Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, August 10, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
This print of conservative artist A.F. Branco's painting Freedom's Battle visualizes the very real battle between freedom and tyranny. Communism, as depicted by hands holding the Communist hammer and sickle, is pulling at the very fabric of America, while freedom, symbolized by the American Eagle, grasps the flag in an attempt to keep it from the holds of communism.
It's easy to take our freedom for granted, and forget about the battle that's raging. This artwork serves as a beautiful yet sobering reminder of what's at stake, and how important the fight is. [Buy here]
THE LIBERTY DAILY
OUTRIGHT SEDITION: Mammoth Marxist Michael Moore: ‘F—k Hope, Seriously, F—k Hope;’ Trump Will Be ‘Last President of the U.S.’
Mystery: DOJ & FBI Land a 757 Jet in Clinton’s Hometown Little Rock, Arkansas — Headquarters of Clinton Crime Family Foundation — Apparently Load It With Boxes of Documents
Giuliani: This Case Isn't Going To Fizzle, It's Going To Blow Up On Mueller
Posted By Ian Schwartz
Rudy Giuliani, attorney for President Trump, appeared on Hannity Wednesday night to explain why the legal team rejected special counsel Robert Mueller's term for an interview.
Giuliani said the "real story" is that the case isn't going to fizzle, "it's going to blow up on them," referring to the Mueller team.
"The reality is, the real story is not that this case isn’t going to fizzle," he said to host Sean Hannity. "It's going to blow up on them. The real question is, what we talked about before, there's a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet."
"A lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier," Giuliani added.
"I know some of it," Hannity revealed.
Giuliani said the only collusion involved in this case is the intel community using the Steele dossier to obtain "several fraudulent FISA wires."
"Can it get any worse? I mean, what do we need to know that this is a totally illegitimate investigation based on a report, a dossier that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats -- probably the biggest illegality so far, the biggest collusion so far. Completely made up. Completely made up. Led to nothing except several fraudulent FISA wires," Giuliani said.
Well, may be if Mueller and his band of whatever they are, Democrats, right, were fair-minded, maybe they’d investigate -- maybe that's the collusion. Maybe that's the collusion," he said of the infamous dossier.
Giuliani said what is going on by the Mueller investigative team is a "different kind of Watergate," calling them corrupt "through and through."
"And I believe that when this plays out over the next year or two, it's not going to be about President Trump. It's going to get over with. It’s going to be about all the things they did," he said of Mueller's team.
"You know how sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime? In this case, the investigation was much worse than the no-crime," the former NYC mayor said.
"I think it's going to lead to some very strict -- very big reforms, just like Watergate," he said. "It’s a different kind of Watergate. It’s on the side of the investigator."
Hannity said when we get to the bottom of the investigation, it will "shock the heart, the soul, and the mind" of fair-minded Americans.
"My sources are telling me that when the American people get to the bottom of all of this, it will shock the heart, the soul, and the mind of any fair-minded American," the host said.
Transcript, via FOX News:
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: All right. Joining us now in studio responding to all this breaking news, it is President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
Mr. Mayor, good to see you, sir. How are you?
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good to see you, Sean.
HANNITY: All right. Let’s start with tonight’s breaking news. So, you got Ohr, Steele, Nellie Ohr. We got Russian lies.
GIULIANI: Can it get any worse? I mean, what do we need to know that this is a totally illegitimate investigation based on a report, a dossier that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats -- probably the biggest illegality so far, the biggest collusion so far.
HANNITY: Or conspiracy.
GIULIANI: Completely made up. Completely made up. Led to nothing except several fraudulent FISA wires.
And now, we have Mueller, who doesn't seem to care that he's sitting on top of a totally illegitimate investigation.
HANNITY: But the dossier, thinking about the dossier that she paid for and the fact that the FBI paid Steele, it was designed to misinform the American people with Russian lies to influence the election.
GIULIANI: Yes.
HANNITY: There's a great irony here, if it wasn’t --
GIULIANI: Well, may be if Mueller and his band of whatever they are, Democrats, right, were fair-minded, maybe they’d investigate -- maybe that's the collusion. Maybe that's the collusion.
HANNITY: Did you ever hear the Adam Schiff tape that we played?
GIULIANI: Yes.
HANNITY: Adam Schiff, he’s just dying to get naked pictures of Trump with a Russian on tape. There’s your evidence, Mueller. You can't make it up. If it wasn't so seriously -- not only did they try to lie to the American people with Russian lies, now we know after the election, they tried to destroy the president with lies.
And now, they are connected to Mueller perhaps?
GIULIANI: Yes, I’ve never been involved in an investigation on either side that's more illegitimate than this one, that is so obviously more illegitimate. And I wonder where is the sense of justice on the part of Mueller, on the part of the Justice Department.
After all, the Justice Department -- this is a Justice Department investigation. He is working for Rosenstein. And at some point, you've got to say the irregularities, the unethical conduct --
HANNITY: Double standard.
GIULIANI: -- the double standard, the way in which people who hate Trump will put into primary positions of power has completely tainted this investigation.
HANNITY: My family is families from law enforcement, my mom was a prison guard, you know, my dad, New York City, family court probation, so many cops in my family, FBI agents. I cannot believe this is such -- these are -- the rank-and-file are so good.
Here's the thing, you responded today to Mueller's latest request and you think this could be over by September. Let's start with the request.
GIULIANI: Well, I think of it isn't over by September, then we have a very, very serious violation of the Justice Department rules that you shouldn't be conducting one of these investigations in the 60-day period.
Look, he's got plenty of time to either decide -- we offered him an opportunity to do a form of questioning. He can say yes or no. We can do it. If he doesn't want to do it, he knows the answers to every question that he wants to ask. He's going to ask them, did you tell Comey to go easy on Flynn? The president will say no I didn't.
Hey, Bob, you know it. Why do you want to get him under oath? Do you think we’re fools?
You want to get him under oath because you want to trap him into perjury. Well, we’re not going to let you do that.
HANNITY: It’s -- there's two separate issues: collusion and so-called obstruction. There's a report today that you said no questions on obstruction. Am I assuming here that your -- that your response to him was maybe a couple of written answers only?
GIULIANI: No, I can't tell you what it is yet because we haven’t -- no, I can't. I can't. Jay will get very angry at me. My co-counsel --
HANNITY: I understood.
GIULIANI: -- is much stricter about this than I am. So, he’ll get very angry and Jay (ph) will -- I’d love to tell you.
But the reality is, the reality is he doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction, he has all the answers. They are not going to change. The president is not going to change his testimony.
So, stop the nonsense. You are trying to trap him into perjury because you don't have a case.
HANNITY: Mr. Mayor, the Constitution as our good friend Mark says, Mark Levin, is on the president's side. I agree it's illegitimate, has been, the double standard is so glaring. We have been pointing it out now every night and with new details every night.
My question is, I wouldn't give him a thing. You don't owe him a thing and if he wants a fight, then there's going to be a fight.
GIULIANI: Well, we don't like to fight, you know that.
(LAUGHTER)
HANNITY: Mr. Mayor, I used to watch your press conferences, I disagree with that.
GIULIANI: The reality is, the real story is not that this case isn’t going to fizzle. It's going to blow up on them. The real question is, what we talked about before, there's a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet.
HANNITY: I know some of it.
GIULIANI: A lot more -- a lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier.
HANNITY: Oh, I know a lot.
GIULIANI: They’re trying to bring Steele back in after he was completely discredited.
HANNITY: And then feed it to Mueller.
GIULIANI: Yes. And Mueller is going to have a lot to answer for.
HANNITY: Mr. Mayor --
GIULIANI: I said a long time ago, the investigation here has to be of the investigators, because we can't let this happen again in American history. We may not have a president as strong as President Trump. A lesser president could have really been cracked by this.
HANNITY: Mueller, then you got Jeanie Rhee, you got Andrew Weissmann.
Here's my question: we know the Department of Justice has absolutely denied congressional subpoenas. Now, I don’t -- as great a lawyer as you are, I don't think you’d get me out of trouble if I was ignoring a subpoena.
GIULIANI: No, I don't think I could.
HANNITY: But the president has the power to go through these documents through FISA and unre -- make it unredacted and let the American people see that the bulk of information was what Christopher Steele himself said wasn't verified.
GIULIANI: Well, that’s something -- that something that as his private lawyers -- that he has to deal with and his government lawyers. And he’s going to do it right now.
HANNITY: Would you suggest he should?
GIULIANI: I can't tell you what I suggest. It's privileged.
(LAUGHTER)
HANNITY: OK. Let me ask you about the FISA lies. The bulk of information, the Grassley-Graham memo says, came from the phony dossier that Hillary paid for. That turns out to be a lie. The author of it says he can't corroborate it.
GIULIANI: Right.
HANNITY: Now, here's my question: so, they used it four separate times, to spy on an American citizen, an opposition party candidate campaign associate, in the lead-up to the election, after the election. Again, what if I lied to a judge? I wouldn't think of lying to a judge without getting my life in jail afterwards.
GIULIANI: You’d be investigated for perjury. You’d be investigated for contempt. Your career would be ruined. Your life would be ruined.
And I believe that when this plays out over the next year or two, it's not going to be about President Trump. It's going to get over with. It’s going to be about all the things they did.
This -- you know how sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime? In this case, the investigation was much worse than the no-crime.
HANNITY: Mr. Mayor --
GIULIANI: The president did nothing wrong.
HANNITY: My sources are telling me that when the American people get to the bottom of all of this, it will shock the heart, the soul, and the mind of any fair-minded American.
GIULIANI: I think it's going to lead to some very strict -- very big reforms, just like Watergate. It’s a different kind of Watergate. It’s on the side of the investigator.
HANNITY: OK.
GIULIANI: Corrupt investigations through and through.
HANNITY: Why would you even consider a counterproposal?
GIULIANI: When it's over with, I will explain it to you.
(LAUGHTER)
HANNITY: Boy, I’m not getting anything out of you tonight. Good to see you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
Ocasio-Cortez: Think Of All The Funeral Expenses We’ll Save Under Medicare For All!
ED MORRISSEY
Boston University’s economics program apparently never included a biology requirement — or math, for that matter. BU’s most notable graduate these days, Democratic Socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tried explaining to CNN’s Chris Cuomo last night why people shouldn’t have “sticker shock” over the price tag of her core agenda item, Medicare for All. Emphasis on tried, as Ocasio-Cortez’ answer would have some thinking that Medicare for All would end death as we know it:
Ocasio-Cortez: Socialized medicine is cheap because people will no longer have to pay for funerals
Let’s take the nonsense in bite-sized chunks, shall we? First up, Ocasio-Cortez seems to have forgotten what additional costs means from the Mercatus study by Charles Blahous:
You know in a Koch Brothers-funded, you know, study, if any studies going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers. It shows that Medicare for all is actually much more — is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.
First, the study itself wasn’t “Koch-funded,” although Mercatus gets funding from the Kochs. Second and more importantly, the study says the exact opposite — that Medicare for All would add $32.6 trillion in spending to existing levels in its first decade (and $218 trillion over 30 years), even after a questionable saving of $2 trillion in the first decade. And it would have to do so, since we’d be adding hundreds of millions of Americans to Medicare coverage.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave similar claims from other Democrats three Pinocchios earlier this week.
And let’s not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.
This is nonsense on stilts. The premium payments aren’t the tax, which should be obvious, because they don’t go to the government. The Supreme Court ruled that the penalties for non-coverage collected by the IRS was a tax, which is why they upheld the individual mandate. Most people didn’t pay it when the individual mandate was still in effect, and now no one is paying it. But even when it was being collected, it was collected once a year in the tax process.
So, we’re paying for this system. We — Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we’re also not talking about is, why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system.
Er … who wants to tell her? We’re all going to generate funeral expenses at some point, because we’re all going to die, regardless of how we pay for health care. We don’t incorporate funeral expenses in studies like Blahous’ or the left-leaning Urban Institute because they’re not avoidable costs. Although., it wouldn’t be the first time a snake-oil salesman tried selling immortality through the use of Other People’s Money.
Why don’t we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy because they have — because they are having issues like diabetes or they don’t have access to the healthcare that they need?
Perhaps we can factor that into our thinking, just as long as we factor in the long wait times and rationing that will take place in Ocasio-Cortez’ government-run system, too. How much productivity has been lost at the VA, for instance, and how many people died waiting for care in thatexisting single-payer system? What’s the track record like at the Indian Health Service for dealing with acute and chronic diseases for providing “access to the healthcare they need”?
I think at the end of the day, we see that this is not a pipedream. Every other developed nation in the world does this, why can’t America? And that is the question that we need to ask.
The question we need to ask is how a person with this much economic ignorance managed to get an economics degree from Boston University. Final question: How did Cuomo keep a straight face through this?
Sebastian Gorka Receives ‘Soft Ban’ from Fox News
By Jim E
Fox News may be Trump’s preferred choice in cable news, but it is looking more and more like the conservative network is shying away from its president-appeasing programming.
Fox News may be Trump’s preferred choice in cable news, but it is looking more and more like the conservative network is shying away from its president-appeasing programming.
This has been a rumored change that will be initiated once Lachlan Murdoch, son of the Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, takes over as chairman and CEO of the network once its sale to Disney goes through. Murdoch will continue serving as co-chairman of the network.
Lachlan is close to his father politically, but has said he doesn’t want Fox to be considered “state TV.”
That might explain the following report that Sebastian Gorka, a former White House official, has received a soft ban from Fox News. What’s a soft ban, you might ask? It’s a prohibition on an individual appearing on “hard news” shows. So while “Hannity” and the “Ingraham Angle” are quasi-news shows with an opinionated twist, a show like “Special Report with Bret Baier” is objective news, unless otherwise noted.
Fox News’ “hard news” shows—which fall under the network’s news division and pride themselves on being at least somewhat distinct from Fox’s pro-Trump agitprop apparatus—want nothing to do with former White House official Sebastian Gorka, multiple sources at Fox News told The Daily Beast.
One knowledgeable Fox News staffer described the situation as effectively a “soft ban” on Gorka, the controversial, firebrand ex-aide to President Donald Trump and former national security adviser to Steve Bannon.
One knowledgeable Fox News staffer described the situation as effectively a “soft ban” on Gorka, the controversial, firebrand ex-aide to President Donald Trump and former national security adviser to Steve Bannon.
This makes sense. While Gorka was a bulldog for Trump, going on cable TV shows and vehemently promoting his America First agenda, he’s not considered a policy expert. In fact, it’s never been exactly clear why Gorka worked in the White House, to begin with. I recall that Trump once offhandedly mentioned that he loved watching Gorka on TV but had no idea what he did at the West Wing all day.
Strangely enough, the Hungarian police actually have an arrest warrant out for Gorka. The poor Magyar can’t return to his ancestral homeland!
Follow this story to get email or text alerts from The Political Insider when there is a future article following this storyline.
Fox’s soft ban on Gorka likely extends from the confusion regarding his real expertise in regards to foreign policy and counter-terrorism. Regardless, Gorka is still a regular on Sean Hannity’s show, along with a slew of other Fox personalities. So I don’t think he’s taking much offense to the soft ban in the end.
Jeff Sessions Unloads On ‘Bigoted Ideology’ Of Media Who Attack People Of Faith
"People of faith are facing a new hostility ... a bigoted ideology which is founded on animus towards people of faith."
Progressive campaigns against so-called “hate speech” are bullying tactics used to oppress people of conscience who defend Constitutional and civil rights, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of religious liberty advocates on Wednesday evening.
“They have used this designation as a weapon and they have wielded it against conservative organizations that refuse to accept their orthodoxy and choose instead to speak their conscience. They use it to bully and intimidate groups like yours which fight for the religious freedom, the civil rights, and the constitutional rights of others,” Sessions said in prepared remarks for the Alliance Defending Freedom Religious Liberty Summit.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-profit organization that defends religious liberty in the courts, has a 9-0 record at the Supreme Court over the past seven years. It won the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case just weeks ago with a 7-2 ruling reaffirming Constitutional rights of free expression in the face of governmental animus. It also won the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra case 5-4, reaffirming freedom of speech against governmental limits. Last year it won Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with a 7-2 ruling against governmental discrimination against the religious. The group has also won hundreds of free speech cases in lower courts.
Yet when Sessions addressed the group last year, the formerly respectable Southern Poverty Law Center claimed he’d addressed a “hate group.” Worse, media companies completely adopted this extremist language and used it to smear Christians who defend the country’s founding principles. Sessions had harsh words for this practice, which attacks a culture of free expression and religious liberty.
In his speech, Sessions also critiqued tech companies and the media, which use inflammatory slurs and epithets to limit expression of ideological opponents. Rather than engaging in good faith arguments, they rely on the shortcuts of smears and name-calling.
“Yet people of faith are facing a new hostility. Really, a bigoted ideology which is founded on animus towards people of faith.
You’ll notice that they don’t rely on the facts. They don’t make better arguments. They don’t propose higher ideals.
No, they just call people names—like ‘hate group.'”
This week, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and Apple banned conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from their tech platforms not for his dangerous conspiracy theories but, as one put it, because he violated “hate speech” guidelines which limit expression on Islam, immigration, and transgenderism. Media had cheered the progressive campaign to “deplatform” Jones and even took credit for helping accomplish this progressive goal. Some media figures are trying to pressure other tech companies to ban Jones on the same grounds. Even some “Never Trump” conservatives are joining in. Many Americans are skeptical the rush to limit expression is an unalloyed good or that it will stop with Jones, a concern addressed by Sessions:
Americans from a wide variety of faiths are asking themselves, how much longer until I am in Jack Phillips’ position? How much longer until the state, the media, the academy, the tech companies, or the global corporations come down on me because of my beliefs?
Sessions expressed disappointment in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s turn from an organization that fought racism in the south to one that seeks to limit the civil liberties of Americans throughout the country:
You know I’m from Alabama—the home of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that did important work in the South, vital work at a pivotal time. As you know well, the law is only words on paper until there are people brave enough to stand up for their rights.
There were hate groups in the South I grew up in. They attacked the life, liberty, and the very worth of minority citizens. You may not know this, but I helped prosecute and secure the death penalty for a klansman who murdered a black teenager in my state. The resulting wrongful death suit led to a $7 million verdict and the bankruptcy of the Klu Klux Klan in the South. That case was brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But when I spoke to ADF last year, I learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center had classified ADF as a “hate group.” Many in the media simply parroted it as fact. Amazon relied solely on the SPLC designation and removed ADF from its Smile program, which allows customers to donate to charities.
Sessions said that the Department of Justice “will not partner with hate groups. Not on my watch.” He added that the DOJ will not “partner with groups that unfairly defame Americans for standing up for the Constitution or their faith.”
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Get ready for the media outcry over immigrants and their right to welfare
by Eddie Scarry
The media isn’t quite at the sobbing-on-live-national-TV level over the Trump administration’s latest move on immigration yet, but the very second a Guatemalan is denied a visa renewal because she’s spent the last decade on food stamps and Medicaid, get ready for it.
Reports this week said the Department of Homeland Security is soon expected to outline new rules that could end legal resident status for immigrants who take in welfare benefits.
President Trump previewed the issue during a speech in Iowa last year, saying that “those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years.”
At the time, Rasmussen found that 62 percent of likely voters favored the idea. Just 26 percent opposed restrictions on welfare for immigrants.
Now there’s renewed attention on the proposal after a draft was leaked to the press, so the media’s natural tendency to misrepresent and deceive on anything to do with immigration has set in motion.
New York Times correspondents Michael Shear and Ron Nixon on Tuesday said the draft proposal, which is under review by the Office of Management and Budget, “essentially concludes that those immigrants [taking government benefits] are more likely to become ‘public charges’ — dependent on programs like Medicaid, children’s nutrition aid and even housing and transit subsidies.”
To rebut that point, their report cited “studies” with the completely unrelated assertion that legal immigration “has led to higher, not lower, wages.”
Setting aside that other “studies” say the opposite, the new guidelines have nothing to do with wages and everything to do with immigrants who come to the U.S. and are immediately loaded up on welfare, like food assistance, Medicaid, and housing.
The authors of a 2017 study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine believed more immigration to be a good thing — and yet still found that nearly 60 percent of noncitizen, non-naturalized, immigrant-led households used some kind of welfare from 2011-2013. That’s compared to just 42 percent of homes led by native-born citizens.
A 2015 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates restricting immigration, found basically the same thing only looking at data for 2012. The study said that immigrant-led households consumed double the Medicaid and food assistance benefits that native ones did. Overall, 51 percent of immigrant-led homes used “any welfare,” compared to 30 percent for native homes.
To create the impression that Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about, the media keep repeating that a law restricting immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for five years after entry already exists.
“[G]enerally, permanent residents can receive means-tested welfare benefits like Medicaid only after five years of residence in the United States,” the liberal New Republic's Sarah Jones said Wednesday.
“Documented migrants who have temporary status aren’t eligible for any benefits at all.”
As far back as August 2017, the website Vox claimed that “the vast majority of new immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Even green card holders must wait for years to get most benefits.”
But, like the full-figured Georgia lawmaker who eagerly pulled down his pants for Sacha Baron Cohen, U.S. immigration policy is readily duped.
Under current law, if immigrants have a baby on U.S. soil, as a default citizen, he’s instantly eligible to bring in welfare for the family. Or, if one immigrant marries a citizen, the wait time for benefits shrinks from five years to three. If the immigrants have any children under 18, they’re all allowed benefits, too.
In addition to that, all refugees and asylees, 13 percent of legal residents, according to the report by the Center for Immigration Studies, are eligible for full benefits.
Journalists believe this is a strain on our safety net that Americans aren’t supposed to bother themselves with.
Demonstrating unique insight on the matter, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait called the expected new guidelines racist. (The media is the only place you’re allowed to directly link minorities to welfare but accuse everyone else of being the racists.)
Liberal Washington Post bloggers Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent, because it takes two, wroteTuesday that the new initiative is “born of the sincere contempt” that the White House has “for immigrants, particularly non-white ones.”
The media had a small victory inciting public outrage after repeating the lie that the Trump administration had a "policy" to separate families at the border.
The outcome won't be the same when the issue becomes free food stamps and healthcare.
There’s a very good reason why China backed away from slapping tariffs on U.S. oil
BPR Wire Michael Bastasch, DCNF
(Getty)There’s a simple reason China didn’t include crude oil on its list of American products — it’s too reliant on U.S.-produced crude oil to give it up.
China removed U.S. crude oil exports from its tariff retaliation plans less than two months after threatening to tax American goods. China issued the tariff threats in response to the Trump administration’s tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, including steel and aluminum.
Oil and natural gas have been a bright spot for U.S. exports, so threats from China, the world’s largest energy consumer, startled the industry. However, oil export data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows why China backed away from oil tariffs.
U.S. oil exports to China hit record levels in 2017, according to EIA data that goes back to 1993.
China took in over 165 million barrels of U.S. crude that year to fuel its growing economy. That’s more than double the roughly 74.2 million barrels of U.S. crude China imported the previous year.
“The U.S. has been and will remain the main source of incremental crude production globally,” FGE energy consultant Den Syahril told Bloomberg. “With several new refineries starting up over the next couple of years, China would thus be wary of taking a decision that could end up severely hurting its domestic refining industry.”
Tariff threats against the U.S. also came at a bad time for China’s refiners, Bloomberg noted. Crude production in Iran and Venezuela is at risk, and U.S. crude has increasingly become a cheaper alternative to Middle Eastern oil.
“With oil from Iran and Venezuela at risk, U.S. crude is offering Chinese refiners a good and abundant alternative,” IHS Markit analyst Sophie Shi told Bloomberg. “Imagine if this ideal resource was cut off. That would leave China solely dependent on Saudi Arabia, which seems too risky.”
The Special Counsel Files A Complaint Against Manafort Judge
By Staff Writer
By Staff Writer
Mueller’s team is increasingly frustrated with the “cranky judge” who has rebuked the special counsel’s office on multiple occasionsSpecial counsel Robert Mueller filed a formal complaint against the judge presiding over Paul Manafort’s tax fraud case this week; claiming T.S. Ellis III violated protocol while ruling against the prosecution’s star witness.
According to Politico, Mueller’s team is increasingly frustrated with the “cranky judge” who has rebuked the special counsel’s office on multiple occasions.
[T]he judge’s condescending attitude [could give] the jury the impression that the prosecution’s case is dubious
“[T]he judge’s condescending attitude [could give] the jury the impression that the prosecution’s case is dubious,” said a former US Deputy Solicitor General. “This is an especially severe risk when the core of the case is the testimony of a co-conspirator who is admittedly a thief, liar, and embezzler. When the standard of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ there is no margin for error.”
“On Wednesday, Ellis was at it again, dressing down prosecutors after learning that an IRS agent they called to the stand as an expert witness had been in the courtroom for the entire trial,” writes Politico.
“I don’t care what the transcript says, maybe I made a mistake,” Ellis fumed. “When I exclude witnesses I mean everybody unless I make a special exception.”
Read the full report here.
News outlets are paying security guards for their reporters who cover Trump rallies
BPR Wire /Jessica Kramer, DCNF
(Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
TV networks are hiring security guards for reporters in an effort to better protect them during Trump rallies because they believe Trump has turned the media into “a rhetorical punching bag.
“The New York Times takes the safety of our reporters very seriously,” New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha told Politico, adding that in recent months “we have expanded measures to protect our journalists against the overall backdrop of increased threats and verbal attacks.”
Politico pointed out NBC White House correspondent Geoff Bennett posed with a security guard for a photo on Instagram at a Trump rally in Ohio on Aug. 4 and 5, captioning it: “We need security guards when covering rallies hosted by the President of the United States. Let that sink in.”
Violent attacks on reporters have been conducted by members of Antifa, including one demonstration in the California Bay Area that left a journalist bloody and beaten. Another reporter in the same area was also confronted by demonstrators who stole his phone and demanded he say if he was a Nazi.
Some media outlets are increasing precautions and protocol since the Capital Gazette shooting and the president’s rhetoric in opposition to the “fake news” media. Most security details or changes to safety protocol are remaining private, media companies told Politico.
“What you do not see are the nasty letters or packages or emails. The threats of physical violence,” MSNBC’s Katy Tur told Politico. “‘I hope you get raped and killed,’ one person wrote to me just this week. ‘Raped and killed.’ Not just me, but a couple of my female colleagues as well,” said Tur, according to Politico.
Follow Jessica on Twitter
(Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)TV networks are hiring security guards for reporters in an effort to better protect them during Trump rallies because they believe Trump has turned the media into “a rhetorical punching bag.
“The New York Times takes the safety of our reporters very seriously,” New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha told Politico, adding that in recent months “we have expanded measures to protect our journalists against the overall backdrop of increased threats and verbal attacks.”
Politico pointed out NBC White House correspondent Geoff Bennett posed with a security guard for a photo on Instagram at a Trump rally in Ohio on Aug. 4 and 5, captioning it: “We need security guards when covering rallies hosted by the President of the United States. Let that sink in.”
Violent attacks on reporters have been conducted by members of Antifa, including one demonstration in the California Bay Area that left a journalist bloody and beaten. Another reporter in the same area was also confronted by demonstrators who stole his phone and demanded he say if he was a Nazi.
Some media outlets are increasing precautions and protocol since the Capital Gazette shooting and the president’s rhetoric in opposition to the “fake news” media. Most security details or changes to safety protocol are remaining private, media companies told Politico.
“What you do not see are the nasty letters or packages or emails. The threats of physical violence,” MSNBC’s Katy Tur told Politico. “‘I hope you get raped and killed,’ one person wrote to me just this week. ‘Raped and killed.’ Not just me, but a couple of my female colleagues as well,” said Tur, according to Politico.
Follow Jessica on Twitter
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
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/2018/08/www_87.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment