Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
THE LIBERTY DAILY
Reps. Gaetz, Issa: Discrepancy Between Ohr, Page, Simpson Deep State Gate Testimonies, May Face Perjury
TRUMP WARNS FACEBOOKGOOGLETWITTER
BIAS, CENSORSHIP FIRESTORM
FBI Warned McCain Against Tying Up to His Oligarch Friend
By S.Noble
Paul Manafort worked for President Trump for three months but never tried to hook Donald Trump up with any Russians. That wasn’t true of John McCain when he ran for president.
Rick Davis of Manafort & Davis colluded with John McCain and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Putin’s friend, to arrange meetings. McCain met with Deripaska twice, once on a yacht.
This connection was made for people seen as friends of Putin.
Deripaska, a minerals magnate is the richest man in the world and he was pleased with the influential connection.
Now get this, the FBI and U.S. Intelligence warned McCain about Deripaska, something they didn’t do for Donald Trump. It sounds like the President was framed. Why else wouldn’t they warn Trump?
McCain’s own campaign was opposed to any connection with Deripaska.
The same foreign lobbyists and Russians tied to the Trump probe were once associated to Senator John McCain when he ran for president, Sara Carter wrote.
McCain battled Trump and did not support him on the Russia collusion probe and even helped get a copy of the dossier to the FBI.
“I think it is reaching the point it is a Watergate size and scale,” he declared last month during an event at his policy nonprofit, the International Republican Institute.
The FBI has said that there is no evidence to date that Trump ever met with a Russian figure banned from the United States, Carter wrote.
There is no evidence McCain did anything untoward or ever changed his anti-Putin stance. His aides said he became more opposed during this time.
This has been reported many times but it seems like a good time to remind the public.
Russia and China are Causing Climate Change, Not the US
As the left ramps up its blame-game accusing Trump of undermining efforts to mitigate climate change, some core facts are useful to consider:
— The United States is rapidly decreasing its carbon emissions, largely due to market forces, not federal regulation.
— While we are cutting carbon emissions, China and Russia are rapidly taking up the slack by increasing theirs.
Since 1980, the United States has decreased its emissions of greenhouse gases by 65 percent — despite more than tripling our real GDP in the interval.
Since 2000, our carbon emissions have dropped from 20.2 million metric tons to 16.4 million tons today.
By contrast, China’s have risen from 2.7 million to 7.8 million over the same period and Russia’s are up from 10.6 million to 12.5 million.
It is not the United States whose policies need reversal — it is Russia and China’s.
Since we are, after all, one planet, it is a grave concern that increased emissions from Russia and China since 2000 have risen by nearly twice as much as ours have dropped.
Despite the publicity about Trump’s revision of Obama’s plans to bankrupt the coal industry, the fact is that market forces have so changed the economics of electricity generation that natural gas now generates 32 percent of electric power while coal accounts for only 30 percent (10 years ago, it was over half).
Renewable sources now account for 20 percent of power generation (hydro — 7 percent; wind — 6 percent; biomass — 2 percent; solar — 1 percent; geothermal — 1 percent).
Neither Obama’s power plant regulations nor his climate change prevention plans are responsible for the drop in coal use.
Fracking, which the left opposes, is the reason.
It is fracking that has so lowered the price of natural gas that it is cheaper than coal, dramatically cutting carbon emissions.
Trump has also relaxed mileage standards for cars, but the conversion to electric, hybrid, and, soon, hydrogen cars will continue to drive down carbon output nevertheless.
Even though we have achieved the holy grail of the 1970s and 1980s — by ending our dependence on foreign oil — we have achieved remarkable progress in curtailing our contribution to climate change and will continue to do so under Trump, because of market forces, not federal regulation.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
3 Major Problems With NYT’s Story About How The FBI’s Trump Informant Was Outed
The story fails on multiple levels to make its central claim that congressional oversight regarding the use of human informants against the Trump campaign is hurting intelligence-gathering in Moscow.
The New York Times published an article last week that claimed “Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving C.I.A. in the Dark About Putin’s Plans for Midterms.” Reporters Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg write that informants close to Russian President Vladimir Putin were talking to U.S. intelligence, but have recently clammed up.
The reporters give three possible reasons, after saying officials don’t think they were compromised or killed. They may have been spooked by more aggressive Russian counterintelligence. Information collection may have been dampened by the expulsion of American intelligence officials from Moscow — in response to American expulsion of Russian officers from the United States. But there’s another theory for what’s gone on, and let’s see if you buy it: Congressional oversight by Republicans is to blame.
Yes, really. “[O]fficials also raised the possibility that the outing of an F.B.I. informant under scrutiny by the House intelligence committee — an examination encouraged by President Trump — has had a chilling effect on intelligence collection,” the story claims. Even just this sentence has massive problems.
1. The New York Times Outed the Informant, Not Congress
Note the use of the passive language that obscures who did — and who did not — out the FBI informant. In the beginning of May, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials repeatedly leaked extremely sensitive information about a top secret source while claiming that confidentially sharing information about the source with congressional investigators would harm U.S. national security and potentially risk the source’s life.
The officials leaked specific information that made it extremely easy to directly identify the source on three separate occasions to reporters at the Washington Post and New York Times. Shortly thereafter, the source was identified. None of the information was sourced to congressional investigators.
Even the fact of the use of human informants against the Trump campaign was not shared by congressional investigators looking into the matter. In the spring, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence subpoenaed the Justice Department for information about irregularities with methods used in the unprecedented investigation targeting Trump’s campaign for president.
Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., refused to discuss the request’s details. As part of the fight to obstruct that request, officials told media outlets that complying with the request would harm a human informant. Details about the informant were shared with The New York Times and Washington Post.
The Washington Post‘s May 8 article, “Secret intelligence source who aided Mueller probe is at center of latest clash between Nunes and Justice Dept,” broke the news that the information Congress sought dealt with “a top-secret intelligence source.” It revealed that the source was a U.S. citizen who had worked with the CIA and the FBI.
The May 16 The New York Times article broke the use of informants to spy on the Trump campaign (or secretly gather information for the government on the Trump campaign, if you prefer a lengthier phrase) wide open. The Times published that at least one informant was being run against the campaign, and that one of the informants met with multiple Trump campaign affiliates, including Carter Page and George Papadopolous.
A May 17 article in the Washington Post shared more details, such as that the source has worked on multiple investigations, some of which were “live” and ongoing. They also say the informant provided information to the Russia investigation both before the special counsel’s appointment in May 2017 and afterward.
Shortly after these reports outing the identity of the informant ran, various media outlets including The New York Times published the name of the informant: Stefan Halper.
2. Alleged Trump Support for Oversight Followed The New York Times‘ Outing
The Times writes of “the outing of an F.B.I. informant under scrutiny by the House intelligence committee — an examination encouraged by President Trump.” Later, the Times writes, “This year, the identity of an F.B.I. informant, Stefan Halper, became public after House lawmakers sought information on him and the White House allowed the information to be shared.”
The suggestion is that Trump supports outing the FBI informant. To support the claim, the Times links to a story with the words “encouraged by President Trump.” However, the story linked does not support the claim at all.
The date on the story is July 12, two months after Halper’s name was published. “White House Orders Broader Access to Files About F.B.I. Informant,” by Mark Mazzetti, is not about the outing of the informant, but about the White House telling its Justice Department to provide more information to congressional overseers who sought it, months after law enforcement and intelligence officials were sharing key details about Halper with reporters as part of their bid to quash complying with congressional requests for information.
The July 12 story clearly names Halper and describes his work, accepting the claim for why the informant was sent to spy secretly gather information on Trump campaign advisors on behalf of the federal government:
During the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. sent an informant to meet with two Trump campaign advisers after the bureau had received information that the two men had suspicious contacts linked to Russia. The informant, Stefan Halper, an American academic who teaches at Cambridge University in England, had meetings with both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos to gain a better understanding of their contacts with Russians.
3. The Story Refutes Its Own Claim
The article explains that it can’t give indirect evidence that Halper’s outing by law enforcement and intelligence officials (an outing that keeps being blamed on Congress despite their lack of involvement) hurt any source relationships. But then the article flat-out says there’s no direct evidence, either:
Current American officials said there is no direct evidence that the exposure of Mr. Halper has been cited by overseas informants as a source of concern.
This admission is in the 31st paragraph of the 33-paragraph story about how congressional oversight is dangerous.
What’s Going On?
The most interesting part of the story is that the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats in recent years may have come at the cost of U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts in Moscow, since Russia responded to some of the expulsions in a tit-for-tat move.
Apart from that, the story fails on multiple levels to make its central claim that congressional oversight regarding the use of human informants against the Trump campaign is hurting intelligence-gathering in Moscow. For one thing, there’s no evidence. For another, the story fails to mention that Halper’s outing came not from congressional oversight but from leaks by law enforcement and intelligence officials (at least, if the stories publishing the details are to be believed).
Nunes, for his part, said leaks kept occurring after meetings with Justice and FBI officials, despite the failure of these meetings to provide sufficient information. He notes that Halper’s identity leaked shortly after he and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., were supposed to receive a briefing from DOJ officials, timing he found suspicious:
Since the moment congressional overseers sought information on the unorthodox methods used to spy on secretly gather information on the Trump campaign, Justice officials have claimed that compliance would have deleterious effects. If the claim is true, leaky officials should have refrained from sharing information with the media about the human informant. But to continue to pin blame not on the government leakers but those trying to hold government officials accountable is unbecoming of a news organization.
One can reasonably wonder if this unsubstantiated story is an attempt to claim that further transparency is somehow bad for the republic and her institutions, instead of a necessary step toward accountability and integrity for our law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
SOURCES: CHINA HACKED CLINTON’S PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER
The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server, which was kept in Clinton’s residence in upstate New York
Daily Caller
A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C., area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private server throughout her term as secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails, two sources briefed on the matter told The Daily Caller News Foundation.The Chinese firm obtained Clinton’s emails in real time as she sent and received communications and documents through her personal server, according to the sources, who said the hacking was conducted as part of an intelligence operation.
The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server, which was kept in Clinton’s residence in upstate New York. The code generated an instant “courtesy copy” for nearly all of her emails and forwarded them to the Chinese company, according to the sources.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found that virtually all of Clinton’s emails were sent to a “foreign entity,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said at a July 12 House Committee on the Judiciary hearing. He did not reveal the entity’s identity, but said it was unrelated to Russia.
Mass censorship of conservatives and libertarians is exploding. You’ve already seen this with the demonetization and ultimate purge of Infowars and other alternative media outlets by mega-corporations working in tangent to stifle competition. But you are important in this fight. Your voice is important. Your free thought is important. Make no mistake, you are just as important as anyone in the Anti-American establishment.
You Won’t Believe Who Shut Down Mueller’s Plan To Charge Trump With Treason
Special counsel Robert Mueller targeted President Donald Trump for destruction.Mueller led the Deep State campaign to take down President Trump by framing him for collusion with Russia.
That all ended when the last person anyone ever expected stepped forward and shut down the plan to charge Trump with treason.
Robert Mueller’s Plan To Destroy President Donald Trump Takes Shape
Starting in 2016, Deep State agents floated wild conspiracies about Donald Trump and his associates colluding with Russia.
Former CIA Director John Brennan schemed to inject these charges into the 2016 election by briefing Harry Reid.
Reid turned around and leaked the charges in a letter, but the press ignored the story to chase other anti-Trump attacks.
The press noticed the collusion narrative when CNN reported the existence of the Christopher Steele dossier.
When Buzzfeed posted the dossier, anti-Trump journalists claimed there was proof of collusion.
The dossier forged the basis of Congressional investigations into Russian collusion.
When Rod Rosenstein named Mueller special counsel, his goal was to prove the dossier true.
The Charges Of Collusion In The Dossier Collapse
Steele wrote that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague in 2016.
In Prague, Cohen met with Russians to hatch a plan to steal the 2016 election.
“Thirteen references to Mr. Cohen are false in the dossier, but he has never been to Prague in his life,” Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis stated.
Davis went on MSNBC and shot down the rumors of Cohen traveling to Prague.
“Never. Never in Prague. Did I make that – Never, never in Prague. Ever, ever,” Davis declared.
Davis finished putting the rumor to rest stating, “The dossier – so-called – mentions his name 14 times – one of which is a meeting with Russians in Prague. 14 times it was false.”
Mueller has not charged any Trump associate with collusion.
News outlets reported in the spring that the special counsel had evidence Cohen went to Prague.
Cohen shot down those stories.
And now Davis’s statements put the claim that Cohen colluded with Russians in Prague to bed.
Cohen’s lawyer ended Mueller’s chance to pin a collusion charge on Trump and his campaign.
Mueller Running Out Of Suspects
Mueller did not charge Paul Manafort with collusion.
Steele named Manafort in the dossier as being guilty of colluding with Russia.
Cohen denied going to Prague to meet with Russians.
Cohen and Manafort were two prime suspects in the collusion probe.
If Mueller won’t charge them with collusion, who is left as a suspect?
The special counsel’s investigators focused on Trump friend Roger Stone.
Stone denied any Russian collusion.
Mueller dug through all of Stone’s friends and coworkers to find evidence Stone worked with WikiLeaks on releasing Democrat emails in 2016.
No one told Mueller they knew of any proof Stone colluded on the email hacks.
His job was to prove Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia.
He turned over every rock he could find and still came up empty.
We will keep you up to date on any news in the Robert Mueller witch-hunt as it develops.
NPR: Over 66 Percent of Claimed Shootings Never Happened
AP Photo/Jacquelyn MartinNPR examined a U.S. Education Department study and discovered that over 66 percent of reported school shootings for 2015-2016 school year never occurred.
The Education Department claims there were “nearly 240 schools … [which] reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.”
But NPR contacted schools and districts and was able to substantiate that 161 of the incidents “never happened.” They verified that something did occur in four instances, “but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting.” Moreover, they received no response regarding 25 percent of the Educated Department’s reported school shootings.
NPR was able to confirm only 11 of the 240 reported shootings. They note: “A separate investigation by the ACLU of Southern California also was able to confirm fewer than a dozen of the incidents in the government’s report, while 59 percent were confirmed errors.”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
G’ day…Ciao… Helen and Moe LauzierThus 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/2018/08/www_28.html
Related Posts :
Nickelodeon Announces Winners Of Kids' Choice Sports 2017 Australia And New Zealand- Bharti Singh To Co-Host Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards 2017 India
- Mossby's Magic Carpet Handbook, by Ilona Bray
- Nickelodeon To Release 'Tales Of The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Final Chapters' On DVD On 12/12 | Update: Added Menu System
- More Than 4,000 Children And Families Bring Nickelodeon Africa's First Ever NickFest In Nigeria To Life
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment