision struck down key elements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a central achievement of the civil rights movement designed to protect minority voters. “This president may well” be in adherence with the spirit of the Voting Rights Act “and once again make it easy for all Americans to vote”, Wachtel said. Asked about Lewis, King said: “Things get said on both sides in the heat of emotion. And at some point in this nation we’ve got to move forward.” He added that he would “continue to evaluate” Trump’s commitment to representing all Americans. “I believe we have to consistently engage with pressure, public pressure,” King said. “It doesn’t happen automatically, my father and his team understood that, did that. “I think my father would be very concerned about the 50 to 60 million people living in poverty. It’s insanity that we have poor people in this nation, it’s unacceptable. We need to be talking about how to clothe people, how do we feed people.” One civil rights veteran told the Guardian she supported the Trump-King meeting but also praised members of Congress who plan to boycott the inauguration. “Those members of Congress feel that not attending the inauguration is making a statement that they are against the politics put forth by Donald Trump,” Doris Crenshaw, who campaigned with Rosa Parks and met Martin Luther King Jr before his assassination in 1968, told the Guardian. She called on Trump to call Lewis and “have a conversation”. Cornell William Brooks, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), has demanded that Trump apologize to Lewis, the long-time Georgia congressman who had his skull broken by the police during the pivotal Selma to Montgomery march of 1965. Lewis said last week he would not attend the inauguration and did not regard Trump as a legitimate president, following intelligence reports of Russian interference in the election. Trump launched a fierce counterattack on Twitter in which he accused Lewis of being “all talk” and warned him to focus on his district which was “crime infested”. Donald Trump starts MLK weekend by attacking civil rights hero John Lewis Read more On Monday in Miami, Lewis spoke at a breakfast to celebrate the MLK holiday. He did not mention Trump but invoked King’s philosophy of non-violence in a hinted rebuke at the president-elect’s vitriolic style. “You must never, ever hate,” he said. “Stand up, speak up, when you see something that is not right and not fair and not just, you have a moral obligation to do something and say something.” Lewis spoke of his childhood, of trying out his voice as a preacher while tending chickens at his family farm. “The chickens listened better than some of my fellow members in Congress listen to me now,” he said, to laugher. He also told of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who once beat him up later coming to his office on Capitol Hill, where he has been a congressman since 1987, to apologize and ask for forgiveness. Lewis added that he did now know where his career – or America – would be without Martin Luther King Jr. “He freed us, he liberated us,” he said. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Martin Luther King Jr memorial in Washington DC, seen the morning of MLK Day on 16 January. Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images Martin Luther King III was ushered into Trump Tower by the president-elect’s surrogate and former reality TV participant Omarosa Manigault. The agenda for the meeting was not publicised beforehand. “I think it’s good that he meets Trump,” said Crenshaw, who was vice-president of the NAACP youth council during the civil rights years. “You cannot operate with a ‘no talk’ policy: someone has to get in there and talk to Donald Trump and I think King should be congratulated for his efforts. It’s important to address poverty and education problems that we have nationwide.” Some of the members of Congress boycotting the inauguration, such as Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Nydia Velazquez of New York and Pramila Jayapal of Washington, have said they will attend the Women’s March on Washington on Saturday instead. The Women’s March is expected to attract hundreds of thousands rallying for progressive causes, from women’s and racial equality to reproductive rights, the environment and the minimum wage. Kaylin Whittingham, president of the Association of Black Women Attorneys, a partner organization of the march, said those marching instead of going to the inauguration were showing Trump the power of action over words. Women's March on Washington set to be one of America's biggest protests Read more “If you go to the inauguration and you do not go to the march it looks like you are supporting whatever Donald Trump stands for,” she said. “But if you go to the march you are lending your voice and being part of this movement.” Whittingham said Trump had shown great disrespect to Lewis. “John Lewis has been in action since Trump was a little boy,” she said. Trump’s remarks about Lewis brought anger among congressional opponents to boiling point. Some planning to boycott the inauguration followed Lewis in citing Trump’s alleged links with Russia, which are the subject of controversial reports ranging from business dealings to whether Russian intelligence has compromising material on him. Trump has said he thinks Russia was behind hacks against Democratic party bodies, but he has also deepened a potentially damaging rift with the intelligence agencies. Congressman Mark DeSaulnier of California said in a video statement he would not attend the inauguration because he believes Trump as president will be in violation of the constitution, because of conflicts of interest with his business empire.

www.theguardian.com

left

cayISqzjcRPaobcs

test

zPOqSm76Et7fGn29

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cohen/trumps-ex-lawyer-cohen-would-not-accept-pardon-lawyer-idUSKCN1L71E2

Trump's ex-lawyer Cohen would not accept pardon: lawyer

2018-08-22

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s former lawyer Michael Cohen would not accept a presidential pardon , his attorney said on Wednesday , a day after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges and said he acted at the direction of Trump . In a round of television interviews , Cohen ’ s attorney , Lanny Davis , said Trump ’ s former longtime lawyer wanted no part in what he saw as the president ’ s abuse of his clemency power . Cohen also questioned Trump ’ s loyalty to the United States and saw him as unfit to hold office , Davis added . “ He will not , and does not want anything from Donald Trump , ” Davis told MSNBC . In dramatic testimony on Tuesday , Cohen told a federal court in Manhattan that Trump had directed him to arrange payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two women who said they had affairs with Trump . He pleaded guilty to charges of tax evasion , bank fraud and campaign finance violations . His plea came as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight charges in his financial fraud trial stemming from the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign . The two findings of guilt ratchet up the political pressure for Trump and fellow Republicans ahead of November ’ s congressional elections in which Democrats are seeking to regain control of Congress . Representatives for the White House did not immediately response to a request for comment on whether Trump would consider pardoning Cohen , but Trump himself dismissed his former longtime attorney in a post on Twitter on Wednesday . “ If anyone is looking for a good lawyer , I would strongly suggest that you don ’ t retain the services of Michael Cohen ! ” Trump wrote . Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani has said there is no allegation of wrongdoing in the charges against Cohen . While Cohen did not name Trump in court on Tuesday , Davis again on Wednesday accused the president of being directly involved . Davis has said he believes Cohen had information that would be of interest to Mueller , and in his interview with MSNBC on Wednesday suggested that it was directly tied to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election . Moscow has denied findings from the U.S. intelligence community that Russia interfered with the election with the aim of boosting Trump and hampering his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton . Trump has also denied any collusion with his campaign . Cohen had “ information ... regarding both knowledge of a conspiracy to corrupt American democracy by the Russians and the failure to report that knowledge to the FBI , ” Davis told MSNBC . U.S. President Donald Trump 's former lawyer , Michael Cohen , leaves the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court House in lower Manhattan , New York City , U.S. August 21 , 2018 . ███/Mike Segar He added , on CNN , that “ Cohen has knowledge that would be of interest to the special counsel about whether Donald Trump knew ahead of time about the hacking of emails . ” A U.S. grand jury has indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges of hacking the computer networks of Clinton ’ s campaign and the Democratic Party .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen would not accept a presidential pardon, his attorney said on Wednesday, a day after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges and said he acted at the direction of Trump. In a round of television interviews, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, said Trump’s former longtime lawyer wanted no part in what he saw as the president’s abuse of his clemency power. Cohen also questioned Trump’s loyalty to the United States and saw him as unfit to hold office, Davis added. “He will not, and does not want anything from Donald Trump,” Davis told MSNBC. In dramatic testimony on Tuesday, Cohen told a federal court in Manhattan that Trump had directed him to arrange payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two women who said they had affairs with Trump. He pleaded guilty to charges of tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. His plea came as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight charges in his financial fraud trial stemming from the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign. The two findings of guilt ratchet up the political pressure for Trump and fellow Republicans ahead of November’s congressional elections in which Democrats are seeking to regain control of Congress. It also increases pressure on Trump personally. Representatives for the White House did not immediately response to a request for comment on whether Trump would consider pardoning Cohen, but Trump himself dismissed his former longtime attorney in a post on Twitter on Wednesday. “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!” Trump wrote. Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani has said there is no allegation of wrongdoing in the charges against Cohen. While Cohen did not name Trump in court on Tuesday, Davis again on Wednesday accused the president of being directly involved. Davis has said he believes Cohen had information that would be of interest to Mueller, and in his interview with MSNBC on Wednesday suggested that it was directly tied to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. Moscow has denied findings from the U.S. intelligence community that Russia interfered with the election with the aim of boosting Trump and hampering his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton. Trump has also denied any collusion with his campaign. Cohen had “information ... regarding both knowledge of a conspiracy to corrupt American democracy by the Russians and the failure to report that knowledge to the FBI,” Davis told MSNBC. U.S. President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, leaves the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court House in lower Manhattan, New York City, U.S. August 21, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Segar He added, on CNN, that “Cohen has knowledge that would be of interest to the special counsel about whether Donald Trump knew ahead of time about the hacking of emails.” A U.S. grand jury has indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges of hacking the computer networks of Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. (Removes extraneous characters in paragraph 2)

www.reuters.com

center

zPOqSm76Et7fGn29

test

Fsu7oIXgix7expYG

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/17/seattle-police-department-chaz-not-cop-free-zone-reporters-different-story/

Seattle PD Claims CHAZ Isn’t A Cop-Free Zone, But Reporters On The Ground Heard A Different Story

2020-06-17

The Seattle Police Department said that Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ( CHAZ ) is not a cop-free zone , but Daily Caller reporters on the ground heard a different story . CHAZ , recently renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest ( CHOP ) , has dubbed itself a cop-free zone and includes the police department ’ s East Precinct , which was abandoned by officers . Some officers returned to the precinct June 11 and the Seattle PD previously told ███ that as of June 12 , there were officers inside of the building . ███ had three reporters in CHAZ from June 12 – 16 and , in that time , did not see a single uniformed officer . It is unclear if the officers remained in the building after the June 12 statement . The Associated Press reported Tuesday that despite CHAZ claiming itself as a cop-free zone , the department says it is not . “ There is no cop-free zone in the city of Seattle , ” Chief Carmen Best said Monday according to the AP . “ I think that the picture has been painted in many areas that shows the city is under siege . That is not the case . ” The Seattle PD specifically pointed out an incident Sunday evening where a local business owner said he called 911 repeatedly and no one arrived to help . The business owner , John McDermott , was calling about a break-in and vandalism , according to the AP . “ The officers responded to the call and they observed the location from a distance . They did not see any signs of smoke or fire or anything else and they did not see a disturbance , ” according to Best . Daily Caller reporters were present immediately following this alleged break-in when a mob of people from inside CHAZ came for the business after a false report that a man was being held at gunpoint inside . Three reporters present did not see any cops and no cops appeared to arrive when the mob came for the business . “ I can ’ t even get the police to show up , I can ’ t get the fire department to show up , ” one man guarding the business told reporters . ( RELATED : EXCLUSIVE VIDEOS : False Reports Inside CHAZ Cause Angry Mob To Descend On Small Business ) “ It sucks that we have to do this , ” another man there said . “ It sucks that I look at my friends and my family that are part of the police force and they worry more … I ’ m [ more ] worried about them than anything else . And they aren ’ t even allowed in these spots . ” “ This needs to get taken over . It needs to be under control . And it is not under control . … The fact that there ’ s no cop zones , that is disturbing and it is going to ruin the state , ” the man continued , adding that it is unsettling that he can ’ t call cops to help all the peaceful protesters that were trying to deescalate the situation . Some emotional comments from another man involved in the local business . The business is apparently within the no-cop zone . “ I can ’ t even get the police to show up , I can ’ t get the fire department to show up … and this kind of mob stuff , that doesn ’ t work. ” pic.twitter.com/LD3Q8JpL6N — Shelby Talcott ( @ ShelbyTalcott ) June 15 , 2020 It is not immediately clear why Seattle PD officers “ observed the location from a distance ” if CHAZ and the surrounding area is not a cop-free zone . Numerous men guarding the business told reporters that 911 , an emergency line , was called and no cops arrived . The police department refused to comment on its decision to respond to a 911 call by “ observing from a distance , ” and similarly refused to confirm if “ observing from a distance ” was part of standard 911 protocol . Instead , Seattle PD sent the Caller a map of the CHAZ . “ The Seattle Police Department will respond to significant life-safety issues in the shaded area , ” Sergeant Lauren Truscott wrote in a statement . Authorities did not show up to the scene until the next day , and even then , it was the Seattle fire chief , not the police . Car Tender auto shop just outside # CHAZ / # CHOP protest zone got broken into last night . Owner says cash stolen , small fire set . Video shows protestors knocking over the fence . They called 911 a dozen+ times . No police or fire responded . SFD Chief says they ’ re investigating why . pic.twitter.com/Dv4A8JIvSG — Deedee Sun ( @ DeedeeKIRO7 ) June 15 , 2020 “ The City of Seattle continues to meet with demonstrators to work toward long-term solutions to issues within this area , ” Truscott continued . “ For all other calls originating from this area , dispatchers and officers will attempt to coordinate officer contact outside of these boundaries when feasible . Officers have and will continue to document calls for service that originate within these boundaries . ”

The Seattle Police Department said that Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) is not a cop-free zone, but Daily Caller reporters on the ground heard a different story. CHAZ, recently renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), has dubbed itself a cop-free zone and includes the police department’s East Precinct, which was abandoned by officers. Some officers returned to the precinct June 11 and the Seattle PD previously told the Daily Caller that as of June 12, there were officers inside of the building. The Daily Caller had three reporters in CHAZ from June 12 – 16 and, in that time, did not see a single uniformed officer. It is unclear if the officers remained in the building after the June 12 statement. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that despite CHAZ claiming itself as a cop-free zone, the department says it is not. “There is no cop-free zone in the city of Seattle,” Chief Carmen Best said Monday according to the AP. “I think that the picture has been painted in many areas that shows the city is under siege. That is not the case.” The Seattle PD specifically pointed out an incident Sunday evening where a local business owner said he called 911 repeatedly and no one arrived to help. The business owner, John McDermott, was calling about a break-in and vandalism, according to the AP. “The officers responded to the call and they observed the location from a distance. They did not see any signs of smoke or fire or anything else and they did not see a disturbance,” according to Best. Daily Caller reporters were present immediately following this alleged break-in when a mob of people from inside CHAZ came for the business after a false report that a man was being held at gunpoint inside. Three reporters present did not see any cops and no cops appeared to arrive when the mob came for the business. “I can’t even get the police to show up, I can’t get the fire department to show up,” one man guarding the business told reporters. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE VIDEOS: False Reports Inside CHAZ Cause Angry Mob To Descend On Small Business) “It sucks that we have to do this,” another man there said. “It sucks that I look at my friends and my family that are part of the police force and they worry more … I’m [more] worried about them than anything else. And they aren’t even allowed in these spots.” “This needs to get taken over. It needs to be under control. And it is not under control. … The fact that there’s no cop zones, that is disturbing and it is going to ruin the state,” the man continued, adding that it is unsettling that he can’t call cops to help all the peaceful protesters that were trying to deescalate the situation. Some emotional comments from another man involved in the local business. The business is apparently within the no-cop zone. “I can’t even get the police to show up, I can’t get the fire department to show up … and this kind of mob stuff, that doesn’t work.” pic.twitter.com/LD3Q8JpL6N — Shelby Talcott (@ShelbyTalcott) June 15, 2020 It is not immediately clear why Seattle PD officers “observed the location from a distance” if CHAZ and the surrounding area is not a cop-free zone. Numerous men guarding the business told reporters that 911, an emergency line, was called and no cops arrived. The police department refused to comment on its decision to respond to a 911 call by “observing from a distance,” and similarly refused to confirm if “observing from a distance” was part of standard 911 protocol. Instead, Seattle PD sent the Caller a map of the CHAZ. “The Seattle Police Department will respond to significant life-safety issues in the shaded area,” Sergeant Lauren Truscott wrote in a statement. Authorities did not show up to the scene until the next day, and even then, it was the Seattle fire chief, not the police. Car Tender auto shop just outside #CHAZ / #CHOP protest zone got broken into last night. Owner says cash stolen, small fire set. Video shows protestors knocking over the fence. They called 911 a dozen+ times. No police or fire responded. SFD Chief says they’re investigating why. pic.twitter.com/Dv4A8JIvSG — Deedee Sun (@DeedeeKIRO7) June 15, 2020 “The City of Seattle continues to meet with demonstrators to work toward long-term solutions to issues within this area,” Truscott continued. “For all other calls originating from this area, dispatchers and officers will attempt to coordinate officer contact outside of these boundaries when feasible. Officers have and will continue to document calls for service that originate within these boundaries.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

Fsu7oIXgix7expYG

test

n89DptzmrmK6Eigd

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-poised-to-become-third-u-s-president-to-be-impeached-idUSKBN1YK0XA

Trump poised to become third U.S. president to be impeached

2019-12-18

Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Republican Donald Trump is this week likely to become the third U.S. president to be impeached when the Democratic-led House of Representatives votes on charges stemming from his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden . Trump faces one charge of abusing his power by asking Ukraine to investigate Biden , a leading Democratic contender to oppose him in the 2020 U.S. presidential election , and one of obstructing Congress ’ investigation into the matter . The president has denied wrongdoing and accused Democrats of a baseless and politically-motivated bid to oust him from power . The House is likely to take up impeachment on Wednesday , setting the stage for a vote this week on whether to approve the charges and send the matter to the Republican-led Senate to hold a trial on whether to remove Trump from office . Democrats , who enjoy a 36-seat majority in the House , are expected to win an impeachment vote , which requires a simple majority . Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate , where they appear likely to prevail in any trial against Trump , which would require a two-thirds majority of those present to remove him from office . Seeking to shape any trial , Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called on Sunday for testimony from White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , former national security adviser John Bolton , Mulvaney aide Robert Blair and budget official Michael Duffey . Schumer made his appeal in a letter to Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who said last week he was coordinating with the White House and has raised the prospect of a short impeachment trial in which no witnesses would be called . “ I hope we can come to an agreement about a fair trial , ” Schumer told MSNBC in an interview on Monday . House Democrats also sought testimony from the four men in their inquiry , but they did not appear . The House Judiciary Committee voted 23-17 on Friday along party lines to approve the two charges against Trump and to send the matter to the full chamber . Late on Sunday , the panel issued its full report detailing the case against him . In a tweet on Monday , White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said Schumer ’ s comments seeking fairness were “ laughable ” after the release of the 658-page report “ in the middle of the night . Thankfully the people of this country continue to see the partisan sham that this is . ” U.S. President Donald Trump listens during a roundtable on deregulation at the White House in Washington , U.S. , December 16 , 2019 . ███/Kevin Lamarque A McConnell spokesman did not directly address Schumer ’ s requests , but said the Senate majority leader “ plans to meet with Leader Schumer to discuss the contours of a trial soon . ” No U.S. president has been removed as a direct result of impeachment . Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before he could be removed , while Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House , respectively in 1868 and 1998 , but not convicted by the Senate . Senior House Democrats expect to win any impeachment vote , albeit with the possibility of some defections from moderates facing tough re-elections next year in Trump-leaning districts . Representative Jeff Van Drew , a conservative Democrat from New Jersey who opposed impeachment , is planning to become a Republican , media reported over the weekend . The news prompted a mass resignation of staffers in his office . In congressional hearings , Democrats have accused Trump of endangering the U.S. Constitution , jeopardizing national security and undermining the integrity of next year ’ s U.S. presidential election by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July phone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden , who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company . Democrats argue impeachment is an urgent necessity because Trump has continued his alleged misconduct , endangering the integrity of the 2020 election . Republicans have defended Trump and accused Democrats of a partisan effort aimed at overturning his upset 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton . Trump has branded the entire impeachment drive a sham . “ READ THE TRANSCRIPTS ! The Impeachment Hoax is the greatest con job in the history of American politics ! ” he said in a tweet on Monday . Trump has alleged the Bidens were involved in corruption in Ukraine and should be investigated there , but has offered no evidence . Biden , a former U.S. vice president , has denied wrongdoing .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Donald Trump is this week likely to become the third U.S. president to be impeached when the Democratic-led House of Representatives votes on charges stemming from his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden. Trump faces one charge of abusing his power by asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, a leading Democratic contender to oppose him in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and one of obstructing Congress’ investigation into the matter. The president has denied wrongdoing and accused Democrats of a baseless and politically-motivated bid to oust him from power. The House is likely to take up impeachment on Wednesday, setting the stage for a vote this week on whether to approve the charges and send the matter to the Republican-led Senate to hold a trial on whether to remove Trump from office. Democrats, who enjoy a 36-seat majority in the House, are expected to win an impeachment vote, which requires a simple majority. Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate, where they appear likely to prevail in any trial against Trump, which would require a two-thirds majority of those present to remove him from office. Seeking to shape any trial, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called on Sunday for testimony from White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, Mulvaney aide Robert Blair and budget official Michael Duffey. Schumer made his appeal in a letter to Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said last week he was coordinating with the White House and has raised the prospect of a short impeachment trial in which no witnesses would be called. “I hope we can come to an agreement about a fair trial,” Schumer told MSNBC in an interview on Monday. House Democrats also sought testimony from the four men in their inquiry, but they did not appear. The House Judiciary Committee voted 23-17 on Friday along party lines to approve the two charges against Trump and to send the matter to the full chamber. Late on Sunday, the panel issued its full report detailing the case against him. In a tweet on Monday, White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said Schumer’s comments seeking fairness were “laughable” after the release of the 658-page report “in the middle of the night. Thankfully the people of this country continue to see the partisan sham that this is.” U.S. President Donald Trump listens during a roundtable on deregulation at the White House in Washington, U.S., December 16, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque A McConnell spokesman did not directly address Schumer’s requests, but said the Senate majority leader “plans to meet with Leader Schumer to discuss the contours of a trial soon.” DEFECTION No U.S. president has been removed as a direct result of impeachment. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before he could be removed, while Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House, respectively in 1868 and 1998, but not convicted by the Senate. Senior House Democrats expect to win any impeachment vote, albeit with the possibility of some defections from moderates facing tough re-elections next year in Trump-leaning districts. Representative Jeff Van Drew, a conservative Democrat from New Jersey who opposed impeachment, is planning to become a Republican, media reported over the weekend. The news prompted a mass resignation of staffers in his office. In congressional hearings, Democrats have accused Trump of endangering the U.S. Constitution, jeopardizing national security and undermining the integrity of next year’s U.S. presidential election by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July phone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Slideshow (14 Images) Democrats argue impeachment is an urgent necessity because Trump has continued his alleged misconduct, endangering the integrity of the 2020 election. Republicans have defended Trump and accused Democrats of a partisan effort aimed at overturning his upset 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump has branded the entire impeachment drive a sham. “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS! The Impeachment Hoax is the greatest con job in the history of American politics!” he said in a tweet on Monday. Trump has alleged the Bidens were involved in corruption in Ukraine and should be investigated there, but has offered no evidence. Biden, a former U.S. vice president, has denied wrongdoing.

www.reuters.com

center

n89DptzmrmK6Eigd

test

iCIPSFv376rLSRX3

culture

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jussie-smollett-custody-chicago-police-allegedly-lying-attack/story?id=61208295&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Jussie Smollett taken into custody by Chicago police over allegedly lying about attack

A Chicago judge set Jussie Smollett 's bond at $ 100,000 on Thursday and ordered him to surrender his passport , hours after a remarkable Chicago Police Department press conference in which Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson blasted the 'Empire ' star , saying that Smollett 's alleged staging of a hoax attack was a `` publicity stunt ... to promote his career . '' Interested in Jussie Smollett ? Add Jussie Smollett as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Jussie Smollett news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The weeks-long investigation into the alleged hate crime attack –- an alarming account that sizzled with a spectrum of hot button issues ranging from race , sexuality and politics to crime and celebrity -- riveted and distressed a deeply-divided nation . Standing before Cook County Circuit Court Judge John Fitzgerald Lyke , Jr. , Smollett appeared to remain steadfast in his refutation of the felony charge against him . He has repeatedly insisted that the attack was real and that he was merely a victim , not a perpetrator . If convicted of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false report , the actor faces up to three years in prison . When first assistant state attorney Risa Lanier told Lyke that the actor had picked up two brothers who authorities say carried out the staged attack on him at his direction and showed them the location of where he wanted to be attacked , Smollett shook his head in disagreement . When Lyke told Smollett that the allegations , if true , are `` utterly outrageous , '' the actor nodded his head in agreement -- doing so again when Lyke said the noose detail would be the most despicable part of the alleged scheme . The judge also ordered pre-trial monitoring of the actor , and ordered him to stay away from the two brothers he allegedly conspired with to stage the hoax attack , according to police . The tense courtroom appearance followed on the heels of a morning press conference at which a visibly angry Johnson castigated the actor for betraying his race and his city with such an incendiary false claim . `` Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career , '' a visibly angry Johnson said . “ I am left hanging my head asking ‘ why ? ’ . Why would anyone , especially an African-American man , use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations ? ... How can an individual who 's been embraced by the city of Chicago turn around and slap everyone in the city in the face with these false claims ? '' Johnson charged that Smollett , an actor on the hit show 'Empire ' who has consistently denied any role in staging the alleged attack , orchestrated it because he was `` dissatisfied with his salary . '' In addition to staging the attack , officials said , Smollett also sent himself a hate-filled letter to the Fox studio where the hit show is filmed . Smollett turned himself in at 5:15 a.m. local time and made a statement to police before being taken into custody . His lawyers , Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson , were not present at the time but they released a statement the night before . `` Like any other citizen , Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence , particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information , both true and false , has been repeatedly leaked . Given these circumstances , we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense . '' Thursday evening , the attorneys released a statement criticizing law enforcement 's handling of the case . `` Today we witnessed an organized law enforcement spectacle that has no place in the American legal system . The presumption of innocence , a bedrock in the search for justice , was trampled upon at the expense of Mr. Smollett and notably , on the eve of a Mayoral election , '' the statement read . `` Mr. Smollett is a young man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence and feels betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing . '' Police add that Smollett gave no statement to police after turning himself in and that his lawyers had reached out to them Wednesday night to discuss his surrender . Smollett wanted to turn himself in near midnight , but authorities suggested he come in at 5 a.m. instead , to avoid spending the night in jail . Smollett arrived early Thursday morning accompanied by a female lawyer and an entourage of five or six people . Smollett was silent as he went through the motions of being booked and processed . By late morning on Thursday , the backlash against the actor began at the top , with an angry tweet from the President of the United States . `` . @ JussieSmollett - what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments ! ? # MAGA '' President Donald Trump wrote in a tweet after the press conference . In an earlier interview with ███ , Smollett was asked why he thought he was targeted and he replied that he is a strident critic of the Trump administration . “ I come really really hard against 45 , '' he said . referring to Trump , the 45th U.S. president . `` I come really really hard against his administration , and I don ’ t hold my tongue . ” . @ JussieSmollett - what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments ! ? # MAGA — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 21 , 2019 During a press briefing later Thursday morning , Chicago law enforcement officials said that Chicago police detectives interviewed more than 100 people and reviewed dozens of police cameras trying to get to the bottom of Smollett 's claims . “ ” How can an individual who 's been embraced by the city of Chicago turn around and slap everyone in the city in the face with these false claims ? Johnson , a well-regarded and popular big city police chief and Chicago native , appeared genuinely aggrieved as he described how , he said , Smollett took advantage of the pain of racism to advance his career . `` Why would anyone use the symbol of a noose '' to further his `` own public profile , '' Johnson wondered aloud . `` I 'm offended by what happened and I 'm angry , '' Johnson continued . `` This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn ’ t own and certainly didn ’ t deserve . '' Johnson , who oversees one of the nation 's largest police departments in one of its most violent cities , seemed disheartened by all the attention paid to the Smollett affair . “ The accusation within this phony attack received national attention for weeks , ” Johnson told reporters during a press conference . “ Celebrities , news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor . '' `` When you get the opportunity , '' he said with a mixture of derision and frustration , `` the shooting victims and their families ? Give them the same amount of attention . '' Press Briefing : Jussie Smollet is under arrest and in custody of detectives . At 9am at # ChicagoPolice Headquarters , Supt Eddie Johnson , Commander of Area Central Detectives Edward Wodnicki will brief reporters on the investigation prior to the defendants appearance in court . pic.twitter.com/9PSv8Ojec2 — Anthony Guglielmi ( @ AJGuglielmi ) February 21 , 2019 After the press briefing , 20th Century Fox , the station that airs `` Empire , '' released a statement which read , `` We understand the seriousness of this matter and we respect the legal process . We are evaluating the situation and we are considering our options . '' Smollett told police he was attacked by two masked men near his apartment in Chicago . The two men , Smollett initially said , shouted racist and homophobic slurs at him as a rope was wrapped around his neck and a chemical compound was poured on him . The alleged assailants yelled `` MAGA country , '' a reference to President Donald Trump 's `` Make American Great Again '' slogan , police were told . “ ” Chicago trusted this young man . We loved 'Empire , ' and we took this very seriously that something this hateful could happen in our city . In an interview with `` Good Morning America '' anchor Robin Roberts , Smollett said he was heartbroken when he found out that people questioned his story . Asked why he would leave the rope draped around his neck until police arrived because he `` wanted them to see . '' `` I was looking at myself , just like checking myself out , '' he told Roberts . `` I saw the bruise on my neck , you know , like the little -- the rope burn around my neck . So when the police came I kept the clothes on , I kept the rope on me . ... I mean , it was n't , like , wrapped around . But , yeah , it was around because I wanted them to see . '' Asked why he wait until the second interview to tell police that the assailants yelled “ MAGA country ” at him during the attack , Smollett seemed to take offense at the insinuation . `` For me , the main thing was the idea that I somehow switched up my story , you know ? And that somehow maybe I added a little extra trinket , you know , of the MAGA thing , '' Smollett said on ███ . `` I did n't need to add anything like that . They called me a f -- -- , they called me a n -- -- . There 's no which way you cut it . '' Johnson said on Thursday that Smollett 's seeming injuries from the incident also appeared to be phony . “ The brothers had on gloves during the staged attack where they -- they punched him a little bit , but as far as we can tell , the scratches and bruising that you saw on his face was most likely self-inflicted . '' Police identified and questioned two `` persons of interest '' captured on surveillance video near the scene around the time of the alleged attack . The men , who are brothers , were arrested on Feb. 13 but then released without charges , with police saying they were no longer considered suspects . While being questioned by investigators , the brothers claimed that Smollett paid them to help orchestrate and stage the crime after he became upset that a letter threatening him , sent Jan. 22 to the Fox studio where `` Empire '' is filmed , did not get enough attention , sources told ███ . On Wednesday , Smollett was charged with felony disorderly conduct for filing a false crime report . By that evening , police officially had classified the actor as a suspect in the ongoing investigation . Detectives subsequently presented evidence to a Cook County grand jury . `` That was a pretty hateful allegation , and it really put a terrible look on Chicago , '' Guglielmi told ABC Chicago station WLS in a telephone interview Thursday morning . `` Chicago trusted this young man . We loved 'Empire , ' and we took this very seriously that something this hateful could happen in our city . ''

A Chicago judge set Jussie Smollett's bond at $100,000 on Thursday and ordered him to surrender his passport, hours after a remarkable Chicago Police Department press conference in which Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson blasted the 'Empire' star, saying that Smollett's alleged staging of a hoax attack was a "publicity stunt...to promote his career." Interested in Jussie Smollett? Add Jussie Smollett as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Jussie Smollett news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The weeks-long investigation into the alleged hate crime attack –- an alarming account that sizzled with a spectrum of hot button issues ranging from race, sexuality and politics to crime and celebrity -- riveted and distressed a deeply-divided nation. Standing before Cook County Circuit Court Judge John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr., Smollett appeared to remain steadfast in his refutation of the felony charge against him. He has repeatedly insisted that the attack was real and that he was merely a victim, not a perpetrator. If convicted of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false report, the actor faces up to three years in prison. When first assistant state attorney Risa Lanier told Lyke that the actor had picked up two brothers who authorities say carried out the staged attack on him at his direction and showed them the location of where he wanted to be attacked, Smollett shook his head in disagreement. When Lyke told Smollett that the allegations, if true, are "utterly outrageous," the actor nodded his head in agreement -- doing so again when Lyke said the noose detail would be the most despicable part of the alleged scheme. The judge also ordered pre-trial monitoring of the actor, and ordered him to stay away from the two brothers he allegedly conspired with to stage the hoax attack, according to police. Smollett's next court appearance is scheduled for March 14. The tense courtroom appearance followed on the heels of a morning press conference at which a visibly angry Johnson castigated the actor for betraying his race and his city with such an incendiary false claim. "Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career," a visibly angry Johnson said. “I am left hanging my head asking ‘why?’. Why would anyone, especially an African-American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations? ... How can an individual who's been embraced by the city of Chicago turn around and slap everyone in the city in the face with these false claims?" Johnson charged that Smollett, an actor on the hit show 'Empire' who has consistently denied any role in staging the alleged attack, orchestrated it because he was "dissatisfied with his salary." In addition to staging the attack, officials said, Smollett also sent himself a hate-filled letter to the Fox studio where the hit show is filmed. Smollett turned himself in at 5:15 a.m. local time and made a statement to police before being taken into custody. His lawyers, Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson, were not present at the time but they released a statement the night before. "Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked. Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense." Thursday evening, the attorneys released a statement criticizing law enforcement's handling of the case. "Today we witnessed an organized law enforcement spectacle that has no place in the American legal system. The presumption of innocence, a bedrock in the search for justice, was trampled upon at the expense of Mr. Smollett and notably, on the eve of a Mayoral election," the statement read. "Mr. Smollett is a young man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence and feels betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing." Invision/AP, FILE Backlash Police add that Smollett gave no statement to police after turning himself in and that his lawyers had reached out to them Wednesday night to discuss his surrender. Smollett wanted to turn himself in near midnight, but authorities suggested he come in at 5 a.m. instead, to avoid spending the night in jail. Smollett arrived early Thursday morning accompanied by a female lawyer and an entourage of five or six people. Smollett was silent as he went through the motions of being booked and processed. By late morning on Thursday, the backlash against the actor began at the top, with an angry tweet from the President of the United States. ".@JussieSmollett - what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA" President Donald Trump wrote in a tweet after the press conference. FOX via Getty Images In an earlier interview with ABC News, Smollett was asked why he thought he was targeted and he replied that he is a strident critic of the Trump administration. “I come really really hard against 45," he said. referring to Trump, the 45th U.S. president. "I come really really hard against his administration, and I don’t hold my tongue.” .@JussieSmollett - what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2019 'I'm offended' During a press briefing later Thursday morning, Chicago law enforcement officials said that Chicago police detectives interviewed more than 100 people and reviewed dozens of police cameras trying to get to the bottom of Smollett's claims. “ ” How can an individual who's been embraced by the city of Chicago turn around and slap everyone in the city in the face with these false claims? Johnson, a well-regarded and popular big city police chief and Chicago native, appeared genuinely aggrieved as he described how, he said, Smollett took advantage of the pain of racism to advance his career. "Why would anyone use the symbol of a noose" to further his "own public profile," Johnson wondered aloud. "I'm offended by what happened and I'm angry," Johnson continued. "This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t own and certainly didn’t deserve." Johnson, who oversees one of the nation's largest police departments in one of its most violent cities, seemed disheartened by all the attention paid to the Smollett affair. “The accusation within this phony attack received national attention for weeks,” Johnson told reporters during a press conference. “Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor." Joshua Lott/Reuters "When you get the opportunity," he said with a mixture of derision and frustration, "the shooting victims and their families? Give them the same amount of attention." Press Briefing: Jussie Smollet is under arrest and in custody of detectives. At 9am at #ChicagoPolice Headquarters, Supt Eddie Johnson, Commander of Area Central Detectives Edward Wodnicki will brief reporters on the investigation prior to the defendants appearance in court. pic.twitter.com/9PSv8Ojec2 — Anthony Guglielmi (@AJGuglielmi) February 21, 2019 After the press briefing, 20th Century Fox, the station that airs "Empire," released a statement which read, "We understand the seriousness of this matter and we respect the legal process. We are evaluating the situation and we are considering our options." 'Self-inflicted' wounds Smollett told police he was attacked by two masked men near his apartment in Chicago. The two men, Smollett initially said, shouted racist and homophobic slurs at him as a rope was wrapped around his neck and a chemical compound was poured on him. The alleged assailants yelled "MAGA country," a reference to President Donald Trump's "Make American Great Again" slogan, police were told. “ ” Chicago trusted this young man. We loved 'Empire,' and we took this very seriously that something this hateful could happen in our city. In an interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts, Smollett said he was heartbroken when he found out that people questioned his story. Asked why he would leave the rope draped around his neck until police arrived because he "wanted them to see." Chicago Police Dept. "I was looking at myself, just like checking myself out," he told Roberts. "I saw the bruise on my neck, you know, like the little -- the rope burn around my neck. So when the police came I kept the clothes on, I kept the rope on me. ... I mean, it wasn't, like, wrapped around. But, yeah, it was around because I wanted them to see." Asked why he wait until the second interview to tell police that the assailants yelled “MAGA country” at him during the attack, Smollett seemed to take offense at the insinuation. "For me, the main thing was the idea that I somehow switched up my story, you know? And that somehow maybe I added a little extra trinket, you know, of the MAGA thing," Smollett said on ABC News. "I didn't need to add anything like that. They called me a f----, they called me a n----. There's no which way you cut it." 'Chicago trusted this young man' Johnson said on Thursday that Smollett's seeming injuries from the incident also appeared to be phony. “The brothers had on gloves during the staged attack where they -- they punched him a little bit, but as far as we can tell, the scratches and bruising that you saw on his face was most likely self-inflicted." Police identified and questioned two "persons of interest" captured on surveillance video near the scene around the time of the alleged attack. The men, who are brothers, were arrested on Feb. 13 but then released without charges, with police saying they were no longer considered suspects. While being questioned by investigators, the brothers claimed that Smollett paid them to help orchestrate and stage the crime after he became upset that a letter threatening him, sent Jan. 22 to the Fox studio where "Empire" is filmed, did not get enough attention, sources told ABC News. On Wednesday, Smollett was charged with felony disorderly conduct for filing a false crime report. By that evening, police officially had classified the actor as a suspect in the ongoing investigation. Detectives subsequently presented evidence to a Cook County grand jury. "That was a pretty hateful allegation, and it really put a terrible look on Chicago," Guglielmi told ABC Chicago station WLS in a telephone interview Thursday morning. "Chicago trusted this young man. We loved 'Empire,' and we took this very seriously that something this hateful could happen in our city." ABC News' Monica Escobedo, Andy Fies, Will Gretsky, Michael Rothman and Morgan Winsor contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

iCIPSFv376rLSRX3

test

9o6A6lgP8ILCHlwD

politics

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/d1a6697451c9201d713bec91724a0205

AP-NORC/USAFacts Poll: Facts missing from American democracy

2019-11-20

Nicholas Riccardi, Hannah Fingerhut

FILE - In this April 5 , 2017 , file photo , the Capitol is seen at sunrise in Washington . At a time when many Americans say they 're struggling to distinguish between fact and fiction , the country is broadly skeptical that facts underly some of the basic mechanisms of democracy in the United States - from political campaigns to voting choices to the policy decisions made by elected officials . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) FILE - In this April 5 , 2017 , file photo , the Capitol is seen at sunrise in Washington . At a time when many Americans say they 're struggling to distinguish between fact and fiction , the country is broadly skeptical that facts underly some of the basic mechanisms of democracy in the United States - from political campaigns to voting choices to the policy decisions made by elected officials . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — At a time when many Americans say they ’ re struggling to distinguish between fact and fiction , the country is broadly skeptical that facts underlie some of the basic mechanisms of democracy in the United States — from political campaigns to voting choices to the policy decisions made by elected officials . A meager 9 % of Americans believe that campaign messages are usually based on facts , according to a poll from The ███-NORC Center for Public Opinion Research and USAFacts . Only 14 % think policy decisions are often or always fact-based , or that Americans ’ voting decisions are rooted in facts . Reporting by journalists scores slightly better with the public , but not by much : the survey found that only about 2 in 10 Americans believe media reporting is often or always based on facts . Roughly half of Americans think reporting is sometimes based on fact , while about a third say journalists never rely on facts . Coupled with a finding from the same survey that found many Americans have trouble verifying for themselves whether information is true , the poll paints a picture of a country deeply insecure about separating truth from falsehood . “ Lately , it seems like there ’ s been a war versus facts and reality , ” said Skye Hamm-Oliver , a 44-year-old Democrat in Lewiston , Idaho . Will Barger , a 32-year-old police officer in rural Missouri , has become increasingly skeptical of the media and voters alike in the past few years . A Republican and former regular viewer of Fox News who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 , he ’ s become disillusioned with the president and the conservative cable channel and now trusts only local media . He ’ s even less trusting in government and policy decisions , keeping his faith mainly in law-enforcement agencies . And he ’ s skeptical most voters are fact-driven . “ It ’ s more of a gut decision based on personal belief on a candidate , ” Barger said . What matters to most , he said , is “ if there ’ s an R in front of the name or a D in front of the name . ” Overall , 53 % of the public thinks voters sometimes cast ballots based on facts , while 32 % say they rarely or never do . Hamm-Oliver said voters in her home state of Idaho did so when they voted to approve a ballot measure last year that forced the state to accept the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act , which had previously been rejected by the state ’ s Republican-controlled legislature . “ But I have friends who ’ ve gone to vote and said ‘ just because that ’ s a fact , that isn ’ t all there is , ’ ” she said . Joan McKee , a 65-year-old insurance broker who lives on the southern New Jersey shore and leans Democratic , said she thinks most decisions involving policy and elections rely only slightly more — at best — on fact than opinion . She says even the public policies of people she supports , including former President Barack Obama , were partly based on ideology over facts . “ They may take the facts and spin them to do whatever they want , ” said McKee , arguing there are always choices in policy that are made based on core values . “ I think it ’ s pretty much always been like this . ” McKee ’ s view is widespread , with 55 % of Americans saying policy decisions are sometimes based on fact while 3 in 10 think they rarely are . Republicans are more skeptical than Democrats that public policy is even sometimes fact-driven , with 33 % saying it rarely or never is compared to 23 % of Democrats . “ If government decision makers aren ’ t looking at government data , then our whole process is flawed , ” said former Microsoft chief executive and USAFacts founder Steve Ballmer . “ You have to look at the data that you have . ” The poll also found a slim majority of Americans , including Republicans and Democrats , saying the president has a lot of sway over information the government provides . Colleen Michaels thinks facts have nothing to do with policy . “ It ’ s emotional , ” the 55-year-old Ohio farmer , who leans Republican , said of policy . “ It has nothing to do with facts . ” She cited restrictions on the slaughter of horses to protect against the unauthorized sale of horsemeat . Michaels is mainly a dairy farmer , but she raises draft horses and occasionally would like to kill one and sell it to overseas meat markets . But she ’ s no longer able to so easily thanks to regulations she considers based on animal-rights hysteria instead of facts . Michaels also has a jaundiced view of the media based on a personal experience . When she was young , she said , a news outlet falsely reported that a family member shot at some nearby campers . “ The media just goes by whatever they want to say , ” she said . Views on the factual nature of news media reporting are especially partisan . While 31 % of Democrats say reporting is reliably based in fact , just 10 % of Republicans say the same . Among Democrats , another 53 % say reporting is sometimes fact-based . By contrast , nearly half of Republicans , 46 % , think this is rare . Hamm-Oliver , the Democrat from Idaho , trusts CNN but not Fox News . She worries , however , that media outlets are increasingly relying on opinion over facts and that those circulate wider among the public . Of fact and opinion pieces , she said : “ They ’ re starting to blend together . ” The AP-NORC/USAFacts poll of 1,032 adults was conducted Oct. 15-28 using a sample drawn from NORC ’ s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel , which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population . The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points . Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods and later were interviewed online or by phone .

FILE - In this April 5, 2017, file photo, the Capitol is seen at sunrise in Washington. At a time when many Americans say they're struggling to distinguish between fact and fiction, the country is broadly skeptical that facts underly some of the basic mechanisms of democracy in the United States - from political campaigns to voting choices to the policy decisions made by elected officials. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) FILE - In this April 5, 2017, file photo, the Capitol is seen at sunrise in Washington. At a time when many Americans say they're struggling to distinguish between fact and fiction, the country is broadly skeptical that facts underly some of the basic mechanisms of democracy in the United States - from political campaigns to voting choices to the policy decisions made by elected officials. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) WASHINGTON (AP) — At a time when many Americans say they’re struggling to distinguish between fact and fiction, the country is broadly skeptical that facts underlie some of the basic mechanisms of democracy in the United States — from political campaigns to voting choices to the policy decisions made by elected officials. A meager 9% of Americans believe that campaign messages are usually based on facts, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Opinion Research and USAFacts . Only 14% think policy decisions are often or always fact-based, or that Americans’ voting decisions are rooted in facts. Reporting by journalists scores slightly better with the public, but not by much: the survey found that only about 2 in 10 Americans believe media reporting is often or always based on facts. Roughly half of Americans think reporting is sometimes based on fact, while about a third say journalists never rely on facts. Coupled with a finding from the same survey that found many Americans have trouble verifying for themselves whether information is true, the poll paints a picture of a country deeply insecure about separating truth from falsehood. “Lately, it seems like there’s been a war versus facts and reality,” said Skye Hamm-Oliver, a 44-year-old Democrat in Lewiston, Idaho. Will Barger, a 32-year-old police officer in rural Missouri, has become increasingly skeptical of the media and voters alike in the past few years. A Republican and former regular viewer of Fox News who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, he’s become disillusioned with the president and the conservative cable channel and now trusts only local media. He’s even less trusting in government and policy decisions, keeping his faith mainly in law-enforcement agencies. And he’s skeptical most voters are fact-driven. “It’s more of a gut decision based on personal belief on a candidate,” Barger said. What matters to most, he said, is “if there’s an R in front of the name or a D in front of the name.” Overall, 53% of the public thinks voters sometimes cast ballots based on facts, while 32% say they rarely or never do. Hamm-Oliver said voters in her home state of Idaho did so when they voted to approve a ballot measure last year that forced the state to accept the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, which had previously been rejected by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature. “But I have friends who’ve gone to vote and said ‘just because that’s a fact, that isn’t all there is,’” she said. Joan McKee, a 65-year-old insurance broker who lives on the southern New Jersey shore and leans Democratic, said she thinks most decisions involving policy and elections rely only slightly more — at best — on fact than opinion. She says even the public policies of people she supports, including former President Barack Obama, were partly based on ideology over facts. “They may take the facts and spin them to do whatever they want,” said McKee, arguing there are always choices in policy that are made based on core values. “I think it’s pretty much always been like this.” McKee’s view is widespread, with 55% of Americans saying policy decisions are sometimes based on fact while 3 in 10 think they rarely are. Republicans are more skeptical than Democrats that public policy is even sometimes fact-driven, with 33% saying it rarely or never is compared to 23% of Democrats. “If government decision makers aren’t looking at government data, then our whole process is flawed,” said former Microsoft chief executive and USAFacts founder Steve Ballmer. “You have to look at the data that you have.” The poll also found a slim majority of Americans, including Republicans and Democrats, saying the president has a lot of sway over information the government provides. Colleen Michaels thinks facts have nothing to do with policy. “It’s emotional,” the 55-year-old Ohio farmer, who leans Republican, said of policy. “It has nothing to do with facts.” She cited restrictions on the slaughter of horses to protect against the unauthorized sale of horsemeat. Michaels is mainly a dairy farmer, but she raises draft horses and occasionally would like to kill one and sell it to overseas meat markets. But she’s no longer able to so easily thanks to regulations she considers based on animal-rights hysteria instead of facts. Michaels also has a jaundiced view of the media based on a personal experience. When she was young, she said, a news outlet falsely reported that a family member shot at some nearby campers. “The media just goes by whatever they want to say,” she said. Views on the factual nature of news media reporting are especially partisan. While 31% of Democrats say reporting is reliably based in fact, just 10% of Republicans say the same. Among Democrats, another 53% say reporting is sometimes fact-based. By contrast, nearly half of Republicans, 46%, think this is rare. Hamm-Oliver, the Democrat from Idaho, trusts CNN but not Fox News. She worries, however, that media outlets are increasingly relying on opinion over facts and that those circulate wider among the public. Of fact and opinion pieces, she said: “They’re starting to blend together.” ___ The AP-NORC/USAFacts poll of 1,032 adults was conducted Oct. 15-28 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods and later were interviewed online or by phone. ___ Online: AP-NORC Center: http://www.apnorc.org/

www.apnews.com

center

9o6A6lgP8ILCHlwD

test

qjF9Z5lHbJW100Hp

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/10/americas_broken_brain_trust_why_public_intellectuals_are_accelerating_our_empires_demise_partner/

America’s broken brain trust: Why public intellectuals are hastening our empire’s demise

2015-03-10

Policy intellectuals -- eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office -- are a blight on the republic . Like some invasive species , they infest present-day Washington , where their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability to perceive reality . A benign appearance -- well-dressed types testifying before Congress , pontificating in print and on TV , or even filling key positions in the executive branch -- belies a malign impact . They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes . It all began innocently enough . Back in 1933 , with the country in the throes of the Great Depression , President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join the ranks of his New Deal . An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking , FDR believed . Whether the contributions of this “ Brains Trust ” made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery ( or ended up being a wash ) remains a subject for debate even today . At the very least , however , the arrival of Adolph Berle , Raymond Moley , Rexford Tugwell , and others elevated Washington ’ s bourbon-and-cigars social scene . As bona fide members of the intelligentsia , they possessed a sort of cachet . Then came World War II , followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War . These events brought to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers , their agenda now focused on “ national security. ” This eminently elastic concept -- more properly , “ national insecurity ” -- encompassed just about anything related to preparing for , fighting , or surviving wars , including economics , technology , weapons design , decision-making , the structure of the armed forces , and other matters said to be of vital importance to the nation ’ s survival . National insecurity became , and remains today , the policy world ’ s equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving . People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as “ defense intellectuals. ” Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions . Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn , who took pride in “ thinking about the unthinkable , ” and Albert Wohlstetter , who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining “ the delicate balance of terror . ” In this wonky world , the coin of the realm has been and remains “ policy relevance. ” This means devising products that convey a sense of novelty , while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise . The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is Dr. Strangelove ’ s discovery of a “ mineshaft gap ” -- successor to the “ bomber gap ” and the “ missile gap ” that , in the 1950s , had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing to catch up . Now , with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet , the United States is once more falling behind , Strangelove claims , this time in digging underground shelters enabling some small proportion of the population to survive . In a single , brilliant stroke , Strangelove posits a new raison d'être for the entire national insecurity apparatus , thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever . A sequel to Stanley Kubrick ’ s movie would have shown General “ Buck ” Turgidson and the other brass huddled in the War Room , developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred . Yet only in the 1960s , right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie theaters , did policy intellectuals really come into their own . The press now referred to them as “ action intellectuals , ” suggesting energy and impatience . Action intellectuals were thinkers , but also doers , members of a “ large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face the nation , ” as LIFE Magazineput it in 1967 . Among the most perplexing of those problems was what to do about Vietnam , just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth into . Over the previous century-and-a-half , the United States had gone to war for many reasons , including greed , fear , panic , righteous anger , and legitimate self-defense . On various occasions , each of these , alone or in combination , had prompted Americans to fight . Vietnam marked the first time that the United States went to war , at least in considerable part , in response to a bunch of really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence . More surprising still , action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it had become self-evident , even to members of Congress , that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed to end in failure . In his fine new book American Reckoning : The Vietnam War and Our National Identity , Christian Appy , a historian who teaches at the University of Massachusetts , reminds us of just how dumb those ideas were . As Exhibit A , Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy , national security adviser first for President John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson . Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale , who famously became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard ’ s Faculty of Arts and Sciences , having gained tenure there without even bothering to get a graduate degree . For Exhibit B , there is Walt Whitman Rostow , Bundy ’ s successor as national security adviser . Rostow was another Yalie , earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD . While taking a break of sorts , he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar . As a professor of economic history at MIT , Rostow captured JFK ’ s attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 bookThe Stages of Economic Growth : A Non-Communist Manifesto , which offered a grand theory of development with ostensibly universal applicability . Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories of “ modernization ” in places like Southeast Asia . Finally , as Exhibit C , Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington ’ s contributions to the Vietnam War . Huntington also attended Yale , before earning his PhD at Harvard and then returning to teach there , becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World War II era . What the three shared in common , apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven , was an unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War . Foremost among those verities was this : that a monolith called Communism , controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden behind the walls of the Kremlin , posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies , but to the very idea of freedom itself . The claim came with this essential corollary : the only hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist threat wherever it reared its ugly head . Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam , a.k.a . North Vietnam , from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam , a.k.a . South Vietnam , into a single unified country ; in other words , that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and dying for . Bundy , Rostow , and Huntington not only bought that argument hook , line , and sinker , but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well . Yet even as he was urging the “ Americanization ” of the Vietnam War in 1965 , Bundy already entertained doubts about whether it was winnable . But not to worry : even if the effort ended in failure , he counseled President Johnson , “ the policy will be worth it . ” How so ? “ At a minimum , ” Bundy wrote , “ it will damp down the charge that we did not do all that we could have done , and this charge will be important in many countries , including our own. ” If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam , at least Americans would have died trying to prevent that result -- and through some perverted logic this , in the estimation of Harvard ’ s youngest-ever dean , was a redeeming prospect . The essential point , Bundy believed , was to prevent others from seeing the United States as a “ paper tiger. ” To avoid a fight , even a losing one , was to forfeit credibility . “ Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean no major risk ” -- that was the problem to be avoided at all cost . Rostow outdid even Bundy in hawkishness . Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to influence North Vietnamese policymakers , Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic Hamlet Program . The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government would provide security , education , medical care , and agricultural assistance . By winning hearts-and-minds in this manner , the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow , with the people of South Vietnam vaulted into the “ age of high mass consumption , ” where Rostow believed all humankind was destined to end up . That was the theory . Reality differed somewhat . Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable from concentration camps . The government in Saigon proved too weak , too incompetent , and too corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain . Rather than winning hearts-and-minds , the program induced alienation , even as it essentially destabilized peasant society . One result : an increasingly rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam ’ s cities where there was little work apart from servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population -- hardly the sort of activity conducive to self-sustaining development . Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat , Rostow still claimed vindication for his theory . “ We and the Southeast Asians , ” he wrote , had used the war years “ so well that there wasn ’ t the panic [ when Saigon fell ] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene. ” Indeed , regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news , all of it attributable to the American war . ” Since 1975 there has been a general expansion of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West . In Thailand we have seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs . Malaysia and Singapore have become countries of diverse manufactured exports . We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats in Indonesia . ” So there you have it . If you want to know what 58,000 Americans ( not to mention vastly larger numbers of Vietnamese ) died for , it was to encourage entrepreneurship , exports , and the emergence of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia . Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility for seeing the upside of catastrophe . In Huntington ’ s view , the internal displacement of South Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower , along with the failure of Rostow ’ s Strategic Hamlets , was actually good news . It promised , he insisted , to give the Americans an edge over the insurgents . The key to final victory , Huntington wrote , was “ forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength to come to power. ” By emptying out the countryside , the U.S. could win the war in the cities . “ The urban slum , which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans , often becomes for the poor peasant a gateway to a new and better way of life. ” The language may be a tad antiseptic , but the point is clear enough : the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up for social revolution . Revisited decades later , claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy , Rostow , and Huntington -- action intellectuals of the very first rank -- seem beyond preposterous . They insult our intelligence , leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them were ever taken seriously . How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence ? Why were those ideas so impervious to challenge ? Why , in short , was it so difficult for Americans to recognize bullshit for what it was ? These questions are by no means of mere historical interest . They are no less relevant when applied to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals , specializing in national insecurity , whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and prosecute the Vietnam War . The present-day successors to Bundy , Rostow , and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities . Chief among them is this : that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism , inspired by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East , poses an existential threat not simply to America and its allies , but -- yes , it ’ s still with us -- to the very idea of freedom itself . That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and imported from the Cold War : the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head . At least since September 11 , 2001 , and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date , U.S. policymakers have taken these propositions for granted . They have done so at least in part because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question them . Indeed , those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions . Think of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity . More or less like Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter ( or Dr. Strangelove ) , their function is to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise . The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such efforts . Once widely known as the Global War on Terror , or GWOT , it has been transformed into the War with No Name . A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography : we can ’ t define it , we just know it when we see it , with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington ’ s attention . All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end in sight . It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam , stimulating remarkably little honest reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future . If there is an actual Brains Trust at work in Washington , it operates on autopilot . Today , the second- and third-generation bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington -- the Center for this , the Institute for that -- spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets , with nary a thought given to more fundamental concerns . What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter ’ s return to the Pentagon as President Obama ’ s fourth secretary of defense . Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy , Rostow , Huntington mold , having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in “ the Building. ” He , too , is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar , with a PhD . from Oxford . “ Ash ” -- in Washington , a first-name-only identifier ( “ Henry , ” “ Zbig , ” “ Hillary ” ) signifies that you have truly arrived -- is the author of books and articles galore , including one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for preventive war against North Korea . Military action “ undoubtedly carries risk , ” he bravely acknowledged at the time . “ But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea 's race to threaten this country would be greater ” -- just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter . As Carter has taken the Pentagon ’ s reins , he also has taken pains to convey the impression of being a big thinker . As one Wall Street Journal headline enthused , “ Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats. ” That multiple global threats exist and that America ’ s defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are , of course , givens . His predecessor Chuck Hagel ( no Yale degree ) was a bit of a plodder . By way of contrast , Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up . So on his second day in office , for example , he dined with Kenneth Pollack , Michael O ’ Hanlon , and Robert Kagan , ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one and all . Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution , the three share the distinction ofhaving supported the Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today . For assurances that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound -- we just need to try harder -- who better to consult than Pollack , O ’ Hanlon , and Kagan ( any Kagan ) ? Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions ? Or was he letting Washington ’ s clubby network of fellows , senior fellows , and distinguished fellows know that , on his watch , the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct ? You decide . Soon thereafter , Carter ’ s first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions . In Kuwait , he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the campaign against ISIS . In a daring departure from standard practice , the new defense secretary prohibited PowerPoint briefings . One participant described the ensuing event as “ a five-hour-long college seminar ” -- candid and freewheeling . “ This is reversing the paradigm , ” one awed senior Pentagon official remarked . Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to “ look at this problem differently . ” Of course , Carter might have said , “ Let ’ s look at a different problem. ” That , however , was far too radical to contemplate -- the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined . In any event -- and to no one ’ s surprise -- the different look did not produce a different conclusion . Instead of reversing the paradigm , Carter affirmed it : the existing U.S. approach to dealing with ISIS is sound , he announced . It only needs a bit of tweaking -- just the result to give the Pollacks , O ’ Hanlons , and Kagans something to write about as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate . Do we really need that chatter ? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy ? If policy/defense/action intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure ? Let me propose an experiment . Put them on furlough . Not permanently -- just until the last of the winter snow finally melts in New England . Send them back to Yale for reeducation . Let ’ s see if we are able to make do without them even for a month or two . In the meantime , invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS . Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers . Book English majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows . Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up ?

Policy intellectuals -- eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office -- are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability to perceive reality. A benign appearance -- well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch -- belies a malign impact. They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes. It all began innocently enough. Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join the ranks of his New Deal. An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR believed. Whether the contributions of this “Brains Trust” made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash) remains a subject for debate even today. At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington’s bourbon-and-cigars social scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet. Advertisement: Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on “national security.” This eminently elastic concept -- more properly, “national insecurity” -- encompassed just about anything related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design, decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance to the nation’s survival. National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world’s equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving. People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as “defense intellectuals.” Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions. Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn, who took pride in “thinking about the unthinkable,” and Albert Wohlstetter, who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining “the delicate balance of terror.” In this wonky world, the coin of the realm has been and remains “policy relevance.” This means devising products that convey a sense of novelty, while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise. The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is Dr. Strangelove’s discovery of a “mineshaft gap” -- successor to the “bomber gap” and the “missile gap” that, in the 1950s, had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing to catch up. Now, with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet, the United States is once more falling behind, Strangelove claims, this time in digging underground shelters enabling some small proportion of the population to survive. Advertisement: In a single, brilliant stroke, Strangelove posits a new raison d'être for the entire national insecurity apparatus, thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever. A sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s movie would have shown General “Buck” Turgidson and the other brass huddled in the War Room, developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred. The Rise of the National Insecurity State Yet only in the 1960s, right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie theaters, did policy intellectuals really come into their own. The press now referred to them as “action intellectuals,” suggesting energy and impatience. Action intellectuals were thinkers, but also doers, members of a “large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face the nation,” as LIFE Magazineput it in 1967. Among the most perplexing of those problems was what to do about Vietnam, just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth into. Advertisement: Over the previous century-and-a-half, the United States had gone to war for many reasons, including greed, fear, panic, righteous anger, and legitimate self-defense. On various occasions, each of these, alone or in combination, had prompted Americans to fight. Vietnam marked the first time that the United States went to war, at least in considerable part, in response to a bunch of really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence. More surprising still, action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it had become self-evident, even to members of Congress, that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed to end in failure. In his fine new book American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity, Christian Appy, a historian who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, reminds us of just how dumb those ideas were. Advertisement: As Exhibit A, Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser first for President John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson. Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale, who famously became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, having gained tenure there without even bothering to get a graduate degree. For Exhibit B, there is Walt Whitman Rostow, Bundy’s successor as national security adviser. Rostow was another Yalie, earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD. While taking a break of sorts, he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. As a professor of economic history at MIT, Rostow captured JFK’s attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 bookThe Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, which offered a grand theory of development with ostensibly universal applicability. Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories of “modernization” in places like Southeast Asia. Finally, as Exhibit C, Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington’s contributions to the Vietnam War. Huntington also attended Yale, before earning his PhD at Harvard and then returning to teach there, becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World War II era. Advertisement: What the three shared in common, apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven, was an unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War. Foremost among those verities was this: that a monolith called Communism, controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden behind the walls of the Kremlin, posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but to the very idea of freedom itself. The claim came with this essential corollary: the only hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist threat wherever it reared its ugly head. Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. North Vietnam, from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. South Vietnam, into a single unified country; in other words, that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and dying for. Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington not only bought that argument hook, line, and sinker, but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well. Yet even as he was urging the “Americanization” of the Vietnam War in 1965, Bundy already entertained doubts about whether it was winnable. But not to worry: even if the effort ended in failure, he counseled President Johnson, “the policy will be worth it.” Advertisement: How so? “At a minimum,” Bundy wrote, “it will damp down the charge that we did not do all that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own.” If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam, at least Americans would have died trying to prevent that result -- and through some perverted logic this, in the estimation of Harvard’s youngest-ever dean, was a redeeming prospect. The essential point, Bundy believed, was to prevent others from seeing the United States as a “paper tiger.” To avoid a fight, even a losing one, was to forfeit credibility. “Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean no major risk” -- that was the problem to be avoided at all cost. Rostow outdid even Bundy in hawkishness. Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to influence North Vietnamese policymakers, Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic Hamlet Program. The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government would provide security, education, medical care, and agricultural assistance. By winning hearts-and-minds in this manner, the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow, with the people of South Vietnam vaulted into the “age of high mass consumption,” where Rostow believed all humankind was destined to end up. That was the theory. Reality differed somewhat. Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable from concentration camps. The government in Saigon proved too weak, too incompetent, and too corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain. Rather than winning hearts-and-minds, the program induced alienation, even as it essentially destabilized peasant society. One result: an increasingly rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam’s cities where there was little work apart from servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population -- hardly the sort of activity conducive to self-sustaining development. Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat, Rostow still claimed vindication for his theory. “We and the Southeast Asians,” he wrote, had used the war years “so well that there wasn’t the panic [when Saigon fell] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene.” Indeed, regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news, all of it attributable to the American war. Advertisement: ”Since 1975 there has been a general expansion of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West. In Thailand we have seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs. Malaysia and Singapore have become countries of diverse manufactured exports. We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats in Indonesia.” So there you have it. If you want to know what 58,000 Americans (not to mention vastly larger numbers of Vietnamese) died for, it was to encourage entrepreneurship, exports, and the emergence of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility for seeing the upside of catastrophe. In Huntington’s view, the internal displacement of South Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower, along with the failure of Rostow’s Strategic Hamlets, was actually good news. It promised, he insisted, to give the Americans an edge over the insurgents. The key to final victory, Huntington wrote, was “forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength to come to power.” By emptying out the countryside, the U.S. could win the war in the cities. “The urban slum, which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans, often becomes for the poor peasant a gateway to a new and better way of life.” The language may be a tad antiseptic, but the point is clear enough: the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up for social revolution. Advertisement: Revisited decades later, claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington -- action intellectuals of the very first rank -- seem beyond preposterous. They insult our intelligence, leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them were ever taken seriously. How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence? Why were those ideas so impervious to challenge? Why, in short, was it so difficult for Americans to recognize bullshit for what it was? Creating a Twenty-First-Century Slow-Motion Vietnam These questions are by no means of mere historical interest. They are no less relevant when applied to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals, specializing in national insecurity, whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and prosecute the Vietnam War. Advertisement: The present-day successors to Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities. Chief among them is this: that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism, inspired by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East, poses an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but -- yes, it’s still with us -- to the very idea of freedom itself. That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and imported from the Cold War: the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head. At least since September 11, 2001, and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date, U.S. policymakers have taken these propositions for granted. They have done so at least in part because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question them. Indeed, those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions. Think of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity. More or less like Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter (or Dr. Strangelove), their function is to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise. The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such efforts. Once widely known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, it has been transformed into the War with No Name. A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography: we can’t define it, we just know it when we see it, with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington’s attention. All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end in sight. It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam, stimulating remarkably little honest reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future. If there is an actual Brains Trust at work in Washington, it operates on autopilot. Today, the second- and third-generation bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington -- the Center for this, the Institute for that -- spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets, with nary a thought given to more fundamental concerns. What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter’s return to the Pentagon as President Obama’s fourth secretary of defense. Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy, Rostow, Huntington mold, having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in “the Building.” He, too, is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar, with a PhD. from Oxford. “Ash” -- in Washington, a first-name-only identifier (“Henry,” “Zbig,” “Hillary”) signifies that you have truly arrived -- is the author of books and articles galore, including one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for preventive war against North Korea. Military action “undoubtedly carries risk,” he bravely acknowledged at the time. “But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater” -- just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter. As Carter has taken the Pentagon’s reins, he also has taken pains to convey the impression of being a big thinker. As one Wall Street Journal headline enthused, “Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats.” That multiple global threats exist and that America’s defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are, of course, givens. His predecessor Chuck Hagel (no Yale degree) was a bit of a plodder. By way of contrast, Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up. So on his second day in office, for example, he dined with Kenneth Pollack, Michael O’Hanlon, and Robert Kagan, ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one and all. Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution, the three share the distinction ofhaving supported the Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today. For assurances that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound -- we just need to try harder -- who better to consult than Pollack, O’Hanlon, and Kagan (any Kagan)? Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions? Or was he letting Washington’s clubby network of fellows, senior fellows, and distinguished fellows know that, on his watch, the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct? You decide. Soon thereafter, Carter’s first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions. In Kuwait, he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the campaign against ISIS. In a daring departure from standard practice, the new defense secretary prohibited PowerPoint briefings. One participant described the ensuing event as “a five-hour-long college seminar” -- candid and freewheeling. “This is reversing the paradigm,” one awed senior Pentagon official remarked. Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to “look at this problem differently.” Of course, Carter might have said, “Let’s look at a different problem.” That, however, was far too radical to contemplate -- the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined. In any event -- and to no one’s surprise -- the different look did not produce a different conclusion. Instead of reversing the paradigm, Carter affirmed it: the existing U.S. approach to dealing with ISIS is sound, he announced. It only needs a bit of tweaking -- just the result to give the Pollacks, O’Hanlons, and Kagans something to write about as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate. Do we really need that chatter? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy? If policy/defense/action intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure? Let me propose an experiment. Put them on furlough. Not permanently -- just until the last of the winter snow finally melts in New England. Send them back to Yale for reeducation. Let’s see if we are able to make do without them even for a month or two. In the meantime, invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS. Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers. Book English majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows. Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up?

www.salon.com

left

qjF9Z5lHbJW100Hp

test

le0C9k5sqNjrKN2L

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40564245

Unanswered questions from Trump Jr saga

Anthony Zurcher, North America Reporter

Now that Hurricane Junior has blown through Washington , special counsel Robert Mueller - charged with investigating possible ties between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign - faces the task of sifting through the debris . According to CNN , the former FBI director and his team of crack investigators were caught somewhat flat-footed by the recent email revelations . They were believed to have been focusing their attention on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn , son-in-law Jared Kushner and former campaign chair Paul Manafort , among others . As it turns out , the first bit of concrete public evidence that someone in the president 's inner circle might be open to Russian assistance in the presidential election involved Mr Trump 's eldest son . The president , Trump Jr and his administration have quickly reformed their defences and are now dismissing the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya last June as a minor event during a hurly-burly political season , largely lost in the fog of time , that led to nothing and which they have been admirably `` transparent '' in discussing . Key members of Congress seem to think otherwise , with senators like Republican Susan Collins of Maine calling for Trump Jr to be questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee , and Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa eager to bring Manafort before his Senate Judiciary Committee . But while Congress gears up for more hearings , Mr Mueller operates quietly behind the scenes . Where might he look first ? What threads , revealed in Trump Jr 's emails , will he and his team tug on , to see what unravels ? Here are a few of the tempting questions he might be tempted to ask . What else did Rob Goldstone think the Russian government was doing to help Mr Trump ? Nestled toward the end of music publicist Goldstone 's explosive first email to Trump Jr about the `` official documents and information '' the Russian government supposedly had about Hillary Clinton was that this constituted just `` part of '' Russia 's support for his father , `` helped along by Aras and Emin '' Agalarov , the father-son Moscow-based real estate duo . It 's a rather stunning detail for Goldstone to have offhandedly mentioned - and one that Trump Jr , in his `` love it '' response , seems to have breezed past with no comment . That kind of remark , however , would cause anyone looking for evidence of a Trump-Russia campaign collusion to stop dead in their tracks and ask : `` What 's the rest of the story ? '' Even if one takes Veselnitskaya at her word that she is not an agent of the Russian government and did not know or provide any damaging information about Mrs Clinton to the Trump team during the 9 June meeting , her own recent admissions raise some pressing questions . On Tuesday she told an NBC interviewer that Trump Jr , Manafort and Kushner may have been `` longing for '' the dirt on their Democratic opponent . `` They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted , '' she said . In other words , Veselnitskaya walked out of that meeting in New York with the belief that Mr Trump 's campaign both was desperately seeking damaging information about Mrs Clinton and were open to talking to Russian nationals about what they might have to offer . Given that Veselnitskaya is at the very least a well-connected figure in Moscow , it does n't require a great leap of faith to think this information eventually made its way to the Russian government . If the US intelligence community is to be believed , that government soon would acquire a trove of damaging information about Mrs Clinton and the Democrats as a result of hacks it co-ordinated into the Democratic National Committee server and the personal email of a senior member of Mrs Clinton 's campaign team . In the ensuing months , details from those hacks would be made public via Wikileaks at times that were particularly damaging to Mrs Clinton . Derogatory statements about Mrs Clinton 's Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders were produced the week before Democrats gathered for their national convention . Transcripts of Mrs Clinton 's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs were published just days before the final presidential debate - and cited during that showdown by Mr Trump himself . The Trump campaign wanted dirt on Mrs Clinton . The Russian government had it in spades . Mr Mueller might want to see if those dots can be connected . Another choice tidbit in that first Goldstone email was his suggestion that he might `` send this info to your father via Rhona '' - a reference to Rhona Graff , the elder Trump 's personal assistant . Graff has served as the gatekeeper to Mr Trump at the Trump organisation - and , according to a profile in Politico , still is the preferred method for the president 's business associates to contact him outside of White House channels . `` If I really wanted to whisper something in his ear , I would probably go to Rhona , '' Trump business associate John Catsimatidis told the publication . The White House has said that Mr Trump did not know about the meeting with Veselnitskaya - despite the fact that his son , son-in-law and campaign chief were in attendance and it took place in his New York tower . If this assertion is proven to be inaccurate , Rhona could be the key . What did Emin Agalarov and Trump Jr talk about on 6 June ? The middle portion of the email chain released on Tuesday morning involved Trump Jr and Goldstone trying to set up a phone conversation with Russian pop star/businessman Emin Agalarov . After a fair bit of wrangling the two apparently spoke , and the very next email was Goldstone informing Trump Jr he was scheduling the meeting with the `` Russian government attorney '' ( Veselnitskaya ) for later in the week . Mr Mueller and congressional investigators may be interested in learning what Agalarov said that convinced Mr Trump to move ahead with the plans for a face-to-face gathering . And what was the nature of the relationship between Agalarov and the Trump clan , in light of Goldstone 's observation that Emin and his father were helping Russia 's support of the Trump campaign ? What was the story behind Mr Trump 's cancelled anti-Clinton speech ? Four days after the first email from Goldstone to Trump Jr about the incriminating information the Russia government was said to have about Mrs Clinton , candidate Trump promised to give a `` major speech '' the following week discussing `` all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons '' , including Mrs Clinton 's alleged misdeeds while serving as secretary of state . `` I think you 're going to find it very informative and very , very interesting , '' he added . That speech , originally announced for the Monday after the Trump camp 's New York meeting with Veselnitskaya , never took place . Was this an indication that the elder Trump may have known about the meeting - which , according to Trump Jr , did not produce the promised dirt on Mrs Clinton ?

Image copyright Getty Images Now that Hurricane Junior has blown through Washington, special counsel Robert Mueller - charged with investigating possible ties between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign - faces the task of sifting through the debris. According to CNN, the former FBI director and his team of crack investigators were caught somewhat flat-footed by the recent email revelations. They were believed to have been focusing their attention on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, son-in-law Jared Kushner and former campaign chair Paul Manafort, among others. As it turns out, the first bit of concrete public evidence that someone in the president's inner circle might be open to Russian assistance in the presidential election involved Mr Trump's eldest son. The president, Trump Jr and his administration have quickly reformed their defences and are now dismissing the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya last June as a minor event during a hurly-burly political season, largely lost in the fog of time, that led to nothing and which they have been admirably "transparent" in discussing. Key members of Congress seem to think otherwise, with senators like Republican Susan Collins of Maine calling for Trump Jr to be questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa eager to bring Manafort before his Senate Judiciary Committee. But while Congress gears up for more hearings, Mr Mueller operates quietly behind the scenes. Where might he look first? What threads, revealed in Trump Jr's emails, will he and his team tug on, to see what unravels? Here are a few of the tempting questions he might be tempted to ask. What else did Rob Goldstone think the Russian government was doing to help Mr Trump? Nestled toward the end of music publicist Goldstone's explosive first email to Trump Jr about the "official documents and information" the Russian government supposedly had about Hillary Clinton was that this constituted just "part of" Russia's support for his father, "helped along by Aras and Emin" Agalarov, the father-son Moscow-based real estate duo. It's a rather stunning detail for Goldstone to have offhandedly mentioned - and one that Trump Jr, in his "love it" response, seems to have breezed past with no comment. That kind of remark, however, would cause anyone looking for evidence of a Trump-Russia campaign collusion to stop dead in their tracks and ask: "What's the rest of the story?" Why is this British guy emailing Trump Jr? What did Veselnitskaya do next? Even if one takes Veselnitskaya at her word that she is not an agent of the Russian government and did not know or provide any damaging information about Mrs Clinton to the Trump team during the 9 June meeting, her own recent admissions raise some pressing questions. On Tuesday she told an NBC interviewer that Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner may have been "longing for" the dirt on their Democratic opponent. "They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted," she said. Image copyright AFP Image caption Natalia Veselnitskaya went back to Russia with some key information about the Trump campaign In other words, Veselnitskaya walked out of that meeting in New York with the belief that Mr Trump's campaign both was desperately seeking damaging information about Mrs Clinton and were open to talking to Russian nationals about what they might have to offer. Given that Veselnitskaya is at the very least a well-connected figure in Moscow, it doesn't require a great leap of faith to think this information eventually made its way to the Russian government. If the US intelligence community is to be believed, that government soon would acquire a trove of damaging information about Mrs Clinton and the Democrats as a result of hacks it co-ordinated into the Democratic National Committee server and the personal email of a senior member of Mrs Clinton's campaign team. In the ensuing months, details from those hacks would be made public via Wikileaks at times that were particularly damaging to Mrs Clinton. Derogatory statements about Mrs Clinton's Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders were produced the week before Democrats gathered for their national convention. Transcripts of Mrs Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs were published just days before the final presidential debate - and cited during that showdown by Mr Trump himself. The Trump campaign wanted dirt on Mrs Clinton. The Russian government had it in spades. Mr Mueller might want to see if those dots can be connected. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump voters in Nebraska dismiss Russia story Did Goldstone ever reach out to Rhona? Another choice tidbit in that first Goldstone email was his suggestion that he might "send this info to your father via Rhona" - a reference to Rhona Graff, the elder Trump's personal assistant. Graff has served as the gatekeeper to Mr Trump at the Trump organisation - and, according to a profile in Politico, still is the preferred method for the president's business associates to contact him outside of White House channels. "If I really wanted to whisper something in his ear, I would probably go to Rhona," Trump business associate John Catsimatidis told the publication. The White House has said that Mr Trump did not know about the meeting with Veselnitskaya - despite the fact that his son, son-in-law and campaign chief were in attendance and it took place in his New York tower. If this assertion is proven to be inaccurate, Rhona could be the key. Trump Jr meeting scandal: The key players What did Emin Agalarov and Trump Jr talk about on 6 June? The middle portion of the email chain released on Tuesday morning involved Trump Jr and Goldstone trying to set up a phone conversation with Russian pop star/businessman Emin Agalarov. After a fair bit of wrangling the two apparently spoke, and the very next email was Goldstone informing Trump Jr he was scheduling the meeting with the "Russian government attorney" (Veselnitskaya) for later in the week. Mr Mueller and congressional investigators may be interested in learning what Agalarov said that convinced Mr Trump to move ahead with the plans for a face-to-face gathering. And what was the nature of the relationship between Agalarov and the Trump clan, in light of Goldstone's observation that Emin and his father were helping Russia's support of the Trump campaign? Did Donald Trump Jr break the law? Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Donald Trump told a New York crowd in June 2016 he was about to give a "very interesting" speech about Hillary Clinton What was the story behind Mr Trump's cancelled anti-Clinton speech? Four days after the first email from Goldstone to Trump Jr about the incriminating information the Russia government was said to have about Mrs Clinton, candidate Trump promised to give a "major speech" the following week discussing "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons", including Mrs Clinton's alleged misdeeds while serving as secretary of state. "I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting," he added. That speech, originally announced for the Monday after the Trump camp's New York meeting with Veselnitskaya, never took place. Was this an indication that the elder Trump may have known about the meeting - which, according to Trump Jr, did not produce the promised dirt on Mrs Clinton? That's one more question Mr Mueller might be mulling. Follow Anthony Zurcher on Twitter.

www.bbc.com

center

le0C9k5sqNjrKN2L

test

TLSweNg7HkS9RId4

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/16/jared-kushner-trump-saudi-khashoggi-mbs

A tale of two houses: how Jared Kushner fuelled the Trump-Saudi love-in

2018-10-16

Julian Borger, Mohamad Bazzi, Nils Pratley

A key player in the US-Saudi relationship is conspicuously missing from the talks held in Riyadh by the US secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , to try to defuse the international crisis over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi . Jared Kushner helped build the alliance between the House of Saud and the House of Trump . The president ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser took the lead in promoting Mohammed bin Salman as a Saudi visionary , and persuaded the administration to hitch US Middle East policy to the prince ’ s rising star . Together the two thirty-something princelings , MBS and Kushner , stayed up late into the night planning to remake the map of the Middle East with bold thinking and mountains of cash . For now , however , those plans are stalled . The Saudi crown prince stands accused of masterminding the cold-blooded murder of a dissident journalist , Kushner is silent and Donald Trump has been performing crisis public relations for the Saudi monarchy . Jamal Khashoggi : US secretary of state arrives in Saudi Arabia for crisis talks Read more Peppered with questions on Monday , the president gamely suggesting that the suspected hit team that arrived in Istanbul on official jets and had free run of the Saudi consulate there , were “ rogue killers ” acting without the knowledge of the prince or his father , King Salman . The scramble for alibis is a long way from the high hopes of May last year , when the Trump–Saud courtship was consummated . The new president made Riyadh the destination of his first trip abroad since taking office . In the months before , Kushner identified MBS as a potential partner . The state department and the CIA backed Mohammed bin Nayef , the incumbent crown prince at the time , but the first son-in-law insisted that he had “ reliable intelligence ” – most likely from the Israeli president , Benjamin Netanyahu , a Kushner family friend – that Mohammed Bin Salman was the man to bet on . The prophecy became self-fulfilling as wholehearted support from Washington aided Mhis rise , eventually eclipsing and replacing Nayef . Meanwhile , the Riyadh summit appeared to be a glittering success . Trump was flattered and feted , given a sword with which to dance in step with King Salman and his retinue . There was a flypast of nine warplanes , the most the Saudis had ever attempted , and horses alongside the limos . The pageantry was backed up with substance . King Salman had gathered other Gulf Arab leaders in Riyadh to promise to fight terrorism and Iran , which both the hosts and their US guests viewed pretty much as one and the same . In Riyadh , Trump also claimed that he had managed to sell the Saudis $ 110bn ( £83bn ) in US-made weapons . The president cited the figure again last week to explain why he could not afford to impose sanctions on the Saudi royal family even if they were found to have murdered Khashoggi , but it was largely illusory . It included deals agreed under the Obama administration and some statements of intent to buy some weapons systems , but no actual new contracts . However , arms sales were just part of the bonanza MBS promised Trump . When the crown prince made a three-week tour of the US in March this year , he made a point of visiting the titans of US tech industries on the west coast . The Saudi Public Investment Fund ( PIF ) , pledged $ 45bn to the Japanese group SoftBank towards its planned $ 100bn technology venture capital fund . PIF also bought a $ 3.5bn share in the ride-sharing company Uber ; a $ 2bn stake in the electric carmaker Tesla ; and put about $ 1bn in Virgin Group ’ s space companies . It was a statement of intent . The nation built on oil wealth was buying a stake in a low-carbon future . As part of the crown prince ’ s Saudi Vision 2030 , a futuristic megacity called Neom would rise from the sands , run by artificial intelligence and serviced by robots . It would be a huge potential market for Silicon Valley . As the US and Saudi economies became ever more intertwined , their foreign policies lined up in parallel . The Obama administration had sought to balance Saudi Arabia and Iran but Trump would be all in alongside Riyadh against Tehran . And the Saudis would back Kushner ’ s big project , a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians . When Congress raised doubts about the kingdom ’ s worsening human rights record , as Bin Salman crushed dissent inside Saudi Arabia and locked up his princely rivals in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton , or about the terrible civilian deaths from the Saudi-led coalition ’ s aerial bombing campaign in Yemen , there was lots of lobbying money to smooth the way . According to the Centre for International Policy , the Saudis spent $ 27m on Washington lobbying firms in 2017 , three times what they spent in 2016 . Of that , $ 400,000 went straight to the campaign funds of senators and House members who were urged to turn a blind eye to Saudi excesses . In the end , it was not the mass crackdown on dissent that slowed the Trump-Saud locomotive in its tracks , nor the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen . Not even the death of 40 Yemeni boys on a school outing , killed by a US-made , Saudi-dropped bomb in August , caused much of a ripple in the bilateral relationship . Saudi summit in crisis as Khashoggi case prompts mass withdrawals Read more The disappearance and suspected murder of one man has done more to jeopardise US-Saudi relations than three years of bombing and blockades in Yemen . Khashoggi is a US resident and a contributor to the Washington Post , whose owner , Jeff Bezos , the founder of Amazon , was one of the west coast moguls MBS schmoozed in March . As the Saudi government has flailed in response to damning Turkish leaks about Khashoggi ’ s reported murder and dismemberment , lashing out at its critics and putting up a wall of denial , the procession of western businesses cutting their ties with Riyadh has become a stampede . One tech and media company after another has sent its regrets to the Future Investment Initiative conference , the flagship of Bin Salman ’ s westernising aspirations known as “ Davos in the desert ” . The Saudi regime ’ s staunchest remaining friend in the west is the Trump administration . As of Tuesday , the treasury secretary , Steven Mnuchin , was still planning to attend the Riyadh conference . But Trump ’ s loyalty to the Saudi royals is stretching his credibility to breaking point even with the Republican faithful in Congress . A bipartisan list of 22 senators have asked the US to carry out an investigation of what happened to Khashoggi and report back in 120 days with a decision on whether to impose sanctions on those responsible . The Senate can be expected to be sceptical about claims that “ rogue killers ’ were responsible . Meanwhile , senators from both parties wrote last week to Pompeo challenging his argument for continuing to certify arms exports to Saudi Arabia and asking that he return to Congress by the end of the month to shore up his case . Even if the Senate does vote against arms sales to Saudi Arabia , Trump could tough it out and overrule congressional disapproval with a veto . But it would mark a major rift between the president and his party . Gerald Feierstein , a former US diplomat who was principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near-eastern affairs in the Obama administration , said : “ The Senate might not stop arms sales but the symbolism of a vote of disapproval would be significant and could influence the administration to change direction . ” Few expect the House of Saud to fall over the Khashoggi affair , but the grander ambitions promoted by Bin Salman have visibly sagged and could collapse , taking with it a lot of the House of Trump ’ s remaining lustre .

A key player in the US-Saudi relationship is conspicuously missing from the talks held in Riyadh by the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to try to defuse the international crisis over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. Jared Kushner helped build the alliance between the House of Saud and the House of Trump. The president’s son-in-law and senior adviser took the lead in promoting Mohammed bin Salman as a Saudi visionary, and persuaded the administration to hitch US Middle East policy to the prince’s rising star. Together the two thirty-something princelings, MBS and Kushner, stayed up late into the night planning to remake the map of the Middle East with bold thinking and mountains of cash. For now, however, those plans are stalled. The Saudi crown prince stands accused of masterminding the cold-blooded murder of a dissident journalist, Kushner is silent and Donald Trump has been performing crisis public relations for the Saudi monarchy. Jamal Khashoggi: US secretary of state arrives in Saudi Arabia for crisis talks Read more Peppered with questions on Monday, the president gamely suggesting that the suspected hit team that arrived in Istanbul on official jets and had free run of the Saudi consulate there, were “rogue killers” acting without the knowledge of the prince or his father, King Salman. Pageantry and promises The scramble for alibis is a long way from the high hopes of May last year, when the Trump–Saud courtship was consummated. The new president made Riyadh the destination of his first trip abroad since taking office. In the months before, Kushner identified MBS as a potential partner. The state department and the CIA backed Mohammed bin Nayef, the incumbent crown prince at the time, but the first son-in-law insisted that he had “reliable intelligence” – most likely from the Israeli president, Benjamin Netanyahu, a Kushner family friend – that Mohammed Bin Salman was the man to bet on. The prophecy became self-fulfilling as wholehearted support from Washington aided Mhis rise, eventually eclipsing and replacing Nayef. Meanwhile, the Riyadh summit appeared to be a glittering success. Trump was flattered and feted, given a sword with which to dance in step with King Salman and his retinue. There was a flypast of nine warplanes, the most the Saudis had ever attempted, and horses alongside the limos. The pageantry was backed up with substance. King Salman had gathered other Gulf Arab leaders in Riyadh to promise to fight terrorism and Iran, which both the hosts and their US guests viewed pretty much as one and the same. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mike Pompeo (centre) greets Saudi officials on his arrival in Riyadh on Tuesday. Photograph: Leah Millis/AP In Riyadh, Trump also claimed that he had managed to sell the Saudis $110bn (£83bn) in US-made weapons. The president cited the figure again last week to explain why he could not afford to impose sanctions on the Saudi royal family even if they were found to have murdered Khashoggi, but it was largely illusory. It included deals agreed under the Obama administration and some statements of intent to buy some weapons systems, but no actual new contracts. However, arms sales were just part of the bonanza MBS promised Trump. When the crown prince made a three-week tour of the US in March this year, he made a point of visiting the titans of US tech industries on the west coast. The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), pledged $45bn to the Japanese group SoftBank towards its planned $100bn technology venture capital fund. PIF also bought a $3.5bn share in the ride-sharing company Uber; a $2bn stake in the electric carmaker Tesla; and put about $1bn in Virgin Group’s space companies. US and Saudi economies entwined It was a statement of intent. The nation built on oil wealth was buying a stake in a low-carbon future. As part of the crown prince’s Saudi Vision 2030, a futuristic megacity called Neom would rise from the sands, run by artificial intelligence and serviced by robots. It would be a huge potential market for Silicon Valley. As the US and Saudi economies became ever more intertwined, their foreign policies lined up in parallel. The Obama administration had sought to balance Saudi Arabia and Iran but Trump would be all in alongside Riyadh against Tehran. And the Saudis would back Kushner’s big project, a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. When Congress raised doubts about the kingdom’s worsening human rights record, as Bin Salman crushed dissent inside Saudi Arabia and locked up his princely rivals in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton, or about the terrible civilian deaths from the Saudi-led coalition’s aerial bombing campaign in Yemen, there was lots of lobbying money to smooth the way. According to the Centre for International Policy, the Saudis spent $27m on Washington lobbying firms in 2017, three times what they spent in 2016. Of that, $400,000 went straight to the campaign funds of senators and House members who were urged to turn a blind eye to Saudi excesses. In the end, it was not the mass crackdown on dissent that slowed the Trump-Saud locomotive in its tracks, nor the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen. Not even the death of 40 Yemeni boys on a school outing, killed by a US-made, Saudi-dropped bomb in August, caused much of a ripple in the bilateral relationship. Saudi summit in crisis as Khashoggi case prompts mass withdrawals Read more The disappearance and suspected murder of one man has done more to jeopardise US-Saudi relations than three years of bombing and blockades in Yemen. Khashoggi is a US resident and a contributor to the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, was one of the west coast moguls MBS schmoozed in March. As the Saudi government has flailed in response to damning Turkish leaks about Khashoggi’s reported murder and dismemberment, lashing out at its critics and putting up a wall of denial, the procession of western businesses cutting their ties with Riyadh has become a stampede. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jared Kushner, White House adviser and President Trump’s son-in-law, at the Saudi royal court in Riyadh. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters One tech and media company after another has sent its regrets to the Future Investment Initiative conference, the flagship of Bin Salman’s westernising aspirations known as “Davos in the desert”. The Saudi regime’s staunchest remaining friend in the west is the Trump administration. As of Tuesday, the treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, was still planning to attend the Riyadh conference. But Trump’s loyalty to the Saudi royals is stretching his credibility to breaking point even with the Republican faithful in Congress. Discontent in the senate A bipartisan list of 22 senators have asked the US to carry out an investigation of what happened to Khashoggi and report back in 120 days with a decision on whether to impose sanctions on those responsible. The Senate can be expected to be sceptical about claims that “rogue killers’ were responsible. Meanwhile, senators from both parties wrote last week to Pompeo challenging his argument for continuing to certify arms exports to Saudi Arabia and asking that he return to Congress by the end of the month to shore up his case. Even if the Senate does vote against arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Trump could tough it out and overrule congressional disapproval with a veto. But it would mark a major rift between the president and his party. Gerald Feierstein, a former US diplomat who was principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near-eastern affairs in the Obama administration, said: “The Senate might not stop arms sales but the symbolism of a vote of disapproval would be significant and could influence the administration to change direction.” Few expect the House of Saud to fall over the Khashoggi affair, but the grander ambitions promoted by Bin Salman have visibly sagged and could collapse, taking with it a lot of the House of Trump’s remaining lustre.

www.theguardian.com

left

TLSweNg7HkS9RId4

test

gX5GM2mCalngCc4T

cybersecurity

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/500000-hongkongers-cast-protest-vote-against-security-law

500,000 Hongkongers cast 'protest vote' against security law

2020-07-12

Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens queued to cast ballots over the weekend in what the Chinese-ruled city ’ s opposition camp says is a symbolic protest vote against a tough national security law directly imposed by Beijing . The unofficial poll will decide the strongest pro-democracy candidates to contest elections for the legislative council in September , when those candidates will aim to ride a wave of anti-China sentiment stirred by the law to seize control from pro-Beijing rivals for the first time . While the primaries are only for voters in the opposition camp , observers are watching closely as they say the turnout will serve as a test of broader sentiment about the law , which critics say gravely undermines the city ’ s freedoms . “ A high turnout will send a very strong signal to the international community that we Hongkongers never give up , ” said Sunny Cheung , 24 , one of a batch of aspiring young democrats out lobbying and giving stump speeches . “ And that we still stand with the democratic camp , we still support democracy and freedom. “ Play Video 4:13 Is China pushing Hong Kong further away with its new security law ? – video explainer Defying warnings from a senior Hong Kong official that the vote might fall foul of the national security law , residents young and old flocked to more than 250 polling stations across the city , manned by thousands of volunteers . Long queues formed down streets , in residential estates and at businesses turned polling stations , with people casting a ballot using their phones after having their identities verified . Organisers said 500,000 people had voted by late afternoon on Sunday , in the city of 7.5 million . The full turnout is expected to be announced on Monday morning after two full days of voting this weekend . The law punishes what China describes broadly as secession , subversion , terrorism and collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison and allows mainland security agents to operate officially in Hong Kong for the first time .

Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens queued to cast ballots over the weekend in what the Chinese-ruled city’s opposition camp says is a symbolic protest vote against a tough national security law directly imposed by Beijing. The unofficial poll will decide the strongest pro-democracy candidates to contest elections for the legislative council in September, when those candidates will aim to ride a wave of anti-China sentiment stirred by the law to seize control from pro-Beijing rivals for the first time. While the primaries are only for voters in the opposition camp, observers are watching closely as they say the turnout will serve as a test of broader sentiment about the law, which critics say gravely undermines the city’s freedoms. “A high turnout will send a very strong signal to the international community that we Hongkongers never give up,” said Sunny Cheung, 24, one of a batch of aspiring young democrats out lobbying and giving stump speeches. “And that we still stand with the democratic camp, we still support democracy and freedom.“ Play Video 4:13 Is China pushing Hong Kong further away with its new security law? – video explainer Defying warnings from a senior Hong Kong official that the vote might fall foul of the national security law, residents young and old flocked to more than 250 polling stations across the city, manned by thousands of volunteers. Long queues formed down streets, in residential estates and at businesses turned polling stations, with people casting a ballot using their phones after having their identities verified. Organisers said 500,000 people had voted by late afternoon on Sunday, in the city of 7.5 million. The full turnout is expected to be announced on Monday morning after two full days of voting this weekend. The law punishes what China describes broadly as secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison and allows mainland security agents to operate officially in Hong Kong for the first time.

www.theguardian.com

left

gX5GM2mCalngCc4T

test

ou0OwgluiZKjJbUd

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/08/democrats-apology-tour-joe-biden-beto-o-rourke-kamala-harris-pete-buttigieg

Sorry is the easiest word – but should Democrats stop their apology tour?

2019-04-08

David Smith

For Joe Biden , it was his discomfiting touching of women . For Pete Buttigieg , his use of the phrase “ all lives matter ” . For Tulsi Gabbard , her comments about homosexuality . For Kirsten Gillibrand , her positions on immigration . For Kamala Harris , her record on criminal justice . For Beto O ’ Rourke , his jokes about his wife and children . For Bernie Sanders , his staff perpetrating sexual harassment in the last campaign . For Elizabeth Warren , her claim to Native American ancestry . ‘ Pete ! Pete ! Pete ! ’ Buttigieg fever hits New Hampshire – can he keep up the pace ? Read more Democrats running for president in 2020 are on an “ apology tour ” , seeking to atone for past political sins . Some voters welcome it as an antidote to Donald Trump , an overdue attempt to set the social and political bar higher for the 21st century . Others are anxious that the candidates ’ supporters will try to tear each other down with “ wokeness ” tests that could leave the party hopelessly divided . Barack Obama said in Berlin on Saturday : “ One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States … is a certain kind of rigidity where we say , ‘ Uh , I ’ m sorry , this is how it ’ s going to be ’ and then we start sometimes creating what ’ s called a ‘ circular firing squad ’ , where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues . ” The default to contrition has alarmed some politicians and others who argue that the sole priority in 2020 must be defeating Trump , who never says sorry for anything . Let ’ s not eat our own the way we nitpicked Hillary [ Clinton ] to death over her emails and other bullshit Bill Maher Last month , after billionaire businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he was not running , he cited his unwillingness to join the Democrats ’ apology tour . “ Joe Biden went out and apologized for being male , over 50 , white , ” he said . “ He apologised for the one piece of legislation which is actually a pretty good anti-crime bill , which if the liberals ever read it , most of the things they like is in that bill . They should have loved that . But they didn ’ t even bother to read it . You ’ re anti-crime , you must be anti-populist . ” Biden , who has not yet declared his candidacy , has struggled in the past week to deal with complaints from women that his hugs , kisses and other tactile shows of affection were unwelcome . On Friday he made jokey references to the allegations , then offered a mixed apology : “ I ’ m sorry I didn ’ t understand more . I ’ m not sorry for any of my intentions . I ’ m not sorry for anything that I have ever done . I ’ ve never been disrespectful intentionally to a man or a woman . ” The backlash against the 76-year-old former senator and vice-president , the architect of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act , has provoked a counter-attack from sympathisers and Trump critics . Mika Brzezinski , co-host of Morning Joe , suggested that the # MeToo movement could be turned against Democrats and warned : “ You ’ re eating your young . You ’ re eating those who can beat Trump . You ’ re killing the very people who have been pushing women ahead , who have been fighting for equal pay , who have been doing everything they can to respect women in their lives . ” 'Our mantra is chaos ' : Republican researchers target 2020 Democrats Read more Others have voiced concerns over lacerating criticisms of candidates on gender , race and sexuality issues that ricochet around social media every day . Frank Bruni , a columnist at the New York Times , expressed dismay over “ a mini-debate ” on the left over whether Buttigieg , a white upper-middle-class man , “ is gay enough ” . Bruni argued : “ It ’ s non-negotiable that Democrats hold their presidential aspirants to high standards on issues of racial justice , gender equality and more . It ’ s crucial that the party nominate someone who can credibly represent its proudly diverse ranks . But it ’ s also important that the party not demand a degree of purity that nobody attains . ” In February , the comedian Bill Maher urged viewers of his HBO show : “ No more swiping left on presidential candidates . Let ’ s give them a chance . Let ’ s not eat our own the way we nitpicked Hillary [ Clinton ] to death over her emails and other bullshit . ” Maher added : “ Kamala Harris has already had to play defence because it ’ s come out , when she was a prosecutor , she prosecuted people . Not very progressive . She should have found a way to apply more forgiveness , and the fact that she didn ’ t is unforgivable . Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Native American – so what ? Trump claimed to be human . ” Republicans sense an opportunity to frame Democrats as consumed by identity politics and virtue signalling . Rich Lowry , editor of the National Review , wrote in February : “ Democrats are about to ­embark on the first woke primary , a gantlet of political correctness that will routinely wring abject apologies out of candidates and find fault in even the most sure-footed . The passage of time will be no defense . Nor the best of intentions . Nor anything else . ” But many on the left contend that the candidates ’ records are legitimate lines of inquiry and they should not be distracted by attacks from Trump , who is bound to paint them as socialists in any case . Instead , they posit , they should set a higher standard . When I talk to most voters they ’ re actually mostly excited about the candidates Zephyr Teachout Delvone Michael , a senior political strategist for the Working Families party who worked for Sanders in 2016 , said : “ It ’ s a direct response to the climate created by the president . People are distinguishing themselves by fessing up to past mistakes and moving on . Ultimately the election is going to be a referendum on Trump ’ s fitness for office , not on which candidate is the most ‘ woke ’ . ” Zephyr Teachout , a former candidate for New York attorney general , said : “ I think you ’ re seeing so many variations on the theme of apology because it ’ s becoming more and more clear that , as horrified as people are with Trump , most Americans , and certainly most Democrats , are not actually eager to simply just rush back to two and a half years ago . “ Since so many people were part of the mainstream Democratic party , they have to find a way of saying that they can bring something new . ” Teachout , an associate law professor at Fordham University , also rejected the notion of Democrats eating their own . Barack Obama warns progressives to avoid 'circular firing squad ' Read more “ When I talk to most voters they ’ re actually mostly excited about the candidates . If you ’ re not on Twitter all day , it ’ s a lot more positive than you might think from the perspective of the Twitter machine . I ’ ve just been visiting some friends and they sang the praises of about six of the candidates with a few concerns . So I think the overall mood is positive . “ It ’ s really important to share real differences between the candidates and to look into their histories and recognise that people can change but take history seriously . We are unbelievably lucky to have a real primary . ” Bill Galston , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton , agreed that the Twittersphere bears little relation to what is happening on the ground . “ The metaphysics of the left never cease to amaze me , ” he said . “ This is hardly the first time we ’ ve seen purity competitions on the left . It ’ s almost definitional . “ The question is whether real voters are taking these ridiculous debates seriously . Mr Buttigieg managed to raise $ 7m out of thin air and elevate himself out of the 1 % polling range , based partly on some high-profile appearances . “ Will the debate whether he is gay enough do anything but disgrace the participants ? My answer is somewhere between no and hell no . ”

For Joe Biden, it was his discomfiting touching of women. For Pete Buttigieg, his use of the phrase “all lives matter”. For Tulsi Gabbard, her comments about homosexuality. For Kirsten Gillibrand, her positions on immigration. For Kamala Harris, her record on criminal justice. For Beto O’Rourke, his jokes about his wife and children. For Bernie Sanders, his staff perpetrating sexual harassment in the last campaign. For Elizabeth Warren, her claim to Native American ancestry. ‘Pete! Pete! Pete!’ Buttigieg fever hits New Hampshire – can he keep up the pace? Read more Democrats running for president in 2020 are on an “apology tour”, seeking to atone for past political sins. Some voters welcome it as an antidote to Donald Trump, an overdue attempt to set the social and political bar higher for the 21st century. Others are anxious that the candidates’ supporters will try to tear each other down with “wokeness” tests that could leave the party hopelessly divided. Barack Obama said in Berlin on Saturday: “One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States … is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.” The default to contrition has alarmed some politicians and others who argue that the sole priority in 2020 must be defeating Trump, who never says sorry for anything. Let’s not eat our own the way we nitpicked Hillary [Clinton] to death over her emails and other bullshit Bill Maher Last month, after billionaire businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he was not running, he cited his unwillingness to join the Democrats’ apology tour. “Joe Biden went out and apologized for being male, over 50, white,” he said. “He apologised for the one piece of legislation which is actually a pretty good anti-crime bill, which if the liberals ever read it, most of the things they like is in that bill. They should have loved that. But they didn’t even bother to read it. You’re anti-crime, you must be anti-populist.” Biden, who has not yet declared his candidacy, has struggled in the past week to deal with complaints from women that his hugs, kisses and other tactile shows of affection were unwelcome. On Friday he made jokey references to the allegations, then offered a mixed apology: “I’m sorry I didn’t understand more. I’m not sorry for any of my intentions. I’m not sorry for anything that I have ever done. I’ve never been disrespectful intentionally to a man or a woman.” The backlash against the 76-year-old former senator and vice-president, the architect of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, has provoked a counter-attack from sympathisers and Trump critics. Mika Brzezinski, co-host of Morning Joe, suggested that the #MeToo movement could be turned against Democrats and warned: “You’re eating your young. You’re eating those who can beat Trump. You’re killing the very people who have been pushing women ahead, who have been fighting for equal pay, who have been doing everything they can to respect women in their lives.” 'Our mantra is chaos': Republican researchers target 2020 Democrats Read more Others have voiced concerns over lacerating criticisms of candidates on gender, race and sexuality issues that ricochet around social media every day. Frank Bruni, a columnist at the New York Times, expressed dismay over “a mini-debate” on the left over whether Buttigieg, a white upper-middle-class man, “is gay enough”. Bruni argued: “It’s non-negotiable that Democrats hold their presidential aspirants to high standards on issues of racial justice, gender equality and more. It’s crucial that the party nominate someone who can credibly represent its proudly diverse ranks. But it’s also important that the party not demand a degree of purity that nobody attains.” In February, the comedian Bill Maher urged viewers of his HBO show: “No more swiping left on presidential candidates. Let’s give them a chance. Let’s not eat our own the way we nitpicked Hillary [Clinton] to death over her emails and other bullshit.” Maher added: “Kamala Harris has already had to play defence because it’s come out, when she was a prosecutor, she prosecuted people. Not very progressive. She should have found a way to apply more forgiveness, and the fact that she didn’t is unforgivable. Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Native American – so what? Trump claimed to be human.” ‘The overall mood is positive’ Republicans sense an opportunity to frame Democrats as consumed by identity politics and virtue signalling. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Kamala Harris takes the stage for a campaign rally at Morehouse College in Atlanta. Photograph: Curtis Compton/AP Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, wrote in February: “Democrats are about to ­embark on the first woke primary, a gantlet of political correctness that will routinely wring abject apologies out of candidates and find fault in even the most sure-footed. The passage of time will be no defense. Nor the best of intentions. Nor anything else.” But many on the left contend that the candidates’ records are legitimate lines of inquiry and they should not be distracted by attacks from Trump, who is bound to paint them as socialists in any case. Instead, they posit, they should set a higher standard. When I talk to most voters they’re actually mostly excited about the candidates Zephyr Teachout Delvone Michael, a senior political strategist for the Working Families party who worked for Sanders in 2016, said: “It’s a direct response to the climate created by the president. People are distinguishing themselves by fessing up to past mistakes and moving on. Ultimately the election is going to be a referendum on Trump’s fitness for office, not on which candidate is the most ‘woke’.” Zephyr Teachout, a former candidate for New York attorney general, said: “I think you’re seeing so many variations on the theme of apology because it’s becoming more and more clear that, as horrified as people are with Trump, most Americans, and certainly most Democrats, are not actually eager to simply just rush back to two and a half years ago. “Since so many people were part of the mainstream Democratic party, they have to find a way of saying that they can bring something new.” Teachout, an associate law professor at Fordham University, also rejected the notion of Democrats eating their own. Barack Obama warns progressives to avoid 'circular firing squad' Read more “When I talk to most voters they’re actually mostly excited about the candidates. If you’re not on Twitter all day, it’s a lot more positive than you might think from the perspective of the Twitter machine. I’ve just been visiting some friends and they sang the praises of about six of the candidates with a few concerns. So I think the overall mood is positive. “It’s really important to share real differences between the candidates and to look into their histories and recognise that people can change but take history seriously. We are unbelievably lucky to have a real primary.” Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton, agreed that the Twittersphere bears little relation to what is happening on the ground. “The metaphysics of the left never cease to amaze me,” he said. “This is hardly the first time we’ve seen purity competitions on the left. It’s almost definitional. “The question is whether real voters are taking these ridiculous debates seriously. Mr Buttigieg managed to raise $7m out of thin air and elevate himself out of the 1% polling range, based partly on some high-profile appearances. “Will the debate whether he is gay enough do anything but disgrace the participants? My answer is somewhere between no and hell no.”

www.theguardian.com

left

ou0OwgluiZKjJbUd

test