Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
Thurs. Oct.26, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America
7 Uranium One Facts Every American Should Know
by ADAM SHAW
Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration find themselves at the center of an explosive scandal involving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia via the sale of the Uranium One company, just as nine foreign investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation to help grease the wheels.
Here are the seven facts about the Uranium One deal you need to know:
-
Peter Schweizer Broke the Uranium One Scandal
-
Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One scandal in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. In the book, he reported that Clinton’s State Department, along with other federal agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal gave $145 million to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal charity, the Clinton Foundation.
-
The New York Times Confirmed the Scandal in 2015
-
The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. It detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom had taken over the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013, largely coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
-
The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation
-
The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department would sit on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.
-
Congress Is Now Investigating
-
The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into the scandal and has sent requests for more information to 10 federal agencies involved in the approval of the partial sale of Uranium One, asking what they knew about the FBI investigation and when.
-
Bill Clinton Was Paid $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow
-
Bill Clinton bagged a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank shortly after Russia announced its intention to take a majority stake in the company. According to the Times, Clinton traveled to Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for its majority stake in Uranium One.
-
The Clinton Foundation Took Big Bucks from Uranium Investors
-
According to the Times, The Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, a mining investor who was also the chairman of Uranium One when Rosatom acquired it. It also received $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more from Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier whose company merged with Uranium One.
-
Senate Republicans Want an FBI Gag Order Lifted
-
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has called for the Justice Department to lift the gag order on the FBI’s whistleblower, indicating that he may have more explosive revelations related to the case and on what the Clintons and the Obama administration knew about the case and when they knew it.
Adam Shaw is a Breitbart News politics reporter based in New York. Follow Adam on Twitter: @AdamShawNY
The ‘Never Trump’ Construct
by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
The president’s fiercest critics still do not grasp that Trump is a symptom, not the cause of the GOP’s internal strife.
For all the talk of a Civil War in the Republican party over Donald Trump, 90 percent of Republicans ended up voting for him.
Bitterness Over the 2016 Election?
So a vocal Never Trump Republican establishment had not much effect on the 2016 election. Voters do not carry conservative magazines to the polls. They are not swayed much by talking heads, and on Election Day they do not they print out conservative congressional talking points from their emails.
John McCain and Susan Collins are as renegade now as they were obstructionist in 2004. If in 2016 it is said that John McCain cannot forgive President Trump for his 2016 primary statements, it was also said in 2004 that John McCain could not forgive President Bush for how he won the 2000 primaries. Trump is called a Nazi and a fascist. But so was George W. Bush in 2006. Reagan in the campaign and during his first few months as president was slandered as a pleasant dunce as often as Trump is smeared as a mean dunce. If neocons are now on MSNBC in 2017 trashing a Republican president, paleocons were doing the same in 2006 over Iraq. Parties always have dissidents.
Donald Trump got about the same percentage of the Republican vote (about 90 percent) as John McCain won in 2008 — slightly less than Mitt Romney’s supposed 93 percent in 2012. If Romney’s 93 percent is the standard of party fealty (Obama usually pulled in about 92 percent of the Democratic vote), then it is hard to know whether the 3 percentage points fewer of Republicans who could not stomach McCain were about the same as the 3 percentage points fewer who were Never Trump. In either case, 90 percent party loyalty was not good enough for McCain, and even 93 percent did not win Romney an election. Both, unlike Trump, lost too many Reagan Democrats and Independents in the swing states of the Electoral College.
So the present civil war did not translate into much in 2016. United or divided, the Republicans have lost the popular vote in four out of the last five national elections — 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016 — not because large numbers of Republicans voted for the Democratic candidate, but because there are not enough Republicans to begin with. And their candidates were not able to capture enough Independents and Democrats, or to motivate enough first-time or lapsed Republicans to register and turn out to vote, or to flip new demographic groups to conservatism.
Trump won no more of the voters who turned out and who identified as “conservative” than did Romney. But again, Trump apparently did get Democrats, Independents, and lapsed and previously uncounted Republicans to vote in key states in a way that Romney and McCain did not. The few Republicans that Trump lost were more than made up by others who were won over. (This raises the question of whether there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the two phenomena. But I doubt that the reason working-class voters turned out to vote for Trump was that most writers at National Review and The Weekly Standard were against him.)
There should not be any bitterness over the successful 2016 election, unless the pro-Trump side believes that they could have won the popular vote or more Senate seats if they’d had Never Trump support, or unless the Never Trumpers wish that more Republicans had stayed home or voted for some else. Otherwise, the civil war of opinion makers changed few opinions in 2016. Ideological Fissures? Among the voters themselves, the populist-nationalist wing is said to be irreconcilable with the establishment mainstream. But it is hard to see where too many of the lasting irreconcilable differences lie — other than the same old gripe over politicians who get entrenched in Washington and the “mavericks” who want to take their place and likely turn into what they once damned.
Both sides in the civil war favor increased investment in defense and especially missile defense. Both are mostly now foreign-policy realists in the sense that McMaster, Mattis, Kelly, Haley, Pompeo, Tillerson, and most of the cabinet could work in a Marco Rubio administration. Both factions are strong on the Second Amendment. Both favor bans on most forms of abortion. Both like Trump’s judicial appointments. Both oppose identity politics. On illegal immigration, the establishment opposes a wall and likely strict enforcement, but in any national election (see Romney’s 2012 positions), their view sounds no different from Trump’s. On Obamacare, the mainstream is a bit more reluctant to repeal rather than reform, but both sides may end up supporting either.
On security issues, there is not much Republican infighting over Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord or UNESCO, or referring DACA and the Iran deal back to Congress. Interventionists and even neocons are not damning Trump for not landing troops in Syria or not sending enough reinforcements to Afghanistan.
Trump’s views on deregulation, tax reform, and energy production are not controversial among Republicans and conservatives. Trump says he opposes optional wars, but he bombed Syria, empowered U.S. forces to emasculate ISIS, sent a few more troops to Afghanistan, and is not shy about confronting North Korea and Iran.
Immigration and trade are certainly the two chief divides, but in comparison with past Ford-Reagan, Bush-Reagan, or McCain-Bush fights, the differences are not all that great, at least in theory. Trump will probably end up staying in NAFTA and NATO and seek to renegotiate rather than reject most existing trade deals. So far, he has not been as eager to slap on tariffs as was George W. Bush. The wall will likely be built and with eventual establishment congressional support. Many Never Trumpers would privately concede that an honorable man like Jeb Bush would have lost handily to Hillary Clinton.
Perceptions?
Instead, apart from establishment figures, there is a split in perceptions between the vast 90 percent majority of Republicans who voted for Trump and the small 10 percent minority who did not — and it is largely over Trump himself and not his message.
Never Trumpers now see the Trump base as prone to demagogic frenzies on immigration and trade; too monolithically white; often-angry blame-gaming losers of globalization; naïve rather than self-critical about so-called white pathologies; and in their populism too dismissive of the importance of political experience, impressive education, and the changing demography of the U.S.
The far more numerous Trump base voters see the Never Trumpers as too self-important; predictably bicoastal careerist; too quick to judge and write off their supposed ethical inferiors; too eager to get along with liberals within their own bubble; too wedded to traditional definitions of political qualifications and success; and more worried about decorum than winning.
But all that said, most Republicans were in neither camp, and just voted for their party’s nominee, explaining a 90/10 percent split among Republicans on Election Day, which is proof of party unity.
Do Never Trumper hold Trumpers in contempt more than vice versa? Each side counts its hate emails and claims to be the more aggrieved party and the more victimized. Each thinks voting for or against Trump revealed a darkness not noticed before in supposedly well-known colleagues and associates. Certainly friendships have been strained and lost, and invective and accusations leveled. Much on a personal level cannot be repaired. But more unites than divides. If one side is civil and respectful to the other, the other usually reciprocates — unlike what’s going on now in the streets and campuses of the progressive, Democratic left.
The Future
If a Senate populist such as Tom Cotton had run on Trump’s identical platform, but without Trump’s tweets and bombast, most of the Never Trumpers would have sighed but voted for him. And if an earthy working-class sort had run — a man who felt at ease with the masses but, like a Romney or Reagan, held many orthodox GOP positions, the Trump base would probably have reluctantly supported him, too.
We are essentially left with just one cultural and class divide that characterized three groups within the Republican party: 1) new voters turned on to Trump by his attitude and brashness, 2) old voters turned off on Trump by his attitude and brashness, and 3) the vast majority that voted for Trump because they perceived him as at least marginally better than Hillary Clinton and what she represented.
Again, Trump is a symptom of widespread disgust, not the head of a carefully crafted ideological movement with a checklist of issues. What created him was furor at a smug, entrenched Republican political establishment. In a bout of virtue-signaling, this cadre had deliberately conflated opposition to illegal immigration with supposedly racist resistance to legal immigration, while damning principled conservatives as “nativist” and “xenophobes” simply for wanting existing laws enforced. It had preached free-market economics without worry for the losers of globalization, while many of its megaphones cashed in on the government-corporate-media nexus. And its prior presidents and presidential candidates had been reduced to mushy punching bags, strangely bragging about their own virtue in not responding to invective while their own supporters and defenders were left to be smeared and defamed. Worse yet, they caricatured the base voters who used to defend them while they themselves went on to defend, even if indirectly, their erstwhile critics.
In conclusion, we should again remember three general principles: First, neither side has yet published policy manifestos that transcend Donald J. Trump or radically contradict the general protocols of past Republican presidents. There is no “Contract with America” that defines Trumpers or Never Trumpers. For now, it is all nebulous and boils down to whether one believes that the controversial messenger trumps, or does not trump, the mostly shared message.
Second, the war is mostly infighting among politicos, pundits, politicians, and media people and so far does not necessarily change the realities of the voting public. We saw that reality in 2016 when the thunderous damnation Trump received from his own party had no profound effect on his candidacy.
Finally, the economy and the avoidance of war will determine Trump’s popularity, as they have for most other presidents. If we achieve a 3 percent GDP growth rate over the next six months and a principled pushback to Iran and North Korea that does not result in war, then Trump will do well in the midterms and probably be reelected. But if the economy or stock market tanks, or we enter into an existential and messy war, then Trump will fail, regardless of what either his supporters or detractors say.
Meanwhile, the administrative state expands, the debt is headed for $21 trillion, crass identity politics tear the nation apart, the effort to restore deterrence abroad grows ever more dangerous, and the campuses, Hollywood, the NFL, and the media are reminding us that progressive politics are now our culture’s orthodoxy, vital for success in nearly all fields. And dealing with all that is the only conservative fight that counts.
Mark Cuban Says What Party He'll Join For 2020 Presidential Run
By RYAN SAAVEDRA
Photo by Stewart F. House/Getty ImagesDallas Mavericks owner and billionaire Mark Cuban enjoyed “playing president” so much in "Sharknado 3" that he thinks he is ready to play president in real life in Washington, D.C.
The reality show personality told Fox News that if he runs for president, he will do so as a Republican — despite endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton in 2020.
“I think there's a place for somebody who’s socially a centrist but I'm very fiscally conservative,” Cuban said on why he would choose the Republican Party.
Cuban, who admitted he was arrogant in the interview, said that America needs a president that can connect and relate to people, and he thinks he “qualifies” for having those attributes.
Cuban displayed a weird sense of how he thinks the government should work when he said he envisions government functioning like software, saying that “government as a service” (GaaS) would allow the government to shrink by using technology.
What makes Cuban’s statements even more bizarre is that he admitted in the interview that Trump has a tremendous base of supporters that won’t abandon him, which makes Cuban’s assertion that he’ll run as a Republican in 2020 even more outlandish.
What makes Cuban’s statements even more bizarre is that he admitted in the interview that Trump has a tremendous base of supporters that won’t abandon him, which makes Cuban’s assertion that he’ll run as a Republican in 2020 even more outlandish.
President Donald Trump is certainly no fan of Cuban and has ruthlessly mocked him for years for a variety of reasons, often in comical fashion:
Follow
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
I know Mark Cuban well. He backed me big-time but I wasn't interested in taking all of his calls.He's not smart enough to run for president!
9:23 AM - Feb 12, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!
1:08 PM - Sep 24, 2016 Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Major League Baseball was really smart when they wouldn't let Mark Cuban buy a team. Was it his financials or the fact that he's an asshole?
2:40 PM - Apr 5, 2014
Nearly 1.5 Million Fewer Americans on Food Stamps Under Trump
by KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ
Nearly 1.5 million Americans dropped off the food stamp rolls since President Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, according to the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics on food stamp enrollment.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation dropped to 41,203,721 as of July 2017, the most recent data available from the USDA, from 42,691,363 in January 2017 when Trump took office.
According to the latest data, SNAP enrollment decreased by 3.48 percent, or 1,487,642, since Donald Trump began his presidency.
From May to July alone, nearly 400,000 Americans got off of food stamps, and the trend shows that enrollment has been consistently falling every month of Trump’s presidency.
Here is the breakdown of how many people dropped off the food stamp rolls each month of 2017:
-
January to February – 408,956
-
February to March – 95,152
-
March to April – 521,295
-
April to May- 176,527
-
May to June – 178,648
-
June to July – 236,417
Enrollment continues to be at its lowest level in seven years, thanks to policies Trump implemented at the federal level and ongoing efforts from state legislatures to get people off welfare and back to work.
Trump’s 2018 budget proposal proposed cuts to SNAP and suggested that states match up to 20 percent of federal money allotted for the food stamp program.
The president also called for states to expand work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving food stamps if they have not already done so. Some federal lawmakers are crafting legislation to implement this policy nationwide, along with time limits on how long food stamp recipients can receive benefits.
Efforts by state lawmakers had also contributed to the decline in enrollment months before Trump took office, and the numbers show at the federal and state levels.
The number of people participating in the food stamp program declined by 4.9 percent from July 2016 to July 2017, and the amount of federal money the USDA spends on providing benefits to food stamp recipients also went down by five percent over the same period.
At the state level, food stamp enrollment is down in 42 out of 50 states, according to the USDA data showing the change in enrollment by state.
The nationwide decline can be attributed to efforts by individual states beginning in 2014, a year after the Obama administration made slight cuts to the food stamp program as House Republicans urged the administration to push for cuts to the program after enrollment swelled to record highs in 2013.
Maine led efforts to implement or reinstate work requirements to participate in the food stamp program that many states delayed putting in place because of the recession in 2014.
The one thing this continuing trend does not fully take into account is the effect the recent natural disasters in Florida and Texas had on enrollment. The USDA eased restrictions on what items victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma could purchase, allowing those who received food stamps to purchase hot food items, which cannot usually be purchased with benefits.
The agency also allowed Texans who may have been affected by the storm to receive temporary benefits, which may cause an increase in food stamp enrollment in the state.
Although the USDA has not released their August or September data yet, the agency included a disclaimer at the bottom of their most recent data saying that it “may include disaster assistance” as a way to forecast a potential spike in enrollment.
Survey: Major League Baseball Surpasses NFL in Popularity Amid Anthem Protests
by DYLAN GWINN
It’s been quite a while since Major League Baseball was the apple of the American sports fan’s eye, but, according to a recent survey, MLB has regained the top spot. According to the Remington Research Group, baseball has taken advantage of the NFL’s descent into protest madness, and surpassed the NFL in terms of popularity.
When asked, “What is your favorite professional sports league?” Respondents answered that they favored MLB by 30%, the NFL came in second at 25%, the NBA and the NHL at 10% and 8% respectively. While the five percent difference between MLB and the NFL is not insignificant, one imagines the gap between the NFL and the top sport might have been even greater if college football was offered as a choice.
What also clear is that the NFL is starting to lose their male audience. When controlled for gender, 32% of males listed MLB as their favorite sport. While only 23% of males listed the NFL as their favorite sport. Women remained virtually unchanged between the two sports, with 28% favoring MLB and 27% favoring the NFL. So, the NFL’s dip in popularity can be pretty clearly traced back to losing men.
Not surprisingly, given how the NFL has turned themselves into a showcase for left-wing activism, Republicans have largely bailed on the NFL. Democrats and Republicans remained steady on their favorable opinions of baseball, with 30% of Republicans holding a favorable view of MLB, and 29% of Democrats. However, only 21% of Republicans had a favorable view of the NFL, while 33% of Democrats held a favorable view.
An even larger disparity existed when opinions of the NFL were broken down by ideology. Among conservatives, 34% viewed Major League Baseball as their favorite sports league. While only 17% of conservatives said the NFL was their favorite. Among liberals, the numbers remained steady, with 27% describing MLB as their favorite. While 29% of liberals said that the NFL was their favorite.
When the question turned to favorability, a whopping 61% of men viewed MLB favorably, while only 10% viewed it unfavorably. With those numbers holding steady amongst women, who viewed MLB favorably, 59-12.
The poll was conducted on Sunday, October 22, 2017. The Remington group surveyed 1,211 people and had a margin of error of less that three percent.
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier
By Adam Entous, Devlin Barrett and Rosalind S. Helderman
Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer pictured in in London on March 7, 2017, compiled the dossier on President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria Jones/AP)The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the firm in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Prior to that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.
Marc E. Elias of Perkins Coie poses for a portrait in front of a projected map of the United States at the firm on April 11, 2016 in Washington. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and DNC, and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed of Fusion GPS’s role by the law firm.
The dossier has become a lightning rod amid the intensifying investigations into the Trump campaign’s possible connections to Russia. Some congressional Republican leaders have spent months trying to discredit Fusion GPS and Steele, and tried to determine the identity of the Democrat or organization that paid for it.
Trump tweeted as recently as Saturday that the Justice Department and FBI should “immediately release who paid for it.”
Elias and Fusion GPS declined to comment on the arrangement. Spokespersons for the Clinton campaign and the DNC had no immediate comment.
Some of the details are included in an Oct. 24 letter sent by Perkins Coie to a lawyer representing Fusion GPS, telling the research firm that it was released from a client-confidentiality obligation. The letter was prompted by a legal fight over a subpoena for Fusion GPS’s bank records.
People involved in the matter said that they would not disclose the dollar amounts paid to Fusion GPS, but said that the campaign and the DNC shared the cost.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier is a compilation of reports he prepared for Fusion. The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president.
Washington Post reporters Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman explain the story behind a controversial dossier on President Trump. (Video: Jason Aldag, Sarah Parnass/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
U.S. intelligence agencies later released a public assessment which asserted that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to aid Trump. The FBI has been investigating whether any Trump associates helped the Russians in that effort.
Trump has adamantly denied the allegations in the dossier and has dismissed the FBI probe as a witch hunt.
Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate tycoon’s background.
Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties, but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.
When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue.
The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.
These people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers in order to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work product privileges.
The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since Nov. 2015 — though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.
At no point, these people said, did the Clinton campaign or the DNC direct Steele’s activities. They described him as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.
Some of Steele’s allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Around that time, Steele shared some of his findings with the FBI.
After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports.
The dossier was published by Buzzfeed News in January. Fusion GPS has said in court filings that it did not give Buzzfeed the document.
Officials have said the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have yet to be verified and may never be.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials say Steele was respected by the FBI and the State Department for earlier work he performed on a global corruption probe.
In early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele’s dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.
In May, Trump fired Comey, which led to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia matter.
Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Congressional Republicans have tried to force Fusion GPS to identify the Democrat or group behind Steele’s work, but the firm has said that it would not do so, citing confidentiality agreements with its clients.
Last week, Fusion GPS executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. The firm’s founder, Glenn Simpson, had previously given a 10-hour interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Over objections from Democrats, the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s bank records in order to try to identify the mystery client.
Fusion GPS has been fighting the release of its bank records. The judge in the case could issue a decision as early as Tuesday.
Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Goodell’s Multi-Million Dollar Contract Hits Roadblock Because of Kneeling
BY V SAXENA
The NFL has reportedly become so engrossed in the ongoing national anthem controversy that it’s neglected to renew commissioner Roger Goodell’s contract.
“Goodell’s deal is still expected to be completed and has been papered, sources told ESPN, but the process has been slowed while the overwhelming majority of the NFL’s attention has been diverted to handling the anthem issue,” ESPN reported Sunday.
According to ESPN’s unnamed sources, Goodell’s contract would have likely already been completed by now were the league not so caught up in the debate over whether or not players should be allowed to kneel for the anthem.
Just last week, NFL officials, team owners, several players and members of the National Football League Players Association met up for what was originally supposed to have been a routine owners meeting but instead turned into a discussion of the league’s national anthem protests.
It’s believed the contract would have been renewed then had the league not been so concerned about the backlash caused by players’ protests, which have spurred a notable decline in the NFL’s favorability ratings.
Sports Illustrated noted that Goodell’s current contract ends in 2019, meaning he’s good to go for at least two more years no matter what. However, the contract would extend that deal until 2024, leaving him in place for over half a decade.
Interestingly, Sunday’s announcement follows another one published a few weeks earlier revealing Goodell’s contract was also being held up because of negotiations regarding severance pay. Apparently, the commissioner wanted to ensure he’s paid well even if the NFL one day chooses to fire him.
But why would Goodell be worried about severance pay? Perhaps because he realizes he’s a horrible commissioner whose poor leadership is destroying the league.
From throwing the league’s support being a bill that would cut mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders (even if they’re drug dealers) to refusing to crack down on players who disrespect the national anthem, Goodell has permanently marred the NFL’s reputation.
In fact, a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted at the start of the month found that an astonishing third of adults admitted to being less likely to watch NFL games because of the league’s national anthem protests.
If you ask me, instead of renewing his contract, maybe the league should just terminate it.
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s contract renewal being held up because of the league’s national anthem protests.
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/2017/10/httpift_25.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment