- Hallo friendsCAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article ADVENTURE, Article ANIMATION, Article LATEST DONGENG, Article WORLD OF ANIMALS, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title :
link :

Baca juga


http://ift.tt/2t3211e.BLOGSPOT.COM
Thurs. Aug.10, 2017

~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~ God Bless America~





   James Comey Told A Lie That Has Bill Clinton And Loretta Lynch In Hot Water
Americans have still not learned the truth about the secret tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch.
What did they really talk about?
Now James Comey has been caught in a lie that has major consequences for Clinton and Lynch.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is fighting to uncover the truth about the Clinton-Lynch meeting.
Clinton and Lynch huddled on her government plan and former FBI Director Comey testified that this meeting helped compel him to usurp the power of prosecutors and announce Hillary Clinton would not face charges.
So that led to the question of what the FBI knew about the meeting.
After Comey’s announcement, the ACLJ sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI for any relevant documents.
Comey’s FBI replied that none existed.
That was a lie.
The ACLJ has received hundreds of pages of documents from the Justice Department that include emails from top FBI officials about the meeting.
The ACLJ wrote on their website:
“The documents we received today from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting.  One with the subject line “FLAG”was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn, FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials concerning “flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” The DOJ official instructs the FBI to “let me know if you get any questions about this” and provides “[o]ur talkers [DOJ talking points] on this”. The talking points, however are redacted.
Another email to the FBI contains the subject line “security details coordinate between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?”
On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted.
Also of note several of the documents contain redactions that are requested “per FBI.”
The lies about this meeting are piling up.
Critics dismiss Lynch and Clinton’s claim that they were merely discussed grandkids.
When they met, it looked like the fix was in.
The Attorney General – who was overseeing the investigation into Hillary Clinton – met with the subject’s husband.
It smelled like collusion.
Now that the FBI was caught in a massive lie, speculation will only increase.




Here Is The Alias Email Account Loretta Lynch Used As Attorney General

CHUCK ROSS



Like her predecessor, Eric Holder, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch used an email alias to conduct government business, The Daily Caller has confirmed.


Several of Lynch’s emails were included in 413 pages of DOJ documents provided to the conservative groups Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice. Both groups had filed lawsuits for records regarding Lynch’s controversial meeting with President Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport last June 27.


Using the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle,” Lynch corresponded with DOJ press officials to hammer out talking points in response to media requests about the meeting. The tarmac encounter drew criticism from conservatives because Lynch was overseeing the federal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email system.
The meeting was revealed not by Lynch, Clinton or the Justice Department, but by a reporter in Phoenix working based on a tip.


On June 28, a reporter with Phoenix’s ABC News affiliate contacted the Justice Department to inquire about the meeting. Internal DOJ emails show that the request touched off a mad-dash to develop talking points and statements to respond to the developing story.

Lynch, using the Elizabeth Carlisle account, which was hosted on the Justice Department’s system, was also involved in those discussions.


Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed to TheDC on Monday that Lynch emailed under that pseudonym. He pointed to an article published in The Hill last February in which the Justice Department acknowledged that Lynch was using an email handle that was not her given name.


“That address was and is known to the individuals who process [Freedom of Information Act] requests; the practice, similar to using initials or numbers in an email, helps guard against security risks and prevent inundation of mailboxes,” Raben said.


The aversion to an overflowing email inbox was one of the defenses offered by Holder after his use of a pseudonym was revealed last year. Holder used the alias “Lew Alcindor” — the birth name of NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar — as his email handle until he left DOJ in 2015.


The Carlisle emails were discovered over the weekend by followers of Reddit accounts that support President Trump. Some users developed the theory that Lynch used her grandmother’s name as a her pseudonym. Others concluded that Lynch broke the law by using a pseudonym, though it is not illegal for government officials to do so.


In one email, sent just minutes after ABC News inquired about the tarmac meeting, Melanie Newman, the director of DOJ’s public affairs office at the time, wrote an email to the Elizabeth Carlisle account that she addressed to “AG Lynch.”

Lynch responded later in the day to Newman and other DOJ officials.
“Thanks to all who worked on this,” reads the reply, which was ended with the initials “AG.”
Using the Carlisle account, Lynch was involved in several other email exchanges discussing drafts of talking points regarding her interaction with Clinton.


On June 29, Newman sent an email to the account — again with a greeting for “AG Lynch” — containing TV clips of news coverage of the airport encounter.
Lynch would go on to downplay her meeting with Clinton, though it had significant influence on the Clinton email probe.


Lynch claimed that the former president boarded her airplane uninvited and spoke for about 30 minutes with her and her husband. She said that the conversation centered on grandchildren and other mundane issues. She has insisted that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was not discussed.


Nevertheless, Lynch decided to relinquish control over the email investigation after acknowledging that the meeting could be interpreted in a negative light.


FBI Director James Comey stepped in to oversee the investigation, which came to an end on July 5 when he gave a press conference announcing that charges would not be filed against Clinton. Though Comey said that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the former secretary of state, he criticized her carelessness in using a private email account to send and receive classified information.


Other Obama administration officials have been caught using email aliases.
Former IRS official Lois Lerner, who targeted conservative nonprofit groups seeking tax-exempt status, occasionally used the alias “Toby Miles” to send and receive work emails.


Lisa Jackson, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, infamously used the alias “Richard Windsor” to conduct work business.






Trump approval rebounds to 45%, surges among Hispanics, union homes, men
by Paul Bedard

President Donald Trump reacts during a rally Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017, in Huntington, W.Va. Rural America and the president's base are sticking with Trump. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)President Donald Trump reacts during a rally Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017, in Huntington, W.Va. Rural America and the president's base are sticking with Trump. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

President Trump is the new "comeback kid," with his approval rating in a new national poll rebounding after a freefall.
The latest Zogby Analytics survey, provided to Secrets, gave Trump a 45 percent approval rating, driven by big gains among Hispanics, union households and voters in the West.


What's more, said Zogby, more men approve of Trump than don't.
"The president's approval rating has rebounded somewhat since our July poll. Following a series of disastrous weeks, Trump's approval numbers have moved up slightly, especially among his base and a few other sub-groups not known for their support of the president," said the polling analysis provided to Secrets.
President Trump's approval rating from Zogby Analytics.
"Trump's overall approval is at 45 percent, while 51 percent of likely voters disapprove of his job as president and 5 percent are not sure. The president's numbers are stronger with men at 49 percent approval/48 percent disapproval, while they are weaker among women voters-40 percent approval/53 percent disapproval," said the polling outfit.
Those numbers are better than some other recent polls that have drawn the ire of Trump and his Twitter account.
Zogby pointed out the areas where Trump has gained ground:
  • Hispanics. "Trump saw one the biggest improvements among any subgroup with Hispanics; his approval increased 11 percent to 42 percent approval versus 55 percent who disapprove of Trump's job as president."
  • Union households. "Trump's numbers also increased significantly among union voters from 43 percent approval to 51 percent approval in August."
  • Weekly Walmart shoppers. 55 percent approve while 43 percent disapprove.
  • Married voters. 53 percent approve vs. 43 percent disapprove.
  • Western voters. "Trump's s approval increased 10 percent in the West to 43 percent approve/52 percent disapprove."
  • Republican base. 76 percent approval vs. 22 percent disapproval.


And in the big city vs. rural town category, the president saw a big Main Street gain, said


Zogby:


When it comes to where voters live, large city voters-population >100k (39% approve/58% disapprove) and small city voters (44% approve/51% disapprove) are more likely to disapprove of President Trump.


Small City voters (population less than 100k) were the largest increase in approval for Trump among sub-groups, with a 12% gain in approval since July. Trump does slightly better in the suburbs--47% approve/48% disapprove and he remains popular in the rural areas with 50% approve/44% disapprove.


Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com





DHS: 23% of all federal prisoners are illegals, just 7 of 42,034 saved from deportation



Eduardo Maquitico-Guerrero, 40, was turned over to Mexican authorities May 4 at the international boundary on top of El Paso's Stanton International Bridge. He was one of thousands of illegals held in federal jails. ICE PhotoEduardo Maquitico-Guerrero, 40, was turned over to Mexican authorities May 4 at the international boundary on top of El Paso's Stanton International Bridge. He was one of thousands of illegals held in federal jails. ICE


Nearly one-quarter of all federal inmates are illegal immigrants and virtually all are in deportation proceedings or already face removal orders, according to a new Homeland Security report.
The Justice Department's Bureau of Prisons, fulfilling a presidential executive order requiring transparency on prisoner immigration status, said that it houses 187,855 inmates of which 42,034 are foreign born.


The DHS report said that only seven of those 42,034 have been granted deportation "relief." According to DHS:


  • 19,749 (46.9 percent) are aliens who have received final orders of removal.
  • 21,121 (50.2 percent) are aliens who are under ICE investigation for possible removal.
  • 1,157 (2.8 percent) are aliens whose cases are pending adjudication before an Immigration Judge in the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR).
  • 7 (.0002 percent) are aliens who have been granted relief.


Homeland also said that the U.S. Marshal Service has a similar breakdown in its cells. Of 50,135 they've detained, 12,005 "self-report" as illegals. They are all in some type of deportation proceeding:


  • 9,857 (82.1 percent) are aliens who have received final orders of removal.
  • 2,047 (17.1 percent) are aliens whose cases are still pending adjudication before an immigration judge in the EOIR.
  • 101 (.8 percent) are aliens still pending adjudication (U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has charged these aliens as removal cases, but a final disposition has not yet been reached.)


According to experts the percentage of prisoners who are illegal immigrants is down slightly, but still remain a significant population.


Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, said "For a long time the number of non-citizens serving time in federal prison has been disproportionate to their share of the population.


This is because a disproportionate number are border-related crimes, such as human smuggling and drug trafficking, and some are immigration offenders. These crimes are most often committed by citizens of other countries, and these numbers show why we need to control our borders."

Under Trump, she added, the percentage is likely to go higher.


She also said that the numbers show that illegal immigrants with criminal records need to go. Vaughan told Secrets:


"This does not mean that non-citizens are more criminal than Americans, but it does mean that they clearly are not less criminal, and that there are certain crimes that are more closely associated with non-citizens, and certain crimes that are taking place because we do not have a secure border.
When we do, and when all criminal aliens are deported instead of released, then the proportion of non-citizens in federal prison will go down."






A danger to public health? Uproar as scientist urges us to eat more salt

Exclusive: In his new book, James DiNicolantonio claims salt could make us healthier. But experts have condemned the advice as potentially dangerous.

Sarah Boseley
Could eating more salt really reduce the amount of sugar in our diet and help us lose weight?
Could eating more salt really reduce the amount of sugar in our diet and help us lose weight? Photograph: Hera Food/Alamy


Public health experts in the UK have spoken out against a new book that claims many of us should be eating more salt, not less – claiming the advice could endanger people’s health.


New York scientist James DiNicolantonio says in his book The Salt Fix that the World Health Organisation and the US and UK advisory bodies on diet have got it wrong with their advice to cut down on salt.


Salt is necessary and good for us, he says. Eating more salt will reduce the amount of sugar in our diet and help us lose weight, he says. Indeed low-salt diets may be causing brittle bones and memory loss and more salt could fix diabetes, he claims.


“Instead of ignoring your salt cravings, you should give in to them – they are guiding you to better health,” he argues in his book, which has won attention for his ideas in the UK media. “Most of us don’t need to eat low-salt diets. In fact, for most of us, more salt would be better for our health rather than less.


“Meanwhile, the white crystal we’ve demonized all these years has been taking the fall for another, one so sweet that we refused to believe it wasn’t benign. A white crystal that, consumed in excess, can lead to high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease: not salt, but sugar.”


But Public Health England (PHE), speaking out as promotion of DiNicolantonio’s book gathered pace in the UK, said his advice was not only wrong but dangerous. Prof Louis Levy, head of nutrition science at PHE, said: “Diet is now the leading cause of ill health. By advocating a high-salt diet this book is putting the health of many at risk and it undermines internationally recognised evidence that shows a diet high in salt is linked to high blood pressure, a known risk for heart disease.


“Our work with the food industry to cut the salt in food has already seen consumption in the UK reduce by 11% and is seen as the model to aspire to globally.”


The row follows other diet controversies, such as the renewed debate over saturated fat and cholesterol. But the evidence on salt is incontrovertible, according to Graham MacGregor, a professor of cardiovascular medicine, who led the campaign for action on salt and health (CASH). That succeeded in persuading the government to take action by putting pressure on fast food companies to reduce the salt levels in their ready-meals, the biggest source of salt in our diets.


“He is entitled to his views but it is all based on a few studies and they are misplaced,” said MacGregor. “It you look at the totality of the evidence on salt, it is much stronger than for sugar or saturated fat or fruit and vegetables – in a positive way. It’s overwhelming because we’ve got all the epidemiology, migration studies [where people have gone to live in another country and changed their diet], treatment trials, mortality trials and now outcome trials in countries.


“Finland has reduced salt. The UK has and there have been big drops in heart deaths. You can’t really argue against the importance of salt but you always get one or two people who deny it.”


MacGregor, who now also runs Action on Sugar, says DiNicolantonio is “probably quite well-meaning” but is one of those “who think every death on the world is because of sugar.”


But DiNicolantonio, who is an associate editor of the journal BMJ Open Heart and a cardiovascular research scientist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, says the evidence does not stack up, whatever bodies such as PHE and the American Heart Association (AHA) say. The AHA recommends no more than a teaspoon of salt a day – equating to 2,300 milligrams of sodium – and says most Americans should cut down to not much more than half of that.


“Because the average American’s sodium intake is so excessive, even cutting back to no more than 2,400 milligrams a day will significantly improve blood pressure and heart health,” it says, noting that 75% of intake comes from processed, packaged or restaurant food.


DiNicolantonio says there is no evidence that a low-salt diet will reduce blood pressure in the majority of people. “Evidence in the medical literature suggests that approximately 80% of people with normal blood pressure (less than 120/80 mmHg) are not sensitive to the blood-pressure-raising effects of salt at all. Among those with prehypertension (a precursor to high blood pressure), roughly 75% are not sensitive to salt. And even among those with full-blown hypertension, about 55% are totally immune to salt’s effects on blood pressure,” he writes.


The government’s scientific advisory committee on nutrition (SACN), which backed a reduction to 6g of salt a day in the UK diet from around 9g, lists a large number of trials in animals and humans that suggest high salt levels do lead to higher blood pressure in its 2003 report. However, it could not come to conclusions on the numbers of cases of heart disease and deaths that might be caused, because the data was hard to collect.
But the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which looked at the impact of salt reduction for the population in 2013, said the government’s strategy could lead to 20,000 fewer heart deaths each year.


DiNicolantonio also claims that we lose too much salt when we exercise or sweat in heatwaves. MacGregor says that is not so. “There was a very good experiment with the SAS, parachuted into a desert, which found they needed quite a low salt intake. If you have a higher salt intake it is more dangerous. They had to carry more water with them because of thirst,” he said.


Speaking to the Guardian, DiNicolantonio rejected the criticism from PHE that his book would make people risk their health, saying he was advocating for a “normal” salt intake, which he claims is between 3,000 and 6,000 mg of sodium per day. As sodium accounts for 40% of salt, that would equate to 7.5g to 15g of salt a day. But he says that is not a high salt diet. “Moreover, if a high salt diet really put people’s health at risk then why are the highest salt-eating populations (Japan, South Korea, and France) living the longest with the lowest rates of coronary heart disease in the world?” he said.


“Low-salt diets are putting the population at risk as there are literally millions of people who are at risk of salt deficiency, with over six million people in the US alone diagnosed with low sodium levels in the blood every year.”





McMaster’s Former Group Scrubs — then Re-Adds — Soros Financing from Website



H.R. McMaster and George Soros. (Sean Gallup/Getty, Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty)
TEL AVIV — The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), where White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is listed as being a member for eleven years, this week added George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and another Soros-financed group to the list of donors on its website in response to a Breitbart News request on the matter.
From September 2006 to February 2017, McMaster is listed as a member of International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), where he served as consulting senior fellow. The IISS describes itself as a “world-leading authority on global security, political risk and military conflict.”
A page on the IISS website titled “Our Funding” lists groups, corporations, and government entities that provide funding to the think tank, including during the period of McMaster’s work there.
From at least last week, when Breitbart News started an investigation of the organization, the active donor page on IISS’s website did not mention the Open Society Foundation among the list of contributors, even though an archived version of the IISS funders’ page listed the Open Society Foundations. And IISS has been listed on the Open Society’s website as a grantee of the Global Drug Policy Program of the Open Society Foundations.
Also missing from the website from at least last week was any mention of the controversial, Soros-funded Ploughshares Fund as a donor, even though Ploughshares’ own financial reports listed a donation to IISS. Like the Open Society Foundations, Ploughshares was listed on the archived version of IISS’s donor page.
On Sunday, Breitbart News sent IISS an email inquiry about the discrepancies regarding the removal of the Open Society Foundations and Ploughshares Fund from its website. IISS did not reply to the request for comment at the time.
On late Sunday night, Breitbart News released a story by this reporter documenting Ploughshares Fund’s financing of IISS.
As of Tuesday, the Open Society Foundations was again added to the website’s list of donors, and the Ploughshares Fund was added, as well. The website now relates that Open Society provided between £100,000 to £499,999 ($130078.50 to $650,436.20). Ploughshares is now listed as a donor that provided between £25,000 to £99,999 ($32,510 and $130038).
On Tuesday, Breitbart News sent a request for comment about the additions to the website and received the following reply:
As well as the Open Society Foundation, we also accidentally removed the Carnegie, McArthur, and James Foundations, as well as a number of governments and corporate supporters, when we updated the page ten days ago. Your question brought this to our attention and the listing has now been corrected.
Think Tank Backed by Soros-Funded Group That Helped Obama Sell Iran Nuclear Deal
Breitbart News reported Sunday that a major IISS donor is the Soros-funded Ploughshares Fund, identified by the Obama White House as central in helping to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the public and news media.
Breitbart News has found that IISS is listed as a grantee for Iran issues in Ploughshares Fund’s budget report for 2016.
That report spotlights IISS as a grantee for Iran work done by Michael Elleman, IISS senior fellow for missile defense.
In a recent IISS analysis, Elleman cast doubt on charges that Iran and North Korea are working together on ballistic-missile development, claiming “there is little evidence to indicate the two regimes are engaged in deep missile-related collaboration, or pursuing joint-development programs.”
Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, is listed as a member of IISS in his Georgetown University bio.
Ploughshares Fund is financed by Soros’ Open Society Institute.
The involvement of Ploughshares in selling the Iran agreement to the public was revealed in an extensive New York Times Magazine profile of Obama’s former deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, titled, “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.” The article contains interviews with Rhodes and scores of top Obama administration officials.
Robert Malley, then a senior director at the National Security Council, expounded on the genesis and execution of the marketing plan to sell the Iran deal.
Malley explained to the Times that “experts” were utilized to create an “echo chamber” that disseminated administration claims about Iran to “hundreds of often-clueless reporters” in the news media.
Times author David Samuels wrote:
In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Rhodes told Samuels that the marketing strategy took advantage of the “absence of rational discourse” and utilized outside groups, including Ploughshares.
When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents.
Ploughshares says it has awarded hundreds of grants “whose aggregate value exceeded $60 million.”
A previous investigation by this reporter showed Ploughshares has partnered with a who’s-who of the radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Demos, a progressive economic advisory group where Obama’s controversial former green jobs czar, Van Jones, has served on the board.
The group says its mission is to support the “smartest minds and most effective organizations to reduce nuclear stockpiles, prevent new nuclear states, and increase global security.”
Ploughshares is in turn financed by Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Buffett Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Another Ploughshares donor is the Tides Foundation, which is one of the largest funders of the radical left. Tides is funded by Soros.
Ploughshares has donated to the Institute for Policy Studies, which calls for massive slashes in the U.S. defense budget.
It has also financed the International Crisis Group, a small organization that boastsGeorge Soros and his son, Alexander, on its board and where Malley now works as vice president for public policy.
Ploughshares, McMaster and John Kerry
Last week, McMaster removed Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a Trump aide and Iran deal opponent, from the National Security Council in what the Jerusalem Post reported was a possible “sweep of Iran hard-liners.”
The Post reported on two other McMaster purges of Iran hardliners:
Cohen-Watnick’s removal comes after the revelation by The Atlantic on Wednesday of the dismissal of Rich Higgins, another Iran hawk who was the NSC’s director of strategic planning. Higgins was sacked for circulating a memo in which he alleged that there was a “Maoist” insurgency within and without the government of “globalists and Islamists.”
Also gone is Derek Harvey, who held the Middle East portfolio at the NSC, and who also was an Iran hawk, and who may assume another role in the administration. McMaster tapped Michael Bell, a retired army colonel who has a conventional career portfolio, to replace Harvey.
Speaking at a recent event held by Ploughshares Fund, former Secretary of State John Kerry implied that McMaster is the best bet at keeping the nuclear agreement alive, according to a Ploughshares Fund description of the June 5, 2017 event.
McMaster and IISS
McMaster is listed on IISS’s website as serving as a former consulting senior fellow on the following issues:  Military history; civil-military relations; development and security; and conflict and conflict prevention.
IISS, meanwhile, has supported the Iran nuclear agreement and has defended Tehran against reports it has violated tenets of the deal.
Last month, IISS featured a piece by Mark Fitzpatrick, chief of the think tank’s non-proliferation and nuclear policy program, titled, “Three strikes against claims that Iran is violating the nuclear accord.”
The IISS piece argued that “criticism of Iran’s conduct in relation to the 2015 nuclear deal does not withstand scrutiny,” and that the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the agreement “would not convince other parties to re-impose sanctions, but could trigger a global crisis.”
In June, the IISS’s Fitzpatrick opined that “Critics are wrong: Iran remains in compliance with nuclear accord.”
An IISS strategic comment paper, titled, “Trump’s erratic Middle East policy,” argued that Trump’s confrontational approach toward Iran is “unlikely to lend needed stability to the region.”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier



Thus Article

That's an article This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/08/httpift_9.html

Subscribe to receive free email updates:

Related Posts :

0 Response to " "

Post a Comment