Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. CO
Mon. Oct.9, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~God Bless America
Trashing Trump: ABC, CBS, NBC Coverage of President 92 Percent Negative
They just can’t stop …
Democrats propose banning 'bump stocks' like the ones used in Las Vegas shooting
Anheuser-Busch May Consider Dropping NFL.. Here’s How You Can Vote.. This Bud’s not for you Roger Goodell
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
One of the National Football League’s largest sponsors has made a move that has many believing it could be dropping the NFL — and it’s seeking America’s input on the decision.
According to the Indianapolis Star, Anheuser-Busch has set up an option on its consumer hotline specifically for fans to register their feelings on the recent national anthem protests in the NFL. The beverage giant has a $1.5 billion contract with the NFL through the 2022 season, and its flagship Bud Light product is the league’s official beer.
However, according to KTVI-TV in St. Louis, the beverage giant saw its customer hotline crash after a wave of calls criticizing the anthem protests and Anheuser-Busch’s sponsorship of the league.
So, if you call (800) DIAL BUD — or (800) 342-5283, if you’re not terribly good at working these things out on your own — the first option on the menu will be one for registering how you feel about the anthem protests.
“If you are calling with questions or comments about Anheuser-Busch’s sponsorship of the NFL, press one,” the recorded message says.
Pressing one will get you this: “At Anheuser-Busch, we have a long heritage of supporting the nation’s armed forces, veterans and military dependents. The national anthem is a point of pride for our company and for the 1,100 veterans that we employ. Please feel free to share your feedback after the tone.”
After last week’s round of protests in the NFL, the company tried to finesse its stance.
“These are complex issues that require in-depth discussions and nuanced debate,” Matt Kohan, the Anheuser-Busch senior director of marketing communications, said in a statement, according to CBS.
“What I can say is that at Anheuser-Busch we have a long heritage of supporting the institutions and values that have made America so strong. That includes our armed forces and the national anthem as well as diversity, equality and freedom of speech. We proudly employ over 1,100 military veterans and we work every day to create an inclusive environment for all of our employees. Because only together can we achieve our dream of bringing people together for a better world.”
The very fact that Anheuser-Busch feels the need to put the option to complain about the protests up front — and let’s face facts, there probably isn’t going to be a deluge of people applauding the protests, given recent poll numbers and ratings data — indicates that the company is seriously rethinking its relationship with the NFL.
If one of the league’s largest sponsorship partners is even considering distancing itself from football, you can bet they’re not the only one. If the boycotts get bad enough, companies may start to boycott the league. Now is the time to make your voice heard, starting with Anheuser-Busch. And, now that you know the number, you know what to do.
Coulter: Media ‘Strangely Reluctant’ to Pursue Specifics About Vegas Shooter
Jeff Poor
Friday on Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Company,” conservative commentator Ann Coulter questioned the media’s reluctance to aggressively pursue details about Sunday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Coulter called it strange and suggested the media were content with knowing just the race and sex of the individual.
“[N]ow that’s what I find most interesting – [the media] seem strangely reluctant to pursue this,” Coulter said. “They’ve decided, ‘He’s a white man. We got our story. Don’t look for any other facts.’”
She denied she was a conspiracy theorist and said there were some other details that the news media could pursue.
“I think the media wants to say it’s a white male,” she added. “They decided that from day one and any other information might change that narrative. And they simply don’t want to know. But as I pointed out in my column this week – this is how conspiracy theories arise. You won’t tell us this stuff. Oh and the woman shouting ‘you’re all going to die’ 45 minutes before the concert started. Do we know – OK, it’s probably just a crazy woman, but could we find out?
EPA Document Proposes to Eliminate Clean Power Plan ‘in Its Entirety’
by SEAN MORAN
Ron Sachs/CNP/MediaPunch/IPX
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to repeal the agency’s Obama-era climate change program, the Clean Power Plan (CPP), “in its entirety,” according to a document obtained by Breitbart News.
The 43-page document, titled, “Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stations Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” details how the EPA plans to repeal CPP through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). This version of the document obtained by Breitbart News remains subject to change through inter-agency review.
The agency contends that the EPA, under former Administrator Gina McCarthy, exceeded its authority to regulate carbon emissions as stipulated by the Clean Air Act. The document proposes to eliminate the Clean Power Plan, and then suggested that they might release an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that will reflect a more thoughtful and modest approach to regulating air pollution given the EPA’s limited statutory authority.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March ordering a review of the Clean Power Plan as well as other environmental regulations. Instead of Obama’s stifling energy regulations, the Trump administration will promote policies that favor American “energy dominance.”
The Obama administration designed the Clean Power Plan to lower carbon emissions from existing power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. Conservatives widely viewed the Clean Power Plan, along with the Paris Climate Treaty, to be part of Obama’s “war on coal.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt criticized the Clean Power Plan earlier this year, calling the regulation, “unlawful.” Pruitt said, “This is an effort to undo the unlawful approach the previous administration engaged in,” he said of the president’s executive order, “and to do it right going forward with the mindset of being pro-growth and pro-environment.”
Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) director of Energy and Environment programs and Trump administration EPA transition chair, argued that the Clean Power Plan remains illegal and would do devastating harm to the average American. Ebell said, “In particular, we applaud his action to begin withdrawing the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules, including the so-called ‘Clean Power’ Plan. These rules, which are clearly illegal, would raise electric rates for consumers significantly and do immense economic damage to the heartland states where U.S. manufacturing is now concentrated.”
The EPA document declares that they are “proposing to repeal the CPP in its entirety.”
The EPA contends in the document, under former Administrator Gina McCarthy, exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to force states and power plants to comply with the Clean Power Plan’s regulation to lower carbon emissions.
Over 150 interested parties sued the EPA, including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 rural electric co-ops, and three labor unions sued the former EPA administrator in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the CPP was unconstitutional. A bipartisan group of 34 Senators and 171 members of the House filed an amicus brief arguing that the CPP was illegal and skirted Congress’ authority to legislate on environmental issues.
In February 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the CPP pending further review. On August 8, 2017 the court issued an order holding the case in abeyance for a 60-day review and directed the EPA to file status updates at 30-day intervals.
In March, President Donald Trump issued an executive order which the document cites, which affirms the “national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation’s vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.”
The Executive order also directed the EPA to “immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind, those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.” Subsequently, the EPA conducted a review of its environmental regulations, including the agency’s Clean Power Plan.
The EPA contends that their initial review of the CPP “raised substantial concerns that the CPP is not consistent with the policy articulated in Section 1 of the Executive Order.”
The EPA explained, “For example, numerous States, regulated entities and other stakeholders warned that the CPP threatened to impose massive costs on the power sector and consumers; invaded traditional areas of state regulation over the mix of energy generation within their borders, departed radically from prior regulatory practice and longstanding reading of the statute; and did not adequately ensure the national interest in affordable, reliable electricity, including from coal generation.”
The EPA contends in the proposed rulemaking that the EPA’s ability to “revisit existing regulations is well-grounded in the law.” The document cites Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, Inc., National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, and the Clean Air Council v. Pruitt cases to argue that the agencies have broad discretion to reconsider agency regulations at any time.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains a cost-benefit analysis that examines repealing Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The EPA estimates that repealing CPP would provide up to $33 billion in avoided compliance costs in 2030.
EPA Administrator Pruitt’s Scott decision to eliminate Obama’s Clean Power Plan serves as part of President Trump’s agenda to unravel Obama’s environmental legacy and pursue an America First policy of “energy dominance.”
In May, President Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. The president said, “In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.” Trump cited that the Paris Climate Accord alone could cost America 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025. Similarly to the Clean Power Plan, Obama acted unilaterally without the consent of Congress and the American people to implement his climate agenda through the Paris Climate Accord.
Now EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who was one of the first Attorneys General to sue the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, can start to repeal one of Obama’s hallmark environmental programs.
EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman said in a statement to Breitbart News, “While we can’t comment on the authenticity of the document, what we can say is that the Obama Administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far that the Supreme Court issued a stay – the first in history – to prevent the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ from taking effect. Any replacement rule that the Trump Administration proposes will be done carefully and properly within the confines of the law.”
Democrats' Leftward Shift and Its Impact on 2020
Earlier this year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave a speech to the annual gathering of liberal activists known as NetRoots Nation, where she made clear that her brand of progressive politics, not the more centrist brand practiced by President Clinton and Hillary Clinton, was the core of the Democratic identity.
"A few weeks ago, I saw an op-ed in the New York Times from a so-called Democratic strategist titled, “Back to the Center, Democrats.”
It was all about how we have to stop caring about, quote, “identity politics” and stop waging, quote, “class warfare.” Apparently, the path forward is to go back to locking up non-violent drug offenders and ripping more holes in our economic safety net…..the Democratic Party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill. It is NOT going to happen.
We are not the gate crashers of today’s Democratic Party. We are not a wing of today’s Democratic Party.
We are the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party."
- Elizabeth Warren, August 2017
The New York Times op-ed Warren was referring to — “Back to the Center, Democrats,” was co-authored by Mark Penn, pollster to the Clintons for much of their political careers. In it, Penn laments the Democrats' leftward shift on “political correctness, transgender bathroom issues and policies offering more help to undocumented immigrants than to the heartland” that has alienated the working-class voters who once were the backbone of the Democratic coalition. In order to win back those voters, says Penn, “they need to reject socialist ideas and adopt an agenda of renewed growth, greater protection for American workers and a return to fiscal responsibility.”
The latest data from the Pew Research Center, proves both Penn and Warren correct. Democrats have moved dramatically leftward since the 1990s on issues like the social safety net, immigration, and race relations. On those issues, the so-called Warren wing represents the mainstream of Democratic opinion.
But, Penn is also correct in arguing that white, older working class Americans are not coming along for the ride. However, it’s also clear that it’s going to be very difficult for a Democrat to win the nomination of his/her party on anything but the Warren platform.
The welfare bill that Warren derisively refers to in her speech was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. At that time, according to Pew data, Democrats were pretty evenly divided on their views of the social safety net. From 1994 to 1996, a bare majority or plurality of Democrats agreed that “poor people in this country have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently.” But, anywhere from 37 percent to 45 percent of Democrats over that time period agreed that “poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”
By 2004, however, more than two-thirds of Democrats (67 percent), agreed with the “poor people have hard lives” statement. It stayed in this high 60’s range until this summer when it jumped to 78 percent.
On the issue of economic inequality there is literally almost 100 percent agreement among Democrats (OK, it’s 93 percent) that this issue is a “very big or moderately big” problem. Among Republicans it is a large, but not as universal, 69 percent.
Just 49 percent of Democrats think that “most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard,” while the other 49 percent believe that “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.” In the 1990s, Democrats were not as sour on this traditional “American Dream/up from the bootstraps” mentality. In 1994, for example, 65 percent of Democrats believed the “willing to work hard” message versus just 33 percent who said hard work was no guarantee of success.
As for the issue of what Penn calls “identity politics,” Democrats’ views on race have shifted dramatically over the last 23 years. In 1994, just 39 percent of Democrats said that “racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days,” while 53 percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition.” From 1994 until 2015, Democrats who viewed the lack of progress for blacks as a product of discrimination were outnumbered by those who said it was basically blacks’ own fault. By 2015, however, a majority (50 percent) pegged discrimination as the culprit. By the summer of 2017, the discrimination number shot up 14 points to 64 percent.
At the start of the Obama era, 57 percent of Democrats said that the country should continue to make changes to give blacks equal rights with whites. By 2017, that number had rocketed up 24 points to 81 percent. Why such big movement, so quickly? The percent of white and Hispanic Democrats who wanted to see more changes to racial equality, which was slowly climbing from 2009 to 2014, jumped dramatically in 2015 to 2017. In 2014, 57 percent of white Democrats wanted to see more changes to give blacks and whites equal rights. It was 80 percent in 2017. The support from Hispanic Democrats went from 59 percent in 2014 to 76 percent in 2017.
Democrats weren’t always as willing to embrace immigrants as positive contributors to the country. From 1994 until 1996, a majority of Democrats agreed with the statement that immigrants “are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care.” In fact, Democrats and Republicans were aligned on this sentiment for much of the 1990s. It wasn’t until 1999 that more Democrats believed that “immigrants strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents” than believed immigrants were a drain on U.S. resources. But, it wasn’t until 2010, when a majority of Democrats (54 percent) saw immigrants in a positive light. That sentiment has only intensified since. In 2017, 62 percent of Democrats saw immigrants as an asset instead of a burden.
Yet, as Democrats have shifted leftward on many of these issues, as Penn suggests in his op-ed, they’ve left some of their once traditional base behind. While just 28 percent of Democrats agree that “blacks who can’t get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition,” almost 60 percent of adults with only a high school degree, 54 percent of whites and 58 percent of those over 65 agree.
On the safety net question, Americans of all races have become more sympathetic to the argument that government benefits aren’t going far enough to help poor people live decent lives. Still, white voters are less inclined to believe this than black or Hispanic Americans. Seventy-six percent of black voters, 60 percent of Hispanic voters but only 47 percent of white voters agree that “poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently.”
The Pew data also throws cold water on Penn’s wistfulness for a time of bipartisan deal making, especially on social issues. From 1994 to 1999 on average, 59 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats agreed that “poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without having to do anything”; a 19-point gap. By 2017, that gap had grown to 47 points with just 18 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans agreeing with this sentiment. There’s no middle ground to plow.
During the Clinton era there was also a smaller partisan gap on the question of structural racism in this country. Back in the 1990s, 20 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of Democrats, on average, agreed that “racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead.” Today, that gap has ballooned to 50 points, with 64 percent of Democrats agreeing with that statement to just 14 percent of Republicans.
Talk to most Democratic strategists these days and you hear a lot of frustration about a lack of a compelling or cohesive Democratic message or narrative. This Pew data, however, gives us a pretty good idea of where the core values of the party lie. And, these values have moved dramatically left since the 1990s. Whether these positions are winners in a general election (as Penn worries), is another debate altogether. But, a Democrat who wants to win the 2020 nomination has to speak as forcefully on structural racism as they do on economic inequality. The base is passionate - and unified - about both.
Image Credit: Rex Features via AP Images
A Statistician Reconsiders Her Support for Gun Control After Looking at the Data
It’s a brief and yet immensely truthful and informative discussion on the gun rights vs gun control discussion that the Establishment Media and Chicken Little politicians refuse to have.
Read more at http://ift.tt/2y97rNw
Read more at http://ift.tt/2y97rNw
With so many people insisting that the Las Vegas massacre confirms what they’ve always thought about gun control, it is refreshing to hear from someone who changed her mind on the subject after considering the evidence. “My colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States,” Leah Libresco, a statistician who used to work for the data journalism site, writes in The Washington Post. “We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.”
Regarding the much-touted gun control laws of Britain and Australia, Libresco found that “neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun-related crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans.” Looking into bans on so-called assault weapons, she concluded that the category is an arbitrary construct with little practical significance.
What about the silencers that Hillary Clinton thinks could have raised the death toll in Las Vegas if they had been used there? “In real life,” Libresco writes, “silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.”
Libresco notes that “two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides,” and “almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.” But she argues that “older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help.” She also recommends targeted measures aimed at protecting women from domestic violence and preventing deadly disputes among young men.
“A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible,” Libresco concludes. “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”
Libresco says she till does not endorse gun ownership, “but I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.” The distinction seems to be lost on politicians like Clinton, who define good policy as whatever the NRA doesn’t want.
——————
Dog Whistle politicians like Hillary Clinton spout falsehoods over and over again and are allowed to get away with it by a compliant media. You can counter that by sharing the above truths.
Be a warrior for truth.
Read more at http://ift.tt/2y97rNw
Read more at http://ift.tt/2y97rNw
Vermont designates John Brown Day to honor abolitionist
By LISA RATHKE,
By LISA RATHKE,
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — As some communities consider removing Confederate monuments, Vermont is formally honoring abolitionist John Brown, whose 1859 raid was an important step in the events that led to the Civil War.
The state legislature approved a resolution this spring sought by a Woodstock high school teacher designating John Brown Day in Vermont on Oct. 16, 2017. That’s the anniversary of the raid Brown led on a federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, in what is now West Virginia, hoping to start an armed slave rebellion. The rebellion didn’t happen, and Brown was hanged two months later for treason.
In recognition of Brown, who is both venerated and much maligned, the Woodstock Social Justice Initiative is holding an anti-racism symposium on Oct. 14 at the Woodstock Union High School, where Brown will also be discussed with students on Oct. 16.
Bradley Archer, a teacher who has admired Brown for some time and is member of the initiative, said he was pleased the state was recognizing Brown in a time of tension “over which people we should celebrate and which we should condemn.”
Before the raid, Brown and a group of abolitionist settlers killed five pro-slavery settlers in Kansas in the Pottawatomie massacre.
Days before the massacre, Lawrence, Kansas, was sacked by pro-slavery associates of Brown’s five victims, Archer said. Abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner was nearly beaten to death in the Senate for railing against the raid, he said.
“Given the wickedness of slavery and the terrorism used to sustain it, we should be able to understand, if not excuse, Brown’s actions,” he said.
Before heading to Kansas, Brown lived in North Elba, now Lake Placid, New York, and he visited Cavendish, Vermont, in 1857. It was likely to speak with Gov. Ryland Fletcher, an abolitionist, after the Legislature had approved a $20,000 appropriation to support the anti-slavery settlers in Kansas, said Civil War historian Howard Coffin.
While in New York, Brown made trips to Vergennes, Vermont, to shop for groceries and other supplies, Coffin said. After his death, his wife brought his body back to New York for burial. On the way she spent a night in Rutland and stopped in Vergennes, where a big crowd gathered, with some cutting souvenir pieces of wood out the box the casket is in, said Coffin.
While in New York, Brown made trips to Vergennes, Vermont, to shop for groceries and other supplies, Coffin said. After his death, his wife brought his body back to New York for burial. On the way she spent a night in Rutland and stopped in Vergennes, where a big crowd gathered, with some cutting souvenir pieces of wood out the box the casket is in, said Coffin.
“Brown understood that this was serious business and we’re dealing with 4 million enslaved people. Somebody’s going to have to get tough sooner or later or it isn’t going the end,” said Coffin. “I think he’s one of the great Americans.”
Trump: 'Only one thing will work' with North Korea
President Trump issued a cryptic warning Saturday as speculation mounts over whether he is planning military action against North Korea, saying "only one thing will work" when it comes to the ending the threat posed by the hermit nation."Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid hasn't worked, agreements violated before the ink was dry, makings fools of U.S. negotiators," he tweeted. "Sorry, but only one thing will work!"
Trump warned that a "storm" is coming Thursday evening, which some have interpreted as a coded warning about a military conflict with North Korea. The White House downplayed the remark, calling it a "general comment."
Trump warned that a "storm" is coming Thursday evening, which some have interpreted as a coded warning about a military conflict with North Korea. The White House downplayed the remark, calling it a "general comment."
Trump's secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, admitted last weekend that the U.S. has "lines of communication" with North Korea over its missile and nuclear weapons programs.
Trump later tweeted that he told Tillerson to stop "wasting his time" negotiating with the North Koreans. The president has also taken to mocking North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Un, with a new nickname: "little Rocket Man."
A number of Democrats hit back at Trump's tweets about North Korea, questioning his judgment on matters of national security.
ALERT: Mueller Makes Corrupt Move to Take Down Trump
Ben Baker
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team are becoming desperate to obtain evidence that proves the Russia and Trump collusion allegations. So far they have turned up absolutely nothing.
According to Newsmax, Mueller may be turning to a source for evidence that is rife with corruption and suspicion, and who could taint his entire investigation. They’ve interviewed the former British spy, Christopher Steele, who wrote the infamous–and factually inaccurate–“dirt dossier.”
The dossier, also known as the “golden shower” dossier, is documentation compiled by Steele that supposedly proves Trump’s collusion with Russia, as reported by Newsweek. It contains “evidence” of supposed meetings between the Russian government and Trump’s team, and a startling claim that Russia has blackmail material on Trump, specifically that he allegedly hired a prostitute to urinate on a bed in a hotel room in Moscow — the same one President Obama and his wife once slept in.
Trump vehemently condemned and denied the information in the dossier calling it “made-up stuff.” Many news sources at the time were hesitant to report on the dossier considering many of the claims had not been verified.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) said the dossier shouldn’t be taken seriously until verified: “The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understandings things like, who paid for it? Who are your sources and sub-sources?”
The New York Post reports that many of the sources are anonymous or referred to by Steele as a “friend of friend.” Even Obama’s officials “couldn’t corroborate the sourcing” when investigations into the dossier first began.
What is known should make anyone wary of reading the dossier, let alone trusting the information contained within. Steele was hired by a company, known as Fusion GPS, to compile proof that Trump was colluding with Russia, reportedly paying $50,000 for the subsequent dossier.
Fusion GPS has a sordid history of working with the Left to obtain dirt on their opponents. In 2012, Fusion GPS was contracted by Democrats to find dirt on then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Later in 2015, they were hired by Planned Parenthood as part of a smear campaign against pro-life activists opposing them.
In this case, Fusion GPS’s co-founder and partner, Peter R. Fritsch, is one of Hillary Clinton’s allies and donors. In fact, in June 2016, many of Clinton’s allies provided funds for Fusion GPS, months before the dossier would be released.
Mueller interviewed former British spy, Christopher Sleazy Steele, who wrote the infamous–and factually inaccurate–“dirt dossier.” Is this the best witness they have?
The dossier passed through many hands in Washington, DC, with the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies seriously looking into the claims, even showing it to then-President Obama. Yet at this time none of the agencies confirmed the validity of the dossier.
This controversial and likely uncorroborated dossier has been considered “the roadmap that Mueller was using in his investigation,” according to a lawyer familiar with Mueller’s probe. Media sources and Democrats have now used the central claim of the dossier, that Trump colluded with Russia, to fuel their false narrative.
Whether Mueller is using the “golden shower” dossier to guide his investigation or is simply following-up on any and all leads has yet to be clarified by Mueller and his team. Hopefully, his interview with Steel was to dismiss the validity of the document, and not to try and find a way to use it as evidence when the investigation is resolved.
GOP lawmakers call on Trump to release remaining JFK assassination records
By Eric DuVall
President John F. Kennedy slumps into the arms of his wife, Jackie, immediately after he was shot as his motorcade made its way through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Two lawmakers have introduced resolutions pushing President Donald Trump to release all remaining records relating to the JFK assassination. UPI File PhotoOct. 7 (UPI) -- Two lawmakers and a former adviser to President Donald Trump are calling on the administration to release all remaining records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a resolution in the House that would call on President Donald Trump to allow the National Archive and Records Administration to release any remaining documents related to Kennedy's killing in Dallas in 1963.
"To me, the tragedy that took place in Dallas continues to raise many questions that go unanswered," Jones said in a release from his office. "After 54 years, there is no reason, for the sake of honesty and integrity in America, that the facts of the JFK assassination should not be made public.
The evidence surrounding JFK's assassination has long been fodder for conspiracy theorists who do not believe the conclusion reached in an 888-page report authored by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, which said Kennedy's killing was the work of a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, who opened fire on Kennedy's open-top limousine from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Conspiracy theories -- some of which were dismissed by the Warren Commission -- still abound nearly 54 years after Kennedy's death: A second, never-caught gunman positioned on a grassy knoll ahead of Kennedy's limo actually fired the fatal shot; the mafia put a hit out on Kennedy for his administration's crackdown on Cuba; the CIA killed or allowed Kennedy to be killed because of his failure to more aggressively target Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
Joining Jones' call for a full record release is Roger Stone, a Republican strategist who has had ties to Trump in the past but is not part of the administration. Stone, the author of a conspiracy book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, called on Trump to release the records despite what Stone said is intense opposition by the CIA.
"I know CIA Director [Mike] Pompeo is urging the president to delay release of these records for another 25 years," Stone said in a statement. "They must reflect badly on the CIA even though virtually everyone involved is long dead."
The issue of still-withheld JFK records was nearly put to bed in 1992, when former President George H.W. Bush signed legislation ordering all JFK-related records to be released. The legislation contained a loophole, however. Records were ordered released unless "the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise." The decision over which documents to keep classified lies solely with each subsequent occupant of the Oval Office.
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_8.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment