SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: LindyBill4/17/2019 6:53:08 PM
   of 723013
 
Trump got his opening Border POV from Ann. Ivanka scorned her. You know what they say.

Ann Coulter: All The President's Bloodsucking Relatives

Even after Trump won the presidency, Jared Kushner was embarrassed by his father-in-law, according to Vicky Ward's terrific new book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

In a speech to hundreds of New York bankers and businessmen on December 16, 2016, Jared admitted that Trump was "easy to hate from afar." But not to worry, he said, Trump wouldn't be keeping his campaign promises—especially on immigration.

One banker who heard the speech was appalled, shocked by Jared's arrogance in thinking he could "control" the president.

Joke's on him. Turns out Jared was right. He does control Trump.

And what a blessing that's been.

It was Jared's idea to fire FBI Director James Comey. If Trump hadn't followed that advice, there would have been no independent counsel.

It was also Jared and Ivanka's idea to hire Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn. (Ivanka was adamant, saying Flynn gets "anything he wants.")

If Trump hadn't hired Manafort and Flynn, the independent counsel investigation would have been over in about a week.

Even Trump's opponents warned him about the man Javanka said should have anything he wants. Ward reports:

"President Barack Obama gave Trump two pieces of advice: One was that the biggest problem he would face as president was the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The second was a warning against hiring Flynn: 'He'll cause you nothing but problems.'"

Trump's supposedly loyal kids give him worse advice than the ex-president whom Trump tormented during his presidency.

Even Trump's plethora of Goldman Sachs aides were horrified by Jared's decision to fire the FBI director just as congressional Democrats were gearing up their Russian collusion nonsense.

When Goldman Sachs alum Dina Powell got wind of Comey's coming dismissal, she told Jared that firing the Director would be "a huge political mistake." A self-assured Jared brushed her off, saying, "No, no, this is what should be done. The guy is not on our team."

At least Jared's string of disastrous decisions hasn't harmed his self-confidence. The hits keep coming!

Jared wanted Chris Christie fired. He was fired. (Jared insists this had absolutely nothing to do with Christie being the U.S. attorney who put Jared's criminal father in prison.) All of Christie's proposed hires were jettisoned along with him. Whoever they were, they couldn't be worse than Trump's actual White House staff.

Jared brought in Goldman Sachs' Gary Cohn to be Trump's National Economic Council director—which would be like Malia Obama demanding that Obama hire me as his White House economic adviser.

Still, I've got mixed feelings on Cohn. On one hand, he is credited with blocking Trump's promise to end the carried interest loophole (and many other items on the MAGA agenda).

But on the other, Cohn is all over Ward's book, trashing both Jared and Ivanka, e.g.:

  • "Cohn felt Jared was not looking at the practical challenges," Ward writes. He "was more impressed by famous names."
  • Cohn also sneered that Ivanka "thinks she's going to be president of the United States." To her, "this is like the Kennedys, the Bushes, and now the Trumps."
Trump should have read Jared the snake poem before he hired Cohn. ("You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.")

Early in the administration, Jared demanded that Trump endorse the widely unpopular establishment Republican, Luther Strange, in the 2017 special Senate race in Alabama to replace Jeff Sessions.

Like night follows day, Trump suffered a humiliating defeat. It turned out Alabamians preferred anyone to Strange. First they voted for a nut in the primary, and then for a Democrat in the general.

Always trust Jared.

No one but Jared could have turned over Sessions' U.S. Senate seat in the reddest state in the Union to a Democrat. Oddsmakers would have said it was impossible.

But with Jared's sound counsel, Trump did it. He took Sessions out of the Senate, then delivered the seat to a Democrat. Trump is like a guy who breaks up a marriage—and then dumps the wife.

Jared and Ivanka were also the brain trust behind hiring Anthony Scaramucci.

"Ivanka brought Scaramucci into the White House without telling anyone," Ward says. She went to her father and said, "He'd be a great communications director."

Scaramucci was the White House communications director for a glorious 11 days, before i mploding in an obscenity-laced rant to The New Yorker.

In addition to Javanka's personnel decisions on Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort, Chris Christie, Michael Flynn, Luther Strange, Gary Cohn and Anthony Scaramucci, Javanka wanted John Kelly made chief of staff, believing he would be loyal to them. When that turned out not to be the case, they decided to get rid of Kelly. He was gone.

They wanted Steve Bannon fired. He was fired.
Her book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, was released on June 1, 2015.

Her latest book, Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, was released on August 21, 2018.




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Bill who wrote (681819)4/17/2019 7:02:27 PM
From: sense
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
I'm not going to argue that Fox is being smart. I'm an observer... watching... don't know. I can see paths that would make sense out of trying to broaden the tent a bit, in a business case. But, I will tend to agree with others here that if Fox is now being steered by committed partisans of the left rather than by rational business decisions, with the shift left being purposefully ideological... they'll find that trying to pad the viewership numbers by pirating from the lefty networks... will probably cost more in greater losses... including losing the only real monopoly that exists in the business now. That would be stupid... but wouldn't make Fox the first company to fail stupidly.

The larger concern seen in context of the rest of the environment... where even solid centrists on the left of the center line are being de-banked for having expressed opinions not consistent with views of the extremists in the corporate thought police ?

Fox abandoning the last redoubt that is a point of safety on the right could plunge us back into the dark ages.

Removing outlets for expression... doesn't suppress ideas... but requires the same energy will instead seek other outlets and escape by other means. Accelerations into civil war happen this way.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/17/2019 7:35:05 PM
5 Recommendations   of 723013
 
jihadwatch.org Notre Dame fire: No workers were in the cathedral, no heat sources were near the timber frame
Robert Spencer

Apr 17, 2019 12:45 pm By 84 Comments

Was it arson? Maybe. Would French authorities admit the fact if it were? Possibly not. Is there any group in France responsible for the spate of fires and vandalism at churches? At least one has been the work of a Muslim migrant, and Islam does have a 1,400-year history of destroying churches in Europe and elsewhere.

Does that mean that it is Muslims who are attacking churches in France, and who destroyed Notre Dame? Of course not. It’s a possibility that should be investigated, as should other possibilities. To dismiss this possibility out of hand as “Islamophobic” is to be terminally naive and/or ideologically blinkered.



“Notre-Dame: ‘The work had not started yet, only the scaffolding was being assembled,'” translated from “Notre-Dame: ‘Les travaux n’avaient pas encore débuté, seuls les échafaudages étaient en cours de montage,'” Fdesouche.com, April 16, 2019 (thanks to Maxime Lépante):

The frame, the roof and the spire of the cathedral are destroyed. It will now be necessary to evaluate the state of the structure. The fire came on Monday as major renovations were underway.

(…) “The hotspots are the main obsession in a restoration work of this magnitude,” says the chief architect of historical monuments, François Chatillon, about Notre Dame. A simple weld on lead can heat the wood below. The chief architect of historical monuments responsible for the restoration of the spire of Notre Dame, Philippe Villeneuve, states: “the work had not started yet, only the scaffolding was being assembled.” From his point of view, “the hot spot hypothesis is therefore not the right one”.

“Notre-Dame de Paris: ‘Nothing points in the direction of an intentional act’ at the beginning of the investigation,” translated from “Notre-Dame de Paris: ‘Rien ne va dans le sens d’un acte volontaire’, selon les débuts de l’enquête,” Le Journal du Dimanche, April 16, 2019 (thanks to Maxime Lépante):

The safety procedures on the Notre-Dame de Paris construction site “have been respected,” said one of the leaders of the scaffolding of the cathedral on BFMTV Tuesday, the day after the fire that ravaged the building. “All I can tell you right now is that at the start of the fire, absolutely none of the employees of my company was present on site,” said Julien Le Bras, adding that all employees of his company, Europe Echafaudage, participated in the inquiry “without any reservation”.

An observer on the scene in France, Maxime Lépante, who sent these two links, also writes:

One of my friends sent me an email concerning the security on the roof of Notre-Dame. She has a diploma in Art History and studied in the “Ecole du Louvre” (“Louvre School”, where students learn art history and restoration processes): “I visited the framing of Notre Dame with architects of the “Bâtiments de France” (“Buildings of France”, the highest rank for an architect in France), some years ago. This 13th century timber frame was extremely protected. Each intervention is always accompanied by historians, architects, experts; no work is envisaged without extreme caution; no source of heat, no torch, no electrical apparatus is allowed; a high-performance alarm system is in place; and very strict supervision of all people allowed there. I think we will eventually learn that this was arson.






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Bill who wrote (681824)4/17/2019 8:45:30 PM
From: D. Long
   of 723013
 
And what form of ID do you need to provide to get a passport? That's right, a driver's license.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: sense who wrote (681847)4/17/2019 9:19:14 PM
From: Bill
   of 723013
 
If I wanted to see a suck-up interview of a Dem candidate, I would tune into CNN or MSNBC. When I tune to FOX, I expect to see a critical examination of a candidate. If they do it again, I’ll turn it off again. FOX will learn that you can’t out-Dem the Dems.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: D. Long who wrote (681849)4/17/2019 9:25:02 PM
From: Bill
   of 723013
 
Original birth certificate.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: LindyBill4/17/2019 9:57:11 PM
3 Recommendations   of 723013
 
Farage as PM? Be still, my heart!

breitbart.com Brexit Party Surges to First Place in Shock European Election Poll
Oliver JJ Lane

The Brexit Party, which only officially launched last weekend has already surged past the two main legacy parties in a new poll and is now rated as the lead party in voting intentions for the May European Union elections. The new poll by major UK pollsters YouGov shows Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party surging by 12 points in a week, from 15 per cent to 27 per cent as of yesterday, the most recent figures available.

Coming in third place last week behind Labour and the Conservatives and just one point ahead of UKIP was no mean feat for a political party that had yet to launch, but the publicity generated by the party launch event in Coventry on Friday and the first rally — packing out the massive Hall One at the Birmingham International Conference Centre on Saturday — seems to have had a major impact.

Both the Conservative and Labour parties fell marginally by one and two points respectively over the polling period, but Nigel Farage’s old party was hit hardest, diving from 14 to 7 per cent in just days.

Polling monitoring group Europe Elects notes that if the findings were replicated in the European Elections in May, the outcome for the Conservative party would be their worst in history for a UK national election, going back to the foundation of the party in 1834.

Polls on British politics and particularly on the subject of Brexit must be taken with a pinch of salt — pollsters failed to predict the outcome of the 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union, for instance — and the latest figures from YouGov represent a massive shift. Breitbart London reported this week on another recent poll from the weekend by Opinium which put the Brexit Party on 12 per cent.

The results nevertheless bear out predictions that the establishment parties are set to perform poorly in the European Elections if they do indeed go ahead. The elections come after two delays to the legal Brexit date, and that the nation is being asked to select European Parliament candidates almost three years after the Brexit referendum is likely to be taken as a clear sign that the political class has failed to deliver.

Breitbart London reported live from the Brexit party launch event, where Nigel Farage introduced Annunziata Rees-Mogg — sister of Tory Brexiteer Jacob — as a lead candidate for the forthcoming election. Brexit leader Farage told Breitbart’s James Delingpole that the Conservative party was facing deep problems over their failure to lead over Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, and that the battle to change British politics had only just begun.

Speaking last week before the party launch, Mr Farage said of his plans: “I said in 2013 that UKIP was going to cause an earthquake in British politics and I think we can safely say we did that. The ambition now is to cause a revolution in British politics – and to end the two-party structure as it is, it’s just not working.

“We hope to have a profound effect on the Conservative Party and to shift the centre of gravity once more.”







breitbart.com Brexit Party Surges to First Place in Shock European Election Poll
Oliver JJ Lane

3-4 minutes





The Brexit Party, which only officially launched last weekend has already surged past the two main legacy parties in a new poll and is now rated as the lead party in voting intentions for the May European Union elections. The new poll by major UK pollsters YouGov shows Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party surging by 12 points in a week, from 15 per cent to 27 per cent as of yesterday, the most recent figures available.

Coming in third place last week behind Labour and the Conservatives and just one point ahead of UKIP was no mean feat for a political party that had yet to launch, but the publicity generated by the party launch event in Coventry on Friday and the first rally — packing out the massive Hall One at the Birmingham International Conference Centre on Saturday — seems to have had a major impact.

Both the Conservative and Labour parties fell marginally by one and two points respectively over the polling period, but Nigel Farage’s old party was hit hardest, diving from 14 to 7 per cent in just days.

Polling monitoring group Europe Elects notes that if the findings were replicated in the European Elections in May, the outcome for the Conservative party would be their worst in history for a UK national election, going back to the foundation of the party in 1834.

Polls on British politics and particularly on the subject of Brexit must be taken with a pinch of salt — pollsters failed to predict the outcome of the 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union, for instance — and the latest figures from YouGov represent a massive shift. Breitbart London reported this week on another recent poll from the weekend by Opinium which put the Brexit Party on 12 per cent.

The results nevertheless bear out predictions that the establishment parties are set to perform poorly in the European Elections if they do indeed go ahead. The elections come after two delays to the legal Brexit date, and that the nation is being asked to select European Parliament candidates almost three years after the Brexit referendum is likely to be taken as a clear sign that the political class has failed to deliver.

Breitbart London reported live from the Brexit party launch event, where Nigel Farage introduced Annunziata Rees-Mogg — sister of Tory Brexiteer Jacob — as a lead candidate for the forthcoming election. Brexit leader Farage told Breitbart’s James Delingpole that the Conservative party was facing deep problems over their failure to lead over Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, and that the battle to change British politics had only just begun.

Speaking last week before the party launch, Mr Farage said of his plans: “I said in 2013 that UKIP was going to cause an earthquake in British politics and I think we can safely say we did that. The ambition now is to cause a revolution in British politics – and to end the two-party structure as it is, it’s just not working.

“We hope to have a profound effect on the Conservative Party and to shift the centre of gravity once more.”






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/17/2019 10:31:50 PM
   of 723013
 
newsbusters.org After Media Cry ‘Cover-Up’, WaPo Reports Light Redactions By Barr
Nicholas C. Fondacaro



On Tuesday, NewsBusters research analyst Bill D’Agostino compiled a roundup of several incidents in which liberal media shriekers declared Attorney General William Barr was orchestrating a “cover-up” of President Trump’s crimes with redactions to the Mueller Report. But it appears as though all their hyperventilating, pearl-clutching, hyperbole, and other defining verbs were for not.

In the run-up to the release of the Special Counsel’s report, the so-called purveyors of “facts first” over at CNN had no problem with pushing kooky cover-up conspiracy theories. “Could the Attorney General be part of a cover-up,” host John King once declared without evidence, with host Erin Burnett later wondering: “Is Barr covering for Trump or not?”

But according to a Washington Post report headline out Wednesday night, the “Mueller report will be lightly redacted, revealing detailed look at obstruction of justice investigation”. The paper noted that the report would be “offering a granular look at the ways in which President Trump was suspected of having obstructed justice, people familiar with the matter said.”

According to their anonymous sources, the Mueller team didn’t charge Trump with obstruction of justice because he could have been acting “innocently”.

“The report — the general outlines of which the Justice Department has briefed the White House on — will reveal that Mueller decided he could not come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction because it was difficult to determine Trump’s intent and some of his actions could be interpreted innocently,” the Post reported.

Adding, “But it will offer a detailed blow-by-blow of his alleged conduct — analyzing tweets, private threats and other episodes at the center of Mueller’s inquiry…”

The paper reiterated Barr’s explanation to Congress for what would be included in the redactions:

[M]aterial from the grand jury, material that reveals intelligence sources and methods, material that is relevant to ongoing investigations, and material that could affect the privacy of “peripheral” third parties. Each redaction will be color-coded so readers know the reason material is being shielded, Barr has said.

The rest of the Post report was the usually dreary, whiny, trying-to-make-a-case-against-Trump-out-of-nothing reporting the liberal media has become known for.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/17/2019 10:38:51 PM
4 Recommendations   of 723013
 
BOOM! Joe diGenova on Collusion Investigation: “It All Started in the Obama White House – The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost” (VIDEO)
by Jim Hoft April 17, 2019 81 Comments

Former US Attorney Joe diGenova joined Sean Hannity on the eve of the release of the full Mueller Report by Attorney General Bill Barr.

Joe diGenova accused Barack Obama of being behind the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.



Joe diGenova: Barr will conclude, without saying it tomorrow, that it all started in the Obama White House. Barack Obama knew about this from day one. He authorized it. Brennan and Clapper informed him. Everybody knows that’s where we’re headed. And it’s about time. Because a lot of very innocent people have been hurt. Not just Donald Trump who has been absolutely outrageously harmed, by what President Obama authorized. But now “the chickens are coming home to roost.”


Via Sean Hannity:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/17/2019 10:40:58 PM
2 Recommendations   of 723013
 
donsurber.blogspot.com Erasing Clinton's legacy



Having eliminated Obama's crazy policies regarding caging children, global warming, and Iran to name a few, President Donald John Trump has moved on to Bill Clinton's legacy -- the part that does not involve Monica Lewinsky.

The Associated Press reported the Trump administration will not renew Bill's 1996 ban on Americans suing Cuba.

Bill got nothing from that deal. But Bush 43 and Obama continued this dumb policy.

The AP reported, "The Trump administration on Wednesday opened the door for lawsuits against foreign firms operating on properties Cuba seized from Americans after the 1959 revolution."

The ban ends May 2.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “Any person or company doing business in Cuba should heed this announcement.”

This was an ineffective policy, just as most of Obama's policies were. President Trump is junking bad policy regardless of the president who set it.

AP reported, "Pompeo said the administration was acting because it recognized the reality that the bar on lawsuits, which has been in place since 1996, had not achieved the goal of pressing Cuba to enact democratic reforms or reining in what he called its export of oppression throughout the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Venezuela."

(An aside, AP put the word reality in scary quotes. Nice to know AP is frightened by reality.)

AP also reported, "Pompeo’s decision gives Americans the right to sue companies that operate out of hotels, tobacco factories, distilleries and other properties Cuba nationalized after Fidel Castro took power. It allows lawsuits by Cubans who became U.S. citizens years after their properties were taken."

This is a legitimate tort.

AP reported, "There are roughly 6,000 claims that the Justice Department has certified as having merit, according to Kimberly Breier, the top U.S. diplomat for the Americas. Those claims have an estimated value of $8 billion: $2 billion in property and $6 billion in interest, she said. In addition, there are about 200,000 uncertified claims that could run into the tens of billions of dollars, she said."

Wow, the claims cost Americans $8 billion but the last three president sided with the Castro dictatorship.

President Trump is saying oh hell no. GOOD.




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/17/2019 10:45:42 PM
2 Recommendations   of 723013
 

donsurber.blogspot.com Trump changes Democrat platform on immigration



I knew President Donald John Trump had once again outfoxed the Disloyal Opposition was when I read David French's piece on Friday, "Donald Trump’s Idea to Ship Illegal Immigrants to Sanctuary Cities Is Ridiculous and Wrong."

French wrote, "From a purely political standpoint, how does this not backfire?"

I laughed so hard, I nearly fell in the lard.

A man who could not last a week in the 2016 presidential race dared to explain politics to the man who won the race with the most states in 20 years.

President Trump's superpower is unmasking the hypocrites and showing the people these petty emperors are naked.

French for example posed as a conservative for years but his craven opposition to Donald Trump had him supporting Hillary by proxy, and she would have added two more loony toon leftists to the Supreme Court, flipping it,

But French also revealed the truth about sanctuary cities: they are not sanctuaries.

He wrote, "First, to the extent that the order applies to immigrants seeking asylum, we have to remember that they’re exercising a legal right."

And President Trump is upholding the law that grants them hearings.

But French threw away that fact and said, "The idea that we will then punish people who are exercising legal rights granted by our own government by shipping them to domestic locations chosen for purely partisan and punitive purposes is plainly wrong. Depending on the circumstances, it can even be cruel."

This guy is a Harvard Law graduate?

Really?

Maybe Harvard should have explained the meaning of the word sanctuary because these jurisdictions claim that they are disregarding federal law by saying they provide sanctuary -- asylum -- to illegal aliens.

President Trump is making them put their money where their pieholes are.

Predictably, liberals cried foul.



The Democrat chairmen of three House committees officially protested in a letter.

They wrote, "Not only does the administration lack the legal authority to transfer detainees in this manner, it is shocking that the president and senior administration officials are even considering manipulating release decisions for purely political reasons."

Nancy said putting refugees in San Francisco is cruel. And she did not mean it is because people poop in the streets of San Francisco.

Her spokeswoman said, "The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated. Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal."

In other words, Democrats now oppose providing sanctuary in sanctuary cities for all the reasons Donald Trump does.

Democrat presidential candidates also are speaking out against illegal immigration.

Spartacus said, "I say he’s trying to pit Americans against each other and make us less safe."

And he said, "He is injecting fear into our country and so if he was looking to solve a problem, he wouldn’t be doing things to divide this country against itself. Beware of anybody that’s trying to tell you to be afraid in the strongest country in the world as opposed to showing our strength and our courage by pulling people together to find common sense solutions to solve this problem."

Wait a second, I thought Cory Booker and the rest of the Democrats and Fake Republicans said illegal aliens are less likely to commit a crime than native Americans.

I thought Cory Booker and the rest of the Democrats and Fake Republicans said illegal aliens are escaping crime and violence, not bringing it.

I thought Cory Booker and the rest of the Democrats and Fake Republicans said Jesus was an illegal alien and it would be unChristian not to keep an open border.

I thought Cory Booker and the rest of the Democrats and Fake Republicans said opposing illegal immigration was racist, xenophobic, and unAmerican.

Could it be that Spartacus, French, and the rest are racist, xenophobic, and unAmerican?

I mean that was how they defined it.

Maybe they should live by that definition.

The Democrat Party's opposition to sanctuary cities providing actual sanctuary to illegal aliens is telling.

Democrats now admit that Donald John Trump was right all along.

Illegal aliens DO bring crime.

Illegal aliens DO raise expenses.

And illegal aliens DO not belong in the USA.






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:01:27 AM
   of 723013
 
saraacarter.com Exclusive: Traffickers Used Facebook Posts To Lure Migrants For Illegal Trek To U.S. - Sara A. Carter
Jennie Taer -

Border Patrol agents apprehend illegal immigrants in the Rio Grande Valley sector, 2014.McAllen, Texas. (Photo: Sara Carter)

Upon first glance, postings on a Facebook “buy and sell” classified page in Central America appear as innocuous travel listings for trips from Guatemala to the United States. In fact, they are anything but innocuous.

These postings are operated by criminal human trafficking organizations, according to multiple sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com. Smuggling organizations use the social media platform to lure potential migrants, promising security, ‘special rates’ for those traveling with minor children and ‘financing’ to make the roughly 1,500 mile trek from Guatemala to the U.S. Mexico border.

Guatemalan officials noted that Facebook – as well as other major social media platforms – are used by traffickers to coordinate and reach larger groups of potential migrants.

Guatemalan authorities assured SaraACarter.com that they are working closely with U.S. counterparts. One senior Guatemalan official said , “social media presents a real challenge, since monitoring is out of the question due to respect for citizens privacy, and smugglers and organized crime are taking advantage of the social media platforms and privacy settings.”

Facebook was contacted Monday evening after this reporter was able to confirm the posts. By Tuesday afternoon, the social media giant took immediate swift action to remove the postings, adding that the company is reviewing the issue.

“We have disabled this profile and removed this post for violating our policies and continue to review this issue,” said Facebook spokesman Devon Kearns.

Although the posts are not targeted advertisements, the smugglers cleverly use pictures of New York City, Los Angeles, Statue of Liberty, among others, as a signal to migrants that their organization can coordinate the trip. A number of posts promised food, medicine and vehicle transportation for the long journey. The smugglers also advertise ‘special rates’ for migrants traveling with children, according to the posts reviewed. The posts, which are intended for Spanish speakers in Central America, were translated from Spanish to English by SaraACarter.com.




The ‘Buy and Sell’ Postings For example, one post is for people living in the Guatemalan municipality of Santa Lucia Cotzumalguapa. The post promises migrants a “100 percent secure journey” to America.

“Don’t risk (the journey) with anyone, we have many years of experience and can guarantee a safe trip,” the posting states.

The posts were located in a ‘buy and sell’ listing known as Gangas Quiche, which allows people to purchase everything from used televisions, appliances, cars, homes and other products.

The ‘Coyotes’ Price Smuggling organizations are much more sophisticated than they used to be, say U.S. officials.

The “coyotes” working for these illicit trafficking organizations keep hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to the cartels operating in the regions.

The postings are used by the “coyotes to reach potential migrants and coordinate smuggling trips to the United States,” said one source, which asked for anonymity due to security concerns. “Coyote” is a term used to describe human smugglers in Central America and Mexico.

Some of the posts actually listed the cost of making the journey. In one post a downpayment of $7,500 Guatemalan Quetzal, which is roughly $1,000 U.S. dollars was required for the trip. Another post, required a payment of $15,000 Guatemala Quetzal, which as of Monday was $1964.19.

Illegal migrants can pay on average anywhere from $10,000 to $12,000 per person to be smuggled into the United States from Central America, according to ICE officials and Border Patrol agents.

Guatemalan officials say they are working to stem the flow of migrants to the United States. They warn that the challenge is difficult as the number of migrants has increased over the past year with large caravans of people arriving from Honduras and other parts of the world to make their way to the U.S. border.

Despite the challenges Guatemalan security forces are on the “lookout for smuggling rings and their leaders and Special Interest Aliens from other countries.”

‘Special Discounts’ For People Traveling With Minors And Financing Minors traveling with adults has presented a looming crisis for the Trump administration. The illegal aliens, who are briefed by the smugglers on U.S. laws, advise those traveling to the U.S. border that traveling with underaged children will almost guarantee access into the United States.

It is a loophole that has allowed tens of thousands to be released into the country before they are required to appear before an immigration judge. After they are released, the illegal immigrants disappear into the fabric of America and rarely do they report back to immigration court.

It is a major reason why the smugglers post that they have ‘special rates’ for those traveling with children. It also puts the children in a precarious and dangerous position, as some children have been rented for the journey or are traveling with complete strangers.

“Whether you’re alone, or with someone familiar, we’ll finance your trip,” it states. “For those persons traveling with underaged children; (we have) special prices.”

Financing the dangerous trek to the U.S. border is extremely dangerous for migrants who may have to be in servitude to the cartels to pay off their loan once they arrive to the United States.

Women and children are the most vulnerable victims of these schemes.

A Border Patrol official, who works along the U.S. Mexico border in Texas, said “many are raped or abused on the journey. If they end up here illegally the smugglers still have control over them. It’s a vicious cycle.”

There is a major reason why. Under the 9th Circuit Court ruling, in what is known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, the law requires the release of family units, which means an illegal alien traveling with a minor. The family units, which are those traveling with minor children, cannot be held in detention facilities for more than 20 days. On average, however, it takes more than 45 days for the courts to hear detention cases and asylum pleas in immigration court. Family units are almost always released before they ever get to their immigration hearing and the majority never return to the courts once released.

The cause and effect of the Flores Agreement is stark, say Federal law enforcement officials. Over the past five years family units entering the U.S. have increased roughly 620 percent. In 2013, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 14,855 family units and 2018, Border Patrol apprehended 107,212.

“It’s easier for the illegals to enter the U.S. with minors — after they apply for asylum, we almost never turn them away- once they are processed they get released,” said an ICE official. “The cartels utilize this to their advantage.”

Smuggling Ad Warns “No curiosity (seekers)” One of the classified postings warn that only people “Interested in the Trip. #No_Curios” should contact them.

A U.S. resident, who frequently travels to the region, said “it’s impossible to stop the (criminal organizations) from using social media. It has become a tool to coordinate. These advertisements are lies – promising safe passage and food. It’s not true at all.”

While SaraACarter.com was covering the second caravan wave in Guatemala at the Honduran border last year, migrants interviewed said told this reporter they first were informed of the caravan through local television media outlets, as well as various social media platforms.

In fact, smugglers can reach large swaths of people using social media, said Guatemalan officials.

This information comes at a time when President Trump – who has been working to stop the flow of illegal migrants to the United States – is threatening to bus those who enter illegally to sanctuary cities, while they await to appear before an immigration judge to determine their status.






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:08:15 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
With the Mueller investigation over, it can no longer be used as an excuse to with hold info.

hotair.com Politico: IG Horowitz' report will take aim at Christopher Steele
John SextonPosted at 8:31 pm on April 17, 2019

The redacted version of the Mueller report will be released tomorrow but Politico reports there is another significant DOJ investigation which could issue a report as soon as next month. DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz has been looking into the FBI’s 2016 investigation of the Trump campaign and is said to have reached some negative conclusions about the Bureau’s relationship with Christopher Steele, author of the Russia dossier:

See Also: By the way, scientists are now bringing disembodied pig brains (partially) back to life

Several people interviewed by the Inspector General’s office over the past year tell POLITICO that Horowitz’s team has been intensely focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. One former U.S. official left the interview with the impression that the Inspector General’s final report “is going to try and deeply undermine” Steele, who spent over two decades working Russia for MI6 before leaving to launch his own corporate intelligence firm…

In 2010, Steele delivered information to the bureau’s Eurasian Organized Crime squad about corruption within the international soccer league FIFA, with links to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, that led to the ouster of longtime FIFA president Sepp Blatter and the indictment of several FIFA officials.

The inspector general’s office has concluded that Steele inflated his worth to the bureau in that case, and did little more than introduce agents to a journalist who had obtained hacked documents, according to two people who were interviewed and briefed on the matter. For the FBI to have formalized its relationship with Steele—paying him an undisclosed amount over beginning in 2013—as a result of his FIFA role may therefore have been bad judgment, the inspector general’s team has intimated. Horowitz’s probe also appears set to cast doubt on the veracity of the information Steele provided about Page that the FBI included in its application for a FISA warrant.

Reading through the Politico story, it seems pretty clear the author is in touch with sources close to Steele. As a result, the piece reads a bit like a pre-buttal made of future Democratic talking points.

The FBI began receiving Steele’s Trump-Russia memos directly. But the bureau cooled on the relationship after learning that Steele had described his Trump campaign research to reporters. (Two sources familiar with Steele’s actions insist that his research technically belonged to his clients, Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, not to the FBI—so he had no obligation to keep it secret.)

So you see, he did nothing wrong by personally trying to dump the contents of his unverified dossier into the public sphere before the election.

Steele is apparently prepared to make a public statement in reaction to the report. I’m not sure why that would matter. Democrats will do everything they can to attack it. They have long been desperate to downplay any criticism of the investigation into Trump. Steele’s addition will be a fly buzzing in a hurricane of recriminations. At most, it will provide an excuse for his defenders to make arguments they would have made anyway.

I think the ability of the left to downplay this is going to less effective than in the past. Before now, the left could always promise the next link in the chain tying Trump to Russia was just around the corner. But with the end of the Mueller investigation and his conclusion that there was no collusion, it’s a bit harder to make that promise. The most shocking claims in the Steele report have been weighed and found wanting. It makes the continued Democratic effort to prop him up look a bit pathetic.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:12:56 AM
   of 723013
 
hotair.com Trump tweets "What’s with @FoxNews?"
Karen Townsend Posted at 7:31 pm on April 17, 2019

Someone is not happy about all the media attention being given to Senator Bernie Sanders’ town hall on Fox News Channel Monday. The event received yuuuge ratings and Fox’s number one viewer is feeling slighted.

Tuesday night President Trump tweeted out his concern about the conservative-leaning cable network. He questioned why the audience was packed with Berniebros instead of his own supporters, because, Fox. Trump referenced “big complaints” from “many Trump fans” who were left outside.

Here’s the thing. This hour-long town hall with Senator Sanders included two Fox anchors as moderators, Bret Baier, and Martha MacCallum plus a live audience. The whole purpose of the hour was to give Sanders a platform to make his case to the Fox viewing audience, the largest audience in cable television. The moderators asked questions and also took questions from the audience. It would have been counter-productive to bring in a large number of Trump supporters. It wasn’t a debate. Sanders received pushback from both Baier and MacCallum for his answers when it was warranted. He wasn’t allowed to just spew forth with his political agenda unchallenged. Yes, the audience was quite loud in their support of Sanders but not the entire audience. Trump supporters were in attendance as well as independent voters.

From my own personal experience with these televised town halls during a presidential primary season, I can tell you that tickets are offered online after the organizers reach out to local groups who may have members interested in attending. One requirement in the process is that the potential ticketholder submits a question to be asked during the town hall. At least that is how Fox News Channel did it in 2016 during the Republican primary and the town halls with Megyn Kelly. There was an overflow of people who weren’t accommodated with admission but that wasn’t the fault of Fox. The venues, typically, aren’t particularly large ones. It’s not like these town halls for Fox are done in stadiums.

Fox scored a record number of viewers for this event. The ratings “trounced” those of CNN and MSNBC and broke Kamala Harris’ record. Uh-oh.

According to early Nielsen data, more than 2.5 million viewers tuned in to hear Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” make his case on Fox News during the 6:30 pm hour, prior to primetime. That total viewership bested CNN’s Bernie Sanders town hall event from back in February, and it doubled MSNBC’s during the same time period on Monday evening, and nearly tripled CNN’s.

The prior town hall rating record for the 2020 cycle was a CNN-hosted event with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), which drew 1.95 million total viewers.

Additionally, per Nielsen, Fox’s Sanders event brought in 489,000 viewers between the ages of 25 and 54—a key demographic for cable-news advertisers—trouncing CNN’s 281,000 tally and MSNBC’s 208,000.

Frankly, this didn’t surprise me. As I mentioned above, Fox News Channel is the most watched cable network. Despite what liberal politicians and ideologues may claim, not everyone tuning into the network is conservative or a Republican voter. In my opinion, it was a huge mistake for the DNC to ban Fox during the selection process for the party’s upcoming primary debates. Why leave potential voters behind when plenty of Independents and voters disenchanted with Trump are up for grabs? Granted, Trump is still hugely popular with Republicans and that isn’t likely to change. The point is that such myopic behavior does no favors to the candidates. Any of them.

Most Democrat politicians avoid appearing on Fox. That’s to their detriment. I can tune into other cable networks all day long and see Republican politicians talking to those audiences. Fox makes a specific effort to bring balanced panels of commentators while the others don’t. Therefore, Fox succeeds in garnering viewers. Regular people don’t want to just hear one opinion expressed by all a show’s guests.

So, with such a successful town hall now in the record books, guess what’s happening? Other Democrats are looking into having a town hall on Fox. They are beginning to see the error in ignoring so many potential voters. It’s just common sense, isn’t it? Mayor Pete is in talks now with the network, though allegedly his campaign was even before Sanders’ event. Amy Klobuchar will do a town hall on May 8 on Fox in Milwaukee. Eric Swalwell is now interested in talking about a town hall on Fox, too. In fairness, he is one of the few Democrats who does come on Fox rather regularly.

President Trump is a savvy man when it comes to television ratings and delivering what an audience wants. He said during the 2016 campaign that he wanted to reach out to all voters, specifically Bernie voters after Hillary was chosen at the Democrat convention as their candidate. Now the challenge for Trump is to share the Fox audience. He’ll be fine. His supporters aren’t going anywhere.






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:17:03 AM
   of 723013
 
hotair.com UAW still trying to get into Volkswagen in Chattanooga
Jazz ShawPosted at 6:01 pm on April 17, 2019

I spent quite a while down in Chattanooga, Tennessee a few years back, part of it interviewing people from United Auto Workers (UAW) and workers at the Volkswagen plant there as they battled their way through the unionization process. That eventually failed, with the employees voting to go with an internal employee representation and bargaining structure. Needless to say, the union wasn’t thrilled with that outcome, but in a right to work state like Tennessee, you win some and you lose some, right?

Not so fast. The UAW is mounting another effort to unionize the employees there. But this time, they’re doing it during a rather disadvantageous news cycle. The UAW has gotten themselves into a considerable bit of trouble with the courts over corruption allegations, and a union watchdog is running ads in the area reminding everyone (particularly the workers at the plant) just where their dues money would be going if they sign on with the UAW. (Free Beacon)

A labor watchdog is making the United Auto Workers’ bribery scandal the centerpiece of its campaign urging workers to reject unionization.

The UAW is attempting to gain a foothold in right-to-work Tennessee, pushing to organize a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga that rejected a previous union vote. The election will take place just weeks after a top union official pleaded guilty for his role in a bribery scandal at Chrysler. The Center for Union Facts has made it a priority to inform workers of corruption ahead of the vote, taking out full-page ads in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on Wednesday.

“Think the UAW has workers’ best interests in mind?” the ad says. “Multiple union officials pleaded guilty in a scheme to enrich themselves with worker training funds. The union has paid more than $1.5 million of members’ dues to defend itself in the investigation.”

The Justice Department has been pursuing corruption and bribery charges against the UAW for a couple of years now. Most famously, former UAW Vice President Norwood Jewell pleaded guilty to taking expensive vacations on Chrysler’s dime when he was supposed to be negotiating against them. The amount of dues money they flushed into legal defense efforts and fines doesn’t seem to have been spent directly on the welfare of the union members. Add that to the amount they spend on politics and it’s not hard to see how the workers might feel they could cut a better deal on their own.

Through all of this, I will freely admit that Volkswagen has been about as fair and impartial as they could be. They’re coming from a very European mindset and they never seemed to particularly care if there was a union in the house or if the workers wanted to organize their own representation plan. They just wanted some employee official to talk to when negotiating things like salaries, benefits, and working conditions. By all accounts, they already have that in place now.

Will this scandalous information about the UAW resonate with the workers and keep them out of the UAW’s clutches? The auto workers down there seem like a pretty independent-minded group, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this unionization effort goes in the same direction as the last one.





Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (681859)4/18/2019 12:19:31 AM
From: Sdgla
2 Recommendations   of 723013
 
Trump has been slowly moving towards One America News Network...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:29:36 AM
   of 723013
 
wsj.com Opinion | Another Carbon Tax Defeat



United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney reacts at his provincial election night headquarters in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 16. Photo: chris wattie/Reuters



A provincial election in Canada isn’t usually big news, but Tuesday’s victory by the conservatives in the western province of Alberta is an exception. Voters elected as premier Jason Kenney, who had promised that his government’s first act would be to repeal the carbon tax imposed by incumbent Rachel Notley.

Readers may recall that when Ms. Notley’s left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) wrested power from a previous conservative party in 2015, it was supposed to represent the new wave of climate-change politics. If the left could win promising a carbon tax in the energy capital of Canada, then it could win anywhere and the demise of fossil fuels was inevitable.


Well, not so fast. Mr. Kenney, who served in the national cabinet under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, leads a United Conservative Party (UCP) formed two years ago by the merger of other parties. He mounted a bread-and-butter campaign, hammering away at the NDP’s carbon tax as “all economic pain, no environmental gain.” Upon victory he announced: “Alberta is open for business.”

In an oil-rich province that is to North America what Saudi Arabia is to the Middle East, Mr. Kenney’s victory was not unexpected. But few anticipated the huge margin by which he won. The UCP took 63 seats to 24 for the NDP.

The result will put more pressure on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his progressive anti-carbon agenda. His Liberal Party majority in Ottawa passed a law imposing a carbon tax on provinces that don’t impose their own. So once Mr. Kenney scraps his provincial tax, the national tax will kick in.

Three other provinces are already suing Mr. Trudeau’s government over the carbon tax, which is likely to be a major issue in the national election expected this year. Right-leaning parties now control five of Canada’s 10 provinces, including Ontario and Quebec.

Progressives keep touting the carbon tax as inevitable, but then why does it always lose at the ballot box? In 2014 Australia repealed a carbon tax two years after it was imposed. Last year French President Emmanuel Macron was forced to suspend increases in gas and diesel taxes after national protests. Voters in Washington state defeated a carbon tax for the second time in November, and legislators recently pulled a proposal for a statewide carbon tax in Maine.

Climate alarmists have convinced elites. Their problem is democracy.











wsj.com Opinion | Another Carbon Tax Defeat
The Editorial Page

3-4 minutes








April 17, 2019 7:03 p.m. ET





United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney reacts at his provincial election night headquarters in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 16. Photo: chris wattie/Reuters



A provincial election in Canada isn’t usually big news, but Tuesday’s victory by the conservatives in the western province of Alberta is an exception. Voters elected as premier Jason Kenney, who had promised that his government’s first act would be to repeal the carbon tax imposed by incumbent Rachel Notley.

Readers may recall that when Ms. Notley’s left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) wrested power from a previous conservative party in 2015, it was supposed to represent the new wave of climate-change politics. If the left could win promising a carbon tax in the energy capital of Canada, then it could win anywhere and the demise of fossil fuels was inevitable.


Well, not so fast. Mr. Kenney, who served in the national cabinet under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, leads a United Conservative Party (UCP) formed two years ago by the merger of other parties. He mounted a bread-and-butter campaign, hammering away at the NDP’s carbon tax as “all economic pain, no environmental gain.” Upon victory he announced: “Alberta is open for business.”

In an oil-rich province that is to North America what Saudi Arabia is to the Middle East, Mr. Kenney’s victory was not unexpected. But few anticipated the huge margin by which he won. The UCP took 63 seats to 24 for the NDP.

The result will put more pressure on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his progressive anti-carbon agenda. His Liberal Party majority in Ottawa passed a law imposing a carbon tax on provinces that don’t impose their own. So once Mr. Kenney scraps his provincial tax, the national tax will kick in.

Three other provinces are already suing Mr. Trudeau’s government over the carbon tax, which is likely to be a major issue in the national election expected this year. Right-leaning parties now control five of Canada’s 10 provinces, including Ontario and Quebec.

Progressives keep touting the carbon tax as inevitable, but then why does it always lose at the ballot box? In 2014 Australia repealed a carbon tax two years after it was imposed. Last year French President Emmanuel Macron was forced to suspend increases in gas and diesel taxes after national protests. Voters in Washington state defeated a carbon tax for the second time in November, and legislators recently pulled a proposal for a statewide carbon tax in Maine.

Climate alarmists have convinced elites. Their problem is democracy.










Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:34:43 AM
   of 723013
 
wsj.com Opinion | Netanyahu Scores Another Victory for Likud’s Populism
Jonathan Spyer



Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and aide Benjamin Netanyahu in 1991. Photo: AFP/Getty Images



Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election last week was more than a personal victory. The Likud Party, within which the prime minister emerged and which he leads—has now been in government in Israel for 32 of the past 42 years. That’s a remarkable record in a parliamentary democracy.

What explains this long run of success? Likud, and the movements that preceded it and of which it is composed, have succeeded in cracking the political DNA of a sizable component of the Israeli Jewish population, and in developing policies, rhetoric and style to match. There are three important elements to the party’s approach:


The first and most crucial element is a deep skepticism toward the intentions of the Israel’s adversaries. In this understanding, Arab and Muslim rejection of Israel’s legitimacy is deep and unrelenting, and only Israeli military strength and determination can ensure security—and perhaps eventually make peace possible. The four Likud prime minsters—Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu—have each had their own manner of expressing this view.

In 2019, it sounds like a truism. But prior to the collapse of the Oslo peace process in 2000, it didn’t. Likud benefits from the perception that it is the historic “owner” of the skeptical, zero-sum view of the conflict that seems to have been vindicated over the past two decades.

The second element is a comfortable attachment to Jewish tradition—not particularly rigorous but deeply felt. Of the four Likud prime ministers, only Begin was in any serious way religiously observant. But the party’s rhetorical style reflects the idea that Jewish nationalism and Jewish religious tradition are entwined in a way that strengthens both. Think of Mr. Netanyahu’s description in 1996 of the newly excavated tunnels of the Hasmonean fighters in Jerusalem as the “rock of our existence,” and you have an example of this rhetoric and its power.

The third element is a resentment toward elites—cultural, judicial, professional and academic. This is most plainly expressed in accusations that Israel’s Supreme Court has overstepped its authority. Another example is Mr. Netanyahu’s claims, which his supporters largely find credible, that his own legal travails reflect an effort by those elites to destroy him.

Who are the Israelis who identify with these views, and where are they from? In liberal, Western-looking Tel Aviv, Benny Gantz’s Blue and White list took 54% of the vote to Likud’s 9%. All told, the center-left won 79% of the vote in Tel Aviv.

In more conservative and nationalist Jerusalem, by contrast, Likud scored 25% of the vote, Blue and White only 10%. The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism list came second with 23%.

In the town of Sderot, bordering the Gaza Strip, Likud won 43.5% to 9% for Blue and White. This part of Israel traces its recent familial origins largely to other parts of the Middle East—Morocco and Kurdistan, Iraq and Tunisia—and also to the former Soviet Union. This Israel speaks less English and finds itself of far less interest to the global media than the West Bank settlers, Tel Aviv liberals and elite-class Palestinian Arabs whom the West treats as the main players in events between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

That focus should change. In spite of their self-perception as outsiders, this public increasingly sets the tone for the Israeli mainstream—in elections, cultural atmosphere and demographic realities. According to the 2018 Israeli Democracy Index, 64% of Israeli Jews age 18 to 34 identify as right-wing, compared with 47% of those 35 and older.

In many ways, Likud was a prototype for the populist insurgencies whose successes are now a notable feature of political life across the democratic world. It is perhaps unique in that after nearly half a century of political dominance, the party is still able to present itself as a gathering of outsiders, challenging the entrenched establishment. It is also interesting to note that despite the sociological complexion of its voting public, Likud has been led throughout its existence exclusively by Jews of European origin. Yet as long as it retains ownership of its three governing principles, Likud is likely to remain the natural party of government in Israel.

Mr. Spyer is director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis and a research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and at the Middle East Forum. He is author of “Days of the Fall: A Reporter’s Journey in the Syria and Iraq Wars.”






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (681853)4/18/2019 12:35:05 AM
From: Sdgla
   of 723013
 
Maybe AG Barr will use his press conference tomorrow to outline crossfire hurricane and the overt use of the DOJ to spy on 0bama’s political opposition.

He sure has Nadler hair on fire..

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:38:07 AM
   of 723013
 
wsj.com Opinion | Escape From Collusion Hell
Daniel Henninger

On Jan. 10, 2017, a news-and-entertainment website called BuzzFeed published the text of the Steele dossier. Simultaneously, most of the U.S. media began running stories based on anonymous intelligence sources suggesting the possibility of a link during the previous year’s election between U.S. President-elect Trump and Vladimir Putin. This came to be known as “the Russian collusion narrative.” The Steele dossier was the narrative’s Rosetta Stone, the reason to believe all the other stories might be true.

On page 9 of the Steele dossier—if you’ve never read it, now’s the time—the following statement appears:

“Speaking separately, also in July 2016, an official close to Presidential Administration Head, S. IVANOV, confided in a compatriot that a senior colleague in the Internal Political Department of the PA, DIVYEKIN (nfd) also had met secretly with PAGE on his recent visit. Their agenda had included DIVEYKIN raising a dossier of ‘kompromat’ the Kremlin possessed . . .”

All 35 pages of the Steele dossier read that way. It is almost perfectly analogous to the children’s party game of telephone, when an adult whispers something into a 5-year-old’s ear and it is passed on silently to seven other children, who all laugh at the discrepancy between what went in and what came out.

But the American people aren’t laughing. A children’s telephone game of whispered half-facts played by elites at the highest level of America’s institutions is why the U.S. political system has been in hell from 2017 until the release of the Mueller report.

How this hell got started was predictable. Days before his inauguration, the 45th U.S. president, personally offended by his media coverage, started calling the press “fake news.”

A famous saying in American politics is, “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.” Politicians and the press have always understood this modus vivendi, which resembles the civilizing, unwritten rules of life in the mafia.

When someone recently gunned down a crime boss on Staten Island in what looked like a classic mob hit, the first thing the cops noted was that the killer had broken the rule that you never shoot a guy in front of his own house.

With the Trump-is-Putin’s-stooge narrative, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC began writing their own rules. Hitting Mr. Trump with the collusion stories in early 2017 was one thing. He hit them with “fake news,” so they hit back. Politics ain’t patty cake.

But past some point, the battle between Mr. Trump and his opposition turned into something not seen before in American political life. Many of the country’s primary institutions arrayed themselves against an elected U.S. president, who they said, explicitly and constantly, was a mortal threat to “democracy.”

These institutions—the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the intelligence services, the press, members of Congress and cultural elites—believed or talked themselves into believing that taking down Donald Trump would be worth whatever damage this effort was doing to at least half the population’s faith in them.

It was not worth it. And now the country is left with the collusion narrative’s rubble.



WSJ Talk Join Wall Street Journal editorial-board member Joseph C. Sternberg and deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger in New York on May 13 for an in-depth discussion on Sternberg’s new book, “The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole the Millennials’ Economic Future.” Sign up with WSJ+.



The Trump chase has changed the standards of American reporting forever. Asking the public to lend credibility to nameless sources, once rare, has become normal, as in, “requested anonymity in order to speak freely.” Routine guessing or insinuation has equal weight in stories with finding facts, as in: “It is unclear what this may mean.” Indeed.

No surprise, the Democrats’ ardent defense of the special prosecutor’s independence is now seen as bad faith. They didn’t care about transparency. They wanted a result. As soon as Attorney General William Barr released his letter summarizing the Mueller report, their own narrative shifted from collusion to “coverup.”

Now Democratic House committees are spraying subpoenas, like the Orkin Man, into every cranny of Mr. Trump’s business and financial life. Indiscriminate subpoenas are also likely to become a routine postcollusion standard in American politics.

The Trump presidency was always going to be a heavy load for the country to process without the Russia jihad. Even before the collusion narrative emerged, recall the generalized anxiety at the thought that some ruralized, lower-class version of H.L. Mencken’s booboisie was taking over the country. What’s worse, they won!

The Trump presidency was never a threat to democracy. It was, and remains, a daily violation of etiquette. Rather than fight Trumpism on the policy and political merits, the appalled opposition bet on the long shot of Robert Mueller proving the Oval Office violator has been in Vladimir Putin’s pocket. If successful, that would have discredited whatever happened in the 2016 election. The grievances and realities revealed in the election’s results would just kind of . . . go away.

Two hellish years later, and with Mr. Mueller’s investigation complete, Donald Trump is still president. Democrats and the media should give the rest of us a break. Find a more civilized strategy to fight the Trump presidency. Like mafia rules.

Write henninger@wsj.com.






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 12:40:20 AM
   of 723013
 
wsj.com Opinion | Can the Media Survive Mueller?
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr

The Mueller report may add tidbits about Donald Trump’s business or personal associates that excite a certain type of journalist: the kind who thinks that when one accusation against Mr. Trump has been debunked, the answer is to find another.

Still, to anyone who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and enter the news business, every tendril senses which way the Trump-Russia story now will be trending until the final chapter is written.

A casual conversation between a lowly campaign associate and a dubious London professor over whether the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton is not going to sprout new and deeper significance. The phantom sources of Christopher Steele are not about to gain flesh and walk among us.

Big-story dynamics go from unpredictable to predictable at some point. Unless a Russian spy turned himself in to Mr. Mueller, much of what he learned comes from existing U.S. intelligence collection, which long ago failed to establish collusion or anything else of interest that hasn’t leaked by now, either from Mr. Trump’s enemies or from the Trump camp itself trying to get ahead of a story.

The actual words of the Justice Department special-prosecutor rules require the existence of a crime, which there appears never to have been.

John Dowd, the president’s former lawyer, says Mr. Mueller should have refused the assignment because the basic predicate was not met.

Mr. Dowd’s point may be irresistible by the time we’re done.

For many of the country’s most prestigious news organizations, the question becomes whether they have sewn themselves into a moral straitjacket and now will abdicate coverage of the biggest story of the next two years to upstart rivals on the right.

Let’s go back to the beginning. Journalists were not wrong in being open to Christopher Steele (a paid advocate) and his handlers (also paid advocates), but they were wrong not to notice that the one incontestable fact Mr. Steele had put before them had nothing to do with Mr. Trump and Russia.

The one incontestable fact was that a paid advocate who was trading on his previous profession as a British intelligence agent, in the middle of a presidential election, was being shepherded around Washington by a notorious PR schemer and promoting allegations whose truth he was unwilling to vouch for and whose source he was unwilling to reveal.

Unless you are an exceptionally dim journalist, whenever somebody peddles a salacious story to you, a question naturally and unbidden leaps to mind: Is the real story the one I’m being peddled? Or is the real story the fact that I’m being peddled it?

To a reporter, one documented fact is more valuable than any number of unsupported claims. Indeed, a bunch of unsupported and unsourced allegations smacks of an attempt to gull him into the “Where there’s smoke, there must be fire” fallacy. Or, insultingly, bespeaks a belief that he’s the type who will circulate unsupported claims without challenging the motives of those promoting them.

I describe here, of course, David Corn of Mother Jones in the initial instance, but also the hole that much of the mainstream press has dug for itself as a result of its hardly inexplicable distaste for Mr. Trump.

By now, self-respecting reporters should have written off sources like Rep. Adam Schiff, who serially misled them.

They should have noticed that the Trump Tower and George Papadopoulos episodes they cling to actually demonstrate the opposite of a conspiracy between Mr. Trump and the Kremlin.

They should have realized that it was neither necessary nor useful for Vladimir Putin to coordinate with Mr. Trump if he wanted to promote a Trump presidency.

They should have noticed the ludicrous overkill of the Paul Manafort and Roger Stone raids and suspected this was the special counsel’s way of buying some credibility for the disappointing no-collusion finding he knew he would be delivering.

They should have noticed that none of his indictments and plea deals with Trump associates for lying and other offenses included any attempt to establish collusion-related crimes.

An alert press by now might even be asking if the collusion-investigation circus was ever necessary or justified in the first place.

The desperation with which so many news organizations misread the evidence the world kept putting in front of them, first of all, is a testament to the enduring applicability of the allegory of the emperor’s new clothes.

Secondly, it represents a relentless reiteration of the original mistake, asking “What if the Steele allegations are true?” but not “What if they are false and have been knowingly and recklessly promoted to us?”

From the moment Mr. Steele surfaced, the latter was a logical possibility and a major potential story. Their failure to treat it as such is hardly a testament to the courage or fitness for their jobs of the people who run some of our prominent news organizations.









Opinion: ‘Spying Did Occur’ on Trump Campaign, Barr Tells Senate

Attorney General William Barr says he believes that the Trump presidential campaign was spied on, and that he wants to make sure the subsequent investigation was "adequately predicated." Image: Getty








Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 1:02:21 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 

nytimes.com White House and Justice Dept. Officials Discussed Mueller Report Before Release



Attorney General William P. Barr plans a news conference on Thursday to discuss the release of the Mueller report.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Image

Attorney General William P. Barr plans a news conference on Thursday to discuss the release of the Mueller report.CreditCreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Not all of Robert S. Mueller III’s findings will be news to President Trump when they are released Thursday.

Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings.

A sense of paranoia was taking hold among some of Mr. Trump’s aides, some of whom fear his backlash more than the findings themselves, the people said. The report might make clear which of Mr. Trump’s current and former advisers spoke to the special counsel, how much they said and how much damage they did to the president — providing a kind of road map for retaliation.

The discussions between Justice Department officials and White House lawyers have also added to questions about the propriety of the decisions by Attorney General William P. Barr since he received Mr. Mueller’s findings late last month.

Mr. Barr and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that Mr. Trump did not illegally obstruct justice and said the special counsel found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia’s 2016 election interference. Mr. Barr told lawmakers that officials were “spying” on the Trump campaign, raised ominous historical parallels with the illegal surveillance of Vietnam War protesters and pointedly declined to rebut charges that Mr. Mueller’s investigators were engaged in a “witch hunt.”

Spokespeople for the White House and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Barr, who plans to hold a news conference at 9:30 a.m. Thursday to discuss the special counsel’s report, refused to answer questions from lawmakers last week about whether the department had given the White House a preview of Mr. Mueller’s findings.

The Justice Department plans to turn the report over to Congress between 11 a.m. and noon on CDs, and it will be posted on the special counsel’s website sometime after, according to a senior department official. Though the delivery method might sound outdated, it is not unusual for lawmakers to receive large tranches of government information on the discs.

Much is at stake for Mr. Barr in Thursday’s expected release, especially if the report presents a far more damning portrayal of the president’s behavior — and of his campaign’s dealings with Russians — than the attorney general indicated in the four-page letter he wrote in March. That letter generated anger among some members of Mr. Mueller’s team, who believed it failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and have told associates that the report was more troubling for Mr. Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.

His plans to black out sensitive information in the report have drawn complaints, particularly from Democrats who have demanded the document’s full text.

Justice Department rules do not require Mr. Barr to make the special counsel’s report public, and the attorney general’s defenders say he will fulfill pledges of transparency he made during his confirmation hearings to make as much of the document public as possible.

A significant portion of the report will be readable, a government official said. Still, any redaction, no matter how minuscule, could omit information crucial to understanding what investigators uncovered.

Even a redacted report is likely to answer some of the outstanding questions about Russia’s attempts to sabotage the election; contacts between Kremlin intermediaries and the Trump campaign; and the president’s efforts to derail the investigation.

Mr. Mueller’s report examines each episode that was part of the president’s attempts to undermine the investigation, Mr. Barr wrote in his letter.

Investigators focused on whether the president used his position atop the executive branch to impede their inquiry. Mr. Mueller’s team scrutinized Mr. Trump’s efforts to end an investigation into his first national security adviser and to oust law enforcement officials — like the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey — who Mr. Trump believed were disloyal. Mr. Mueller also closely examined Mr. Trump’s attempt in June 2017 to have the special counsel himself fired.

Mr. Barr also wrote that Mr. Mueller explains why he did not make a determination on an obstruction offense, laying out evidence “on both sides of the question.” Though investigators did not exonerate him, “the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” the report said, according to Mr. Barr’s letter.

The information that Justice Department officials have provided to the White House could potentially be valuable for Mr. Trump’s legal team as it finalizes a rebuttal to the Mueller report — expected to be released not long after the department makes the special counsel’s findings public. Advisers to Mr. Trump insist that they still do not know many details about Mr. Mueller’s conclusions.

The president’s aides have devised a strategy for numerous lawyers and political aides to quickly read different parts of the document to develop a rebuttal strategy, according to multiple people briefed on the plan.

The recent conversations between the Justice Department and the White House were first reported by ABC News.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, armed with subpoena power and deeply mistrustful of Mr. Barr’s motivations since he was first nominated, have pressed for more and believe they could soon have the upper hand.

They have demanded the full text of the report and access to the underlying evidence they say is necessary for continuing congressional inquiries into foreign influence and obstruction of justice.

The House Judiciary Committee has already authorized a subpoena for its chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, to try to force Mr. Barr to hand that material over to Congress.

“On the assumption that it’s heavily redacted, we will most certainly issue the subpoenas in very short order,” Mr. Nadler said Wednesday evening at a hastily called news conference in New York.

Promising more transparency, the government said it would let a select group of lawmakers see some of the material related to the case against Roger J. Stone Jr. that had been redacted from the initial public version of the report, according to a filing on Wednesday in the Stone case. Mr. Nadler cautioned, though, that his committee had not been made aware of any such accommodation.

Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday accused Mr. Barr of trying to “insulate” Mr. Trump, comparing him to Roy Cohn, one of Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyers known for his fierce efforts to protect his boss.

President Trump’s lawyers have spoken to Justice Department officials repeatedly about the special counsel’s findings.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Image

President Trump’s lawyers have spoken to Justice Department officials repeatedly about the special counsel’s findings.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Mr. Nadler took particular umbrage that Mr. Barr would hold a news conference before Congress or the public sees the report.

“The attorney general appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump,” Mr. Nadler said. He added, “Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the attorney general has taken unprecedented steps to spin Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation.”

He pressed Mr. Barr to cancel his own news briefing scheduled for Thursday.

Democrats in recent weeks have accelerated investigations of the president, his campaign, businesses and administration, issuing a flurry of subpoenas and voluntary requests that could aid their work. They intend to incorporate whatever they glean from Thursday’s report into those investigations, which they argue Congress has its own constitutional duty to conduct regardless of Mr. Barr’s conclusion.

Doing so could also allow party leaders to cool any potential heat within the party to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president — a possibility Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has repeatedly said would be politically unwise, absent startling new evidence of wrongdoing.

Democrats concede that the real challenge will be to persuade Republicans and the broader public to keep focused on a case that the attorney general weeks ago essentially declared was closed.

A key witness in the obstruction investigation was the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, who spent more than 30 hours with Mr. Mueller’s team. Mr. McGahn explained in detail how Mr. Trump tried to gain control over the investigation.

Mr. Trump’s legal team never thoroughly debriefed Mr. McGahn’s lawyer about what his client told investigators, leaving the president’s lawyers in the dark about what Mr. McGahn said. In recent weeks, White House officials have grown increasingly concerned about what Mr. McGahn told the Mueller team and believe his statements could be used in the report to paint a damning portrait of the president, two people close to the White House said.

Republicans have seized on Mr. Barr’s decision to clear the president of criminal obstruction of justice and plan to try to reinvigorate their own inquiries into decision making inside the Justice Department and the F.B.I. in 2016 that prompted law enforcement officials to open the Russia investigation.

Mr. Barr gave ammunition to those efforts last week, when he described law enforcement surveillance of the Trump campaign as “spying.” The remark reinforced a narrative long pushed by Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress — that a “deep state” tried to prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president and has tried to undo his presidency.

Mr. Barr’s comments sent shudders through law enforcement ranks and surprised many who saw him as a stabilizing force whose instincts would be to protect the Justice Department from political attacks — unlike former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Matthew G. Whitaker, who held the job in an acting capacity after the president forced out Mr. Sessions.

Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on April 17, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Mueller Results Were Previewed For White House. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 1:06:03 AM
   of 723013
 
The NYT POV

nytimes.com White House and Justice Dept. Officials Discussed Mueller Report Before Release

Attorney General William P. Barr plans a news conference on Thursday to discuss the release of the Mueller report.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times



Attorney General William P. Barr plans a news conference on Thursday to discuss the release of the Mueller report.CreditCreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Not all of Robert S. Mueller III’s findings will be news to President Trump when they are released Thursday.

Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings.

A sense of paranoia was taking hold among some of Mr. Trump’s aides, some of whom fear his backlash more than the findings themselves, the people said. The report might make clear which of Mr. Trump’s current and former advisers spoke to the special counsel, how much they said and how much damage they did to the president — providing a kind of road map for retaliation.

The discussions between Justice Department officials and White House lawyers have also added to questions about the propriety of the decisions by Attorney General William P. Barr since he received Mr. Mueller’s findings late last month.

Mr. Barr and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that Mr. Trump did not illegally obstruct justice and said the special counsel found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia’s 2016 election interference. Mr. Barr told lawmakers that officials were “spying” on the Trump campaign, raised ominous historical parallels with the illegal surveillance of Vietnam War protesters and pointedly declined to rebut charges that Mr. Mueller’s investigators were engaged in a “witch hunt.”

Spokespeople for the White House and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Barr, who plans to hold a news conference at 9:30 a.m. Thursday to discuss the special counsel’s report, refused to answer questions from lawmakers last week about whether the department had given the White House a preview of Mr. Mueller’s findings.

The Justice Department plans to turn the report over to Congress between 11 a.m. and noon on CDs, and it will be posted on the special counsel’s website sometime after, according to a senior department official. Though the delivery method might sound outdated, it is not unusual for lawmakers to receive large tranches of government information on the discs.

Much is at stake for Mr. Barr in Thursday’s expected release, especially if the report presents a far more damning portrayal of the president’s behavior — and of his campaign’s dealings with Russians — than the attorney general indicated in the four-page letter he wrote in March. That letter generated anger among some members of Mr. Mueller’s team, who believed it failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and have told associates that the report was more troubling for Mr. Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.

His plans to black out sensitive information in the report have drawn complaints, particularly from Democrats who have demanded the document’s full text.

Justice Department rules do not require Mr. Barr to make the special counsel’s report public, and the attorney general’s defenders say he will fulfill pledges of transparency he made during his confirmation hearings to make as much of the document public as possible.

A significant portion of the report will be readable, a government official said. Still, any redaction, no matter how minuscule, could omit information crucial to understanding what investigators uncovered.

Even a redacted report is likely to answer some of the outstanding questions about Russia’s attempts to sabotage the election; contacts between Kremlin intermediaries and the Trump campaign; and the president’s efforts to derail the investigation.

Mr. Mueller’s report examines each episode that was part of the president’s attempts to undermine the investigation, Mr. Barr wrote in his letter.

Investigators focused on whether the president used his position atop the executive branch to impede their inquiry. Mr. Mueller’s team scrutinized Mr. Trump’s efforts to end an investigation into his first national security adviser and to oust law enforcement officials — like the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey — who Mr. Trump believed were disloyal. Mr. Mueller also closely examined Mr. Trump’s attempt in June 2017 to have the special counsel himself fired.

Mr. Barr also wrote that Mr. Mueller explains why he did not make a determination on an obstruction offense, laying out evidence “on both sides of the question.” Though investigators did not exonerate him, “the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” the report said, according to Mr. Barr’s letter.

The information that Justice Department officials have provided to the White House could potentially be valuable for Mr. Trump’s legal team as it finalizes a rebuttal to the Mueller report — expected to be released not long after the department makes the special counsel’s findings public. Advisers to Mr. Trump insist that they still do not know many details about Mr. Mueller’s conclusions.

The president’s aides have devised a strategy for numerous lawyers and political aides to quickly read different parts of the document to develop a rebuttal strategy, according to multiple people briefed on the plan.

The recent conversations between the Justice Department and the White House were first reported by ABC News.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, armed with subpoena power and deeply mistrustful of Mr. Barr’s motivations since he was first nominated, have pressed for more and believe they could soon have the upper hand.

They have demanded the full text of the report and access to the underlying evidence they say is necessary for continuing congressional inquiries into foreign influence and obstruction of justice.

The House Judiciary Committee has already authorized a subpoena for its chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, to try to force Mr. Barr to hand that material over to Congress.

“On the assumption that it’s heavily redacted, we will most certainly issue the subpoenas in very short order,” Mr. Nadler said Wednesday evening at a hastily called news conference in New York.

Promising more transparency, the government said it would let a select group of lawmakers see some of the material related to the case against Roger J. Stone Jr. that had been redacted from the initial public version of the report, according to a filing on Wednesday in the Stone case. Mr. Nadler cautioned, though, that his committee had not been made aware of any such accommodation.

Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday accused Mr. Barr of trying to “insulate” Mr. Trump, comparing him to Roy Cohn, one of Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyers known for his fierce efforts to protect his boss.

President Trump’s lawyers have spoken to Justice Department officials repeatedly about the special counsel’s findings.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times


President Trump’s lawyers have spoken to Justice Department officials repeatedly about the special counsel’s findings.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Mr. Nadler took particular umbrage that Mr. Barr would hold a news conference before Congress or the public sees the report.

“The attorney general appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump,” Mr. Nadler said. He added, “Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the attorney general has taken unprecedented steps to spin Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation.”

He pressed Mr. Barr to cancel his own news briefing scheduled for Thursday.

Democrats in recent weeks have accelerated investigations of the president, his campaign, businesses and administration, issuing a flurry of subpoenas and voluntary requests that could aid their work. They intend to incorporate whatever they glean from Thursday’s report into those investigations, which they argue Congress has its own constitutional duty to conduct regardless of Mr. Barr’s conclusion.

Doing so could also allow party leaders to cool any potential heat within the party to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president — a possibility Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has repeatedly said would be politically unwise, absent startling new evidence of wrongdoing.

Democrats concede that the real challenge will be to persuade Republicans and the broader public to keep focused on a case that the attorney general weeks ago essentially declared was closed.

A key witness in the obstruction investigation was the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, who spent more than 30 hours with Mr. Mueller’s team. Mr. McGahn explained in detail how Mr. Trump tried to gain control over the investigation.

Mr. Trump’s legal team never thoroughly debriefed Mr. McGahn’s lawyer about what his client told investigators, leaving the president’s lawyers in the dark about what Mr. McGahn said. In recent weeks, White House officials have grown increasingly concerned about what Mr. McGahn told the Mueller team and believe his statements could be used in the report to paint a damning portrait of the president, two people close to the White House said.

Republicans have seized on Mr. Barr’s decision to clear the president of criminal obstruction of justice and plan to try to reinvigorate their own inquiries into decision making inside the Justice Department and the F.B.I. in 2016 that prompted law enforcement officials to open the Russia investigation.

Mr. Barr gave ammunition to those efforts last week, when he described law enforcement surveillance of the Trump campaign as “spying.” The remark reinforced a narrative long pushed by Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress — that a “deep state” tried to prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president and has tried to undo his presidency.

Mr. Barr’s comments sent shudders through law enforcement ranks and surprised many who saw him as a stabilizing force whose instincts would be to protect the Justice Department from political attacks — unlike former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Matthew G. Whitaker, who held the job in an acting capacity after the president forced out Mr. Sessions.




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: frankw19004/18/2019 2:24:37 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
Interesting talk

Should Computers Run the World? - with Hannah Fry


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: frankw1900 who wrote (681869)4/18/2019 3:55:55 AM
From: frankw1900
   of 723013
 
Found the Q&A:

Q&A: Should Computers Run the World? - with Hannah Fry


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 5:38:04 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
We are not starting a war with China over these islands. We have too much FACE involved to let the Chinese have them. We need a non-war solution. I see no other way out except to convince China we will cut off all financial and trade with them unless they back off. Are we going to push this until we have a ship battle set off?



gatestoneinstitute.org China's Aggression in the South China Sea
Debalina Ghoshal

Increased Chinese encroachment on the Spratly Islands should be cause for alarm in Washington. This month, U.S. and Filipino troops conducted a joint military exercise in the South China Sea, partly aimed at preparing the Philippines to "deal with any potential island invasion." Pictured: The US Navy amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (top center) maneuvers alongside the Philippine Navy offshore patrol vessel BRP Ramon Alcaraz and landing platform dock BRP Tarlac in support of Exercise Balikatan, on April 5, 2019. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Daniel Barker)

A long-standing territorial dispute between Beijing and Manila over Thitu Island (also known as Pagasa), one of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, resurfaced in full force recently, when more than 200 Chinese boats were spotted in the vicinity of the island. Thitu Island is controlled and administered by the Philippines, and Filipino civilians and military personnel inhabit the island. Sovereignty over the island is claimed by the Philippines, China, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Increased Chinese encroachment on the Spratly Islands -- and a recent " goodwill visit" of Russian Navy ships to the Philippines -- should be cause for alarm in Washington.

In recent years, Beijing-Manila relations improved to the point where Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte and Chinese President Xi Jinping signed 29 cooperation agreements, including a memorandum of understanding on joint oil and gas development in the South China Sea.

In response to criticism in the Philippines over what was viewed as Duterte's dangerous appeasement of Beijing -- which historically has failed to respect Manila's claimed maritime borders or its claimed rights to the South China Sea's valuable resources -- Duterte justified his position on the grounds that "China is [in the South China Sea]... that is the reality, and America and everybody should realize that they are there."

The sighting of the Chinese vessels near Thitu, however, concerned even Duterte, who told Beijing to " lay off" the island, yet stopped short of threatening military action.

This is where the United States and Russia come into play.

As protesters gathered outside the Chinese Embassy on April 10 in Manila, to express their outrage at China's naval aggression, U.S. and Filipino troops conducted a joint military exercise in the South China Sea, partly aimed at preparing the Philippines to "deal with any potential island invasion." According to Channel News Asia:

"If they [Filipinos] were to have any small islands taken over by a foreign military, this is definitely a dress rehearsal that can be used in the future," Major Christopher Bolz, a US Army Special Forces Company Commander who took part in planning for the exercises, told CNA.

Two days earlier, two Russian destroyers and a tanker -- classified by the Russian Navy as "large, anti-submarine ships" -- docked in the Philippines; it was the second Russian Navy visit to the Philippines this year. The first visit was in January, the same month that Philippines Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana announced that Manila should "revisit" its Mutual Defense Treaty with the U.S.

Lorenzana said that a review of the Mutual Defense Treaty was necessary: under its current terms, the U.S. "will only come to our aid when the metropolitan Philippines is attacked."

"He [Lorenzana] disclosed that one of the areas he wanted clarified was what would trigger mutual responses of aid. For instance, he asked whether the Philippines had to get involved if a shooting war broke out between China and the US 'somewhere there in Mischief Reef.'"

It should be noted that Lorenzana's concern was expressed at least five months before the recent arrival of U.S. troops in the South China Sea to train with the Philippines military for a "potential island invasion." Nevertheless, his statements were one indication that Manila was further distancing itself from Washington, and more likely with a view to Moscow as a backup, particularly as Russia has increased its influence in the region.

Any such shift on the part of Manila towards Moscow should cause Washington to step up its engagement with the Philippines, to prevent Chinese and Russian attempts at controlling the South China Sea's rich resources and China possibly seizing it as a maritime chokepoint.

Debalina Ghoshal is an India-based non-resident fellow at the Council on International Policy in Canada.


© 2019 Gatestone Institute.




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 5:44:48 AM
   of 723013
 
She is trying to pressure Trump at the border. I know we can't get the needed laws but we really need to stop all immigration.

foxnews.com Ann Coulter says she’d consider vote for Bernie Sanders
Joseph Wulfsohn




Conservative commentator Ann Coulter said she could support Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, in 2020 and even floated the idea of working in his administration if he returned to his earlier stance on immigration.

In a preview clip of PBS’s “Firing Line with Margaret Hoover” released Wednesday, host Margaret Hoover asked Coulter how she viewed the progressive senator. She asked whether she would support him if he campaign on “getting rid of low-skilled workers” to ensure higher wages.

FOX NEWS POLL: TRUMP APPROVAL STEADY SINCE MUELLER PROBE ENDED

“If he went back to his original position, which is the pro-blue-collar position. I mean, it totally makes sense with him," she said. If he went back to that position, I’d vote for him. I might work for him. I don’t care about the rest of the socialist stuff. Just-- can we do something for ordinary Americans?”

Coulter was apparently referencing Sanders’ policy position from 2007 where he opposed an immigration reform bill that he feared would drive down wages for lower-income workers. He co-authored a restrictive immigration amendment with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA. The bill ultimately failed to pass the Senate.

Sanders rejected the idea of having open borders while speaking at a campaign event earlier this month.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“What we need is comprehensive immigration reform. If you open the borders, my God, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it. So that is not my position,” Sanders said.

Coulter, who authored the book “In Trump We Trust” ahead of the 2016 election, was an early supporter of Donald Trump but has since become a vocal critic of the president for not keeping his campaign promise of building a wall at the southern border.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 5:58:10 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
Time to tighten the screws on NK. Shutting their Chinese banks out of the International financial systems might be a good idea.

foxnews.com North Korea demands US to sideline Pompeo from nuclear talks: report
Lukas Mikelionis

North Korean state media reported Thursday that the regime no longer wants to see Secretary of State Mike Pompeo involved in nuclear talks, urging the U.S. replace the top diplomat with someone “more careful and mature in communicating.”

The KCNA news agency, the official North Korean state television, quoted Kwon Jong Gun, a senior official at the North's foreign ministry, who claimed that the situation in the Korean peninsula is currently unpredictable.

NORTH KOREA SAYS IT TEST-FIRED TACTICAL GUIDED WEAPON; KIM CALLS IT 'EVENT OF VERY WEIGHTY SIGNIFICANCE'

He said that “no one can predict” the situation on the Korean Peninsula as long as the U.S. doesn’t address the “root cause” that forced the regime to develop its nuclear weapons, Reuters reported.

The report didn’t elaborate why the decision was made.

The latest message from Pyongyang comes just a day after the country’s dictator Kim Jong Un reportedly watched his country to test-fired a new tactical guided weapon, marking the worsening relations between the regime and the rest of the world following the failed U.S.-North Korea summit in Vietnam earlier this year.

The White House told Fox News that they were aware of the earlier report of the test but offered no comment. U.S. officials told Fox News that the missile test was likely a “short-range” test of a small guided weapon and not a large ballistic missile.

American intelligence agencies, which normally detect the launch of ballistic missiles worldwide, did not detect any test from North Korea, one official said.

“We’re aware of the reports but I have nothing for you at this time,” said Lt. Col. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman.

Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson, Kristin Brown and The Associated Press contributed to this report.




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 6:02:12 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
foxnews.com Tucker Carlson: Democrats will lose to Trump if they don't figure out what they stand for
Tucker Carlson

Imagine how it must feel to be Beto O’Rourke. You’re out there running hard for president every day, or at least vice president. You’re giving speeches about how children are our future, and how today is the first day of the rest of your life. Deep, inspiring stuff.

And there's a physical aspect to all this. You’re riding your skateboard for the cameras. You’re taking God-knows-how-many selfies for your fans on Snapchat and Instagram. It’s not an easy gig.

Then, one morning you wake up and discover that your one true love, the American news media, have called it off. They’ve left you for a younger, hotter candidate -- went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came home. They split with some guy from Indiana. You can’t even pronounce his name, but some believe South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg is "chicken soup for the soul."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON.

Chicken soup for the soul. Even by the naughty standards of the news media , this is a new level of political commitment. They don’t simply want to vote for this guy. They want to consume him, like a hearty stew. Every last drop of Buttigieg. Yum. They’re all in.

What’s going on here, exactly? Who is this guy? There are a lot of liberals running for president right now. Why would the 37-year-old mayor of a third-string Midwestern city -- no offense, but that's what it is -- stand out? Why’s he more impressive than, say, Sen. Cory Booker, or former Gov. John Hickenlooper? Or for that matter, any of the approximately 11,000 progressive Democrats apparently running for president at the moment?

That’s a tough question. We checked -- nobody seems to know, least of all, Buttigieg himself. His website gives you his bio and tells you how young he is. It says virtually nothing about what policies he might support. That's not an accident.

“We can’t just talk policy points all the time,” Buttigieg said recently. “As Democrats, we have to figure out how to tell a better story about our principles.”

Actually, that’s not a crazy point. Storytelling matters. But first you have to know what your story is, what your principles are.

And suddenly neither party knows. They’re not sure what they stand for. That’s why things seem so bizarre and chaotic right now. The confusion is especially acute on the left. When your only principle is gaining power, you’re out of luck, and you wind up elevating people like Bernie Sanders.

Sanders recently took fire from the left-wing think tank, Center for American Progress. CAP noted the irony that Bernie became a millionaire by writing a book about how millionaires are evil. On Monday night, Sanders delivered this response during Fox News' town hall.

"You raise the issue I am a millionaire. Well, actually this year we had $560,000 income," he said. "That's a lot of money, and in my case, my wife's case, it came from a book that I wrote. A pretty good book, you might want to read it. It's a best-seller, sold all over the world, and we made money. So, if anyone thinks that I should apologize for writing a best-selling book, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do it."

So if you want to become a millionaire, write your own bestseller. That’s Bernie’s solution: entrepreneurship. Like Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, he’s not embarrassed to say it. OK. But let’s not tell the kids that’s socialism. It’s not. Bernie thinks it is.

Or more likely, he doesn’t think much at all. Monday night on this channel, he seemed completely baffled when Martha MacCallum asked him where immigrants detained at the border should be kept, responding at one point that, "It's not a real question."

“It’s not a real question.” That’s his answer to a real and tangible. Keep in mind, he’s the Democratic frontrunner. “Nobody should be denied entry at the border.” OK. Where are they going to stay? “Shut up. That’s not a real question.” And they revert to talking points. This is buffoonish. But it’s par now. In the Democratic Party, logical incoherence is practically a campaign plank.

For example, Democrats tell us America sends too many people to jail. We need to let thousands of drug dealers out of jail during the worst drug epidemic in American history. They even got the White House to sign on to that one. It’s happening. And yet, even as thousands of criminals stream out to freedom -- and to voting -- presidential candidate Eric Swalwell tells us we need to send a new class of people to prison. Mass incarceration for law-abiding citizens who would refuse to hand in their assault weapons. When asked whether these peole would actually be sent to jail, Swalwell answered, "They would, but I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or a shooting range ... I think the greatest threat to the Second Amendment is doing nothing. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right."

Millions of law-abiding Americans reclassified as felons overnight and sent to prison. How does Swallwell plan to seize all those weapons and imprison all those people? Who will fight on his side during the civil war that inevitably result? We have no idea, and of course, neither does Swalwell. He’s just making noises he thinks the left wants to hear. They all are. On every topic.

They [Democrats] will lose to President Trump unless figure out how to improve the lives of actual people. Otherwise, the internal contradictions of this party will become unbearable.

Democrats tell us the Green New Deal is more important than fighting World War II. OK. What’s in it? Nobody knows. They’re making it up as they go along. Impeach Trump? It must be done, they say, but nobody can tell you exactly what the charges are. Democrats can’t even agree on who leads their party. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims she does. Nancy Pelosi scoffs passive-aggressively in response, and tells "60 Minutes" the AOC wing of the Democratic Party is "like, five people."

Five people. If only. The divide in the Democratic Party is is not between moderates and progressives. There is nothing moderate about Nancy Pelosi. AOC is not a progressive. The real divide is between equality and the identiy politics wing of the party.

The Democratic Party used to believe in equality. They cared about the individual and the constitutional rights that protected him. That’s over, replaced by identity politics. Identity politics preclude equality. In identity politics, all groups aren’t equal. Some are much better that others. Some must be destroyed. That’s not equality. It’s permanent war.

That’s what has replaced the concerns about the individual. You can see it in the personal behavior of the Democratic candidates for president. Last year, Beto O’Rourke, a rich person, gave one-third of 1 percent of his income to charity. Kamala Harris, also a rich person, gave 1.4 percent. Both of these people want to run the country but they can't give to charity? Why is no one calling them out on this?

Because both say the right things and check off the right identity politics boxes. Both are against white privilege, so it’s enough.

Except it’s not enough. It's not a satisfying style of politics. It doesn't actuallty improve anyone's life. It's not working and the Democrats running for president, even while standing on the sidelines, know it's not working. They will lose to President Trump unless they figure out how to improve the lives of actual people. Otherwise, the internal contradictions of this party will become unbearable.

This is the party of hedge fund managers and illegal aliens. What holds it all together? They have no idea. And until they find that out, it's going to fall all apart.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on April 16, 2019.




Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (681865)4/18/2019 6:02:23 AM
From: sense
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
When someone recently gunned down a crime boss on Staten Island in what looked like a classic mob hit, the first thing the cops noted was that the killer had broken the rule that you never shoot a guy in front of his own house.



Democrats and the media should give the rest of us a break. Find a more civilized strategy to fight the Trump presidency. Like mafia rules.


Do they not have editors at the WSJ any more... or do they mean that ?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (681852)4/18/2019 6:03:24 AM
From: Tom Clarke
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
Nigel Farage reveals he's put a £1k bet on the Brexit Party to top the European Parliament polls in May.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (681867)4/18/2019 6:26:12 AM
From: sense
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
I wonder if Barr will only talk about the Mueller Report... or will he first put it in context of its origins with a declas of "the memo", a reveal of the long overdue Huber investigation reports that have been repeatedly extended with each new item of awareness needing to be run to ground, and perhaps Grand Jury or other investigations of The Steel Dossier, DOJ and FBI misbehavior in the Clinton investigation and in FISA-gate, Spy-gate and Russia-gate... perhaps also revealing "the leakers" involved in each of those... before exposing Mueller's work as never having had a proper predicate... leaving it an extension of the others as Mueller-gate ?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Bill who wrote (681851)4/18/2019 6:50:31 AM
From: DMaA
2 Recommendations   of 723013
 
There are three columns of documents, column A, B, and C. You must supply them with one document from each column.

True ID is exactly the same. It is a domestic passport. But hey, it's your RIGHT not to fly and nobody can take that right away from you.

So far you only have to show it at the airport. You don't have to be a prophet to know that will expand to many other places.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (681858)4/18/2019 6:52:59 AM
From: DMaA
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
In my simulated universe Steele will flee to the Ecuadorean consulate to escape prosecution and stay there for 20 years.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (681867)4/18/2019 7:07:02 AM
From: DMaA
4 Recommendations   of 723013
 
Headline from near future:

Psychologists say something disturbingly abnormal about a man as clean as Trump.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (681871)4/18/2019 8:03:36 AM
From: sense
2 Recommendations   of 723013
 
We are not starting a war with China over these islands.


No... but they are. If the other guy wants a fight, your no vote doesn't count. China wants a fight. Timing is about the only question left... but, other than that, they're essentially no different than Japan in the 1930's.


We have too much FACE involved to let the Chinese have them.


We will live up to our mutual defense obligations with Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and others.
Pentagon Approves $500 Million Taiwan F-16 Support Program Amid Chinese Threats.
We need a non-war solution. I see no other way out except to convince China we will cut off all financial and trade with them unless they back off.


The assumption that those two things are compatible is probably wrong. The Chinese will view things differently than that, certainly. First, they will assume that in terms of trade, that our positions on Senkaku's, Spratley's and Taiwan are only "chips" that we're using in "negotiating" trade... as here: “Over the coming year, the US might use Taiwan and the South China Sea as bargaining chips to get what it wants from China with regards to the trade war,” he said. Or, here: "Despite fears of an invasion, exacerbated by [ed. China's] combat drills near Taiwan, SOAS University of London’s China Institute director and political scientist Steve Tsang told Newsweek last year that the PLA is unlikely to launch a military attack unless a deal is in place with the Trump administration to prevent U.S. interference".

They are expecting us to value trade with them more than anything else... and they expect us to . make a deal with them by May. that has us "greenlighting" what they're planning to do anyway. They assume that we will be happy to surrender the SCS and Taiwan to sustain trade. They're wrong... but, we don't see the world the way they do. If and when they don't get their way on those things... they're likely to initiate war anyway... . probably in 2020.


Are we going to push this until we have a ship battle set off?

We're not the ones pushing. And a couple of ships bumping is the least of our concerns... Western analysts think: “China does not have the capability to do it [ed. take Taiwan] in the next five years. If they did, an invasion could lose them most of their frontline, advanced equipment and troops in the process," he said. But China's own internal assessments aren't close to agreement with that... they are expected to be ready for war, next year. Which analysts are right ? That's the wrong question... because its asking about analyst expectation re readiness and outcome in the event, not the likelihood of misjudgment by China's leadership opting for war... sooner. They are expecting us to blink, backdown, and greenlight them to take Taiwan, and the PI/SCS... and, failing that, they are expecting to launch and win an almost bloodless and overwhelming victory, after sinking our carriers... because of new asymmetric capabilities... including carrier killer missiles, and . lasers. They think sinking a couple carriers will "chase us away" in retreat... believing that we're too afraid of casualties to fight a war with them... even if they provoke it.

Also, don't think of this being SCS or trade in isolation... its also about Venezuela., 5G Spytech. and Human Rights. along with other things ?






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 8:20:39 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 


donsurber.blogspot.com Press throws tantrum ahead of release of Mueller report

Attorney General Bill Barr scheduled a press conference for 9:30 a.m. today ahead of his voluntarily releasing to the public the Mueller Report.

The press already knows the report clears President Donald John Trump of collusion, but led by Maggie Haberman ?of the New York Times, the press is not making not accepting this.

There is a call for reporters to boycott the press conference. Transparency in government is the last thing the modern press wants.

Haberman tweeted, "Unless DoJ releases the report between now 6 am, journalists will not have had time to digest what is in the report before attending this press conference and asking questions about what is in the report."

Because she is making a big deal about the process, I contend she already knows there is nothing on Trump in the report.

The New York Times has access to more information than it should, and it carefully selects how much of the story it wishes the public to know.

It read and reported on transcripts of Obama's wiretapping of the Trump campaign and transition team. Having been in bed with Obama, the Times seeks to obfuscate the issue.

The Times reported on Wednesday night, "White House and Justice Dept. Officials Discussed Mueller Report Before Release."

But of course. Mueller worked for the Department of Justice, which works for the president, who happens to be Donald John Trump. While he stayed out of the loop during the ordeal, the Constitution holds that he is in charge of the executive branch of government.

The press faced calls on Twitter last night to Boycott Barr by not showing up for his press conference. Democracy dies in darkness and boy, does the White House press corps want to kill it. (There are exceptions of course.)

The Hill reported, "The decision immediately led to complaints from Democrats and criticism from the media, which said it would allow the administration to spin news favorably for the White House before anyone sees Mueller's full report."

Chuck Todd said, "This is actual collusion. In case you’re wondering what does collusion look like, it looks like the attorney general’s lawyers briefing the president before Congress or the public."

When it comes to Chuck Todd, I cannot decide if he is an idiot or if he just plays one on TV. If the former, he needs help. If the latter, he deserves Emmys for his acting.

This is all theatrics. Democrats and their ladies in waiting on press row know a Payback Is Coming.

Politico reported, "The frenzied anticipation around special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report has overshadowed another Justice Department report on the Russia probe that could land as soon as next month, and which will likely take direct aim at the former British spy behind an infamous “dossier” on President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

"For the past year, the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has been examining the FBI’s efforts to surveil a one-time Trump campaign adviser based in part on information from Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 agent who had worked with the bureau as a confidential source since 2010."

Spygate is Watergate on Steroids.

We shall see if justice eventually is done, and the mutineers are sent to prison.

Meanwhile, I wonder how much longer the public is going to care.






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: DMaA who wrote (681878)4/18/2019 8:24:34 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 723013
 
I carry both my Driver's License and my Pass card. I use it for Mexico.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 8:27:18 AM
4 Recommendations   of 723013
 
Wouldn't it be lovely if Barr announced the appt of a Special Prosecutor to go after the attempted coup participants and the Clinton's?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: sense who wrote (681881)4/18/2019 8:53:35 AM
From: DinoNavarre
   of 723013
 
>>>We need a non-war solution. I see no other way out except to convince China we will cut off all financial and trade with them unless they back off.<<<

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like we are in a good position in the trade war.....keep it and the tariffs going.....Hope we don't settle early just to appease our stock markets and give Mr Trump a good grade on his report card before the election.

I don't need a USA/China trade deal reality TV show/pep rally.....Fair trade is to important.....Fair trade reviews/adjustments with all other countries should be an unending.

I don't believe anything that I read from official government sources within China.....I do believe those within China that have been/are censored....

Reality.......

A Great Shift Unseen Over the Last Forty Years

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: sense who wrote (681877)4/18/2019 8:56:31 AM
From: locogringo
   of 723013
 
I think the focus will shift later today or next week from Trump to Barr. Trump already won, but the Dems now need to thoroughly and utterly destroy Barr and his "spying" investigation. It's all about self preservation now and protecting the guilty.

They will mention Trump, but their primary target will be Barr.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: LindyBill who wrote (681882)4/18/2019 8:59:38 AM
From: locogringo
   of 723013
 
Chuck Todd said, "This is actual collusion. In case you’re wondering what does collusion look like, it looks like the attorney general’s lawyers briefing the president before Congress or the public."

Such a perfect example of a non-partisan television personality with no political objectives. ( I won't use the word journalist)

fakeCNN actually had a countdown clock running this morning to Barr's press conference, and moved Cuomo back in for the non-partisan panel discussion.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (681844)4/18/2019 9:13:16 AM
From: skinowski
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
This one gets a nomination for "Spengler of the Year" award. The best critique of intersectionality - ever.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: locogringo who wrote (681887)4/18/2019 9:13:27 AM
From: Tom Clarke
   of 723013
 
( I won't use the word journalist)

"Don't call me a journalist, that's a college word. I'm a reporter."

- Jimmy Breslin

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill4/18/2019 9:22:01 AM
   of 723013
 
I assume we are all watching Fox for the press conference to start. Let's hope it's worth our time.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: frankw1900 who wrote (681870)4/18/2019 9:22:29 AM
From: Triffin
   of 723013
 
should computers run the world

At the rate we're dumbing down it can't happen soon enough ..
I look forward to being ruled by our AI masters ..
Just don't let anyone with an IQ under 140 do the programming ..

Triff ..

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: Tom Clarke4/18/2019 9:25:31 AM
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
A take on Farage I've never seen before.

10 Reasons Why To Back Batten (UKIP) Instead Of Farage (Brexit Party):

1) Farage walked away when he was needed the most, right after the Brexit vote

2) Farage left UKIP instead of challenging Batten because he wants to be the dictator in a party (the sole decision maker). That's why he started his own party and why he tried to bring down UKIP financially. He doesn't want to work within a democratic system and be held to account.

3) Farage was naive and thought the establishment would pat us on the back and say 'Well done, here's Brexit' BUT Gerard Batten predicted the betrayal in his 2014 book. Based on that, Batten has much better judgement.

4) Farage didn't fight on his own for 25 years. Batten was part of the fight from the very beginning. It was a UKIP effort, not a Farage solo mission.

5) Farage cucks out on every tough subject (like Islam). He says he's politically incorrect but the moment a tough issue raises it's head, he is incapable of discussing it. He won't debate Batten. He won't debate Tommy Robinson. He resorts to childish smears and the same tactics as the Tories use.....hmmmmm....

6) Farage dislikes the working class. (Tattooed Thugs remark). He wants their votes but he won't do a damn thing for them if he ever gets into power.

7) Farage is incapable of being a serious, mature leader. Look at his financial record compared to Batten's. The latter pulled UKIP out of near bankruptcy. The former the caused it.

?? Farage's is motivated by power, while Batten is only leader because of a sense of duty. Farage will dump all principles if power is in sight. Example - he defended Tommy over the prison sentence but smeared him a year later because he became even more popular than Farage. He doesn't like not being the main man.
9) UKIP has a well thought out and impressive manifesto. Find it on their website. It deals with most of the problems this country faces today and who doesn't want to scrap the BBC license fee?

10) UKIP/Batten wants to repeal the 1972 European Communities act. Farage has no plan. That's the only way we can leave the EU. Article 50 was designed as a trap.

Despite all of that, I would vote for him IF he was the only option but providing UKIP are contesting a seat, it's them all of the way for me.

And a reminder to people on here who believe the talking heads on the BBC that UKIP are a 'racist party' - there's nothing 'far right' about straight talking / telling the truth.

UKIP is the ONLY party that prevents extremists or ex-extremists from joining (Labour & Tories have tons of ex-BNP councillors for example), while the Brexit party have had to kick out two officials already for antisemitism.

facebook.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Triffin who wrote (681891)4/18/2019 9:26:43 AM
From: LindyBill
   of 723013
 
Just don't let anyone with an IQ under 140 do the programming ..

It will be done by ESL types in Bangladesh.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: LindyBill who wrote (681856)4/18/2019 9:30:00 AM
From: quehubo
1 Recommendation   of 723013
 
I like many others I suspect thought months ago that shipping the invaders to rebel "sanctuary" city states would well deserved.

This will move the immigration debate.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (681892)4/18/2019 9:32:48 AM
From: DMaA
   of 723013
 
Sargon is running for a seat in Parliament on the Brexit Party ticket.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10