Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Aug 19, 2019, 02:57 PM
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 241   Go Down
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1065 on: Nov 09, 2018, 05:36 AM »

Report: Foreign fighters led IS atrocities against Yazidis

New Europe

PARIS — Foreign fighters, including many Europeans, took a leading role in carrying out the Islamic State group's atrocities against minority Yazidis, an international human rights group said Thursday, citing testimony and documentation from survivors of an organized system of killing and enslavement.

In a report, the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights emphasized how foreign fighters led organized rape and slavery devised by the Islamic State group's Iraqi hierarchy. It said the actions amounted to genocide and crimes against humanity, and called for the extremist group's members to be prosecuted as war criminals.

In one online chat room, an Islamic State fighter offered to trade a Yazidi captive for a pair of Adidas sneakers. Another offered his gun. The group not only bought and sold Yazidi women and girls, but also young boys who would be taught to fight and indoctrinated to turn against their own people.

"For the survivors to speak, to testify, is not an easy thing. It puts their lives in danger and it puts their story and their lives in public and nobody wants to do that," said Nadia Murad, co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. She was among thousands of women and girls from the Yazidi minority who were kidnapped and enslaved in 2014.

"But because it's important for us to make sure justice is done, it's important for Yazidis, survivors have come forward and spoken about their stories," she added. The rights group believes around half of the estimated 6,800 Yazidis taken captive are still missing. Women and girls from the minority who escaped described an organized system of slavery overseen by high-ranking foreign fighters.

In 2016, The Associated Press reported that Islamic State had devised a system of photographing Yazidi girls and women, and had created a database both to prevent their escape and to facilitate exchanges between members of the group.

Islamic State members in general face terrorism charges in quick trials in Iraq. The rights group wants them tried before an international tribunal or brought home to face charges, and for Yazidis to have a role in the reckoning.

Despite the testimony from hundreds if not more Yazidis of the horrors they endured on a massive scale, Murad said there had yet to be a trial involving the crimes against Yazidis. "The end goal for all of us is to make sure justice is done and to prosecute those who committed crimes against us," she said. "We will continue to fight until justice is done."

* Capture.JPG (39.09 KB, 487x391 - viewed 84 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1066 on: Nov 09, 2018, 06:00 AM »

Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

The president is evading the requirement to seek the Senate’s advice and consent for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the person who will oversee the Mueller investigation.

By Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Conway are lawyers.
NY Times
Nov. 9, 2018

What now seems an eternity ago, the conservative law professor Steven Calabresi published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May arguing that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. His article got a lot of attention, and it wasn’t long before President Trump picked up the argument, tweeting that “the Appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.

He argued that Mr. Mueller was a principal officer because he is exercising significant law enforcement authority and that since he has not been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was unconstitutional. As one of us argued at the time, he was wrong. What makes an officer a principal officer is that he or she reports only to the president. No one else in government is that person’s boss. But Mr. Mueller reports to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. So, Mr. Mueller is what is known as an inferior officer, not a principal one, and his appointment without Senate approval was valid.

But Professor Calabresi and Mr. Trump were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a  very significant consequence today.

It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.

Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground.

Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

What goes for a mere lawyer at the N.L.R.B. goes in spades for the attorney general of the United States, the head of the Justice Department and one of the most important people in the federal government. It is one thing to appoint an acting underling, like an acting solicitor general, a post one of us held. But those officials are always supervised by higher-ups; in the case of the solicitor general, by the attorney general and deputy attorney general, both confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. Whitaker has not been named to some junior post one or two levels below the Justice Department’s top job. He has now been vested with the law enforcement authority of the entire United States government, including the power to supervise Senate-confirmed officials like the deputy attorney general, the solicitor general and all United States attorneys.

We cannot tolerate such an evasion of the Constitution’s very explicit, textually precise design. Senate confirmation exists for a simple, and good, reason. Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody. His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation. (Yes, he was confirmed as a federal prosecutor in Iowa, in 2004, but Mr. Trump can’t cut and paste that old, lapsed confirmation to today.) For the president to install Mr. Whitaker as our chief law enforcement officer is to betray the entire structure of our charter document.

In times of crisis, interim appointments need to be made. Cabinet officials die, and wars and other tragic events occur. It is very difficult to see how the current situation comports with those situations. And even if it did, there are officials readily at hand, including the deputy attorney general and the solicitor general, who were nominated by Mr. Trump and confirmed by the Senate. Either could step in as acting attorney general, both constitutionally and statutorily.

Because Mr. Whitaker has not undergone the process of Senate confirmation, there has been no mechanism for scrutinizing whether he has the character and ability to evenhandedly enforce the law in  a position of such grave responsibility. The public is entitled to that assurance, especially since Mr. Whitaker’s only supervisor is Mr.  Trump himself, and the president is hopelessly compromised by the Mueller investigation. That is why adherence to the requirements of the Appointments Clause is so important here, and always.

As we wrote last week, the Constitution is a bipartisan document, written for the ages to guard against wrongdoing by officials of any party. Mr. Whitaker’s installation makes a mockery of our Constitution and our founders’ ideals. As Justice Thomas’s opinion in the N.L.R.B. case reminds us, the Constitution’s framers “had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked.” He added “they knew that liberty could be preserved only by ensuring that the powers of government would never be consolidated in one body.”

We must heed those words today.

Neal K. Katyal (@neal_katyal) was an acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama and is a lawyer at Hogan Lovells in Washington. George T. Conway III (@gtconway3d) is a litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7n48M0k9OI


State AGs demand anti-Mueller acting AG recuse himself from probe

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

The Attorney General of New York State is demanding that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker officially recuse himself for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Attorney General Barbara Underwood is currently suing the Trump Foundation — and the Trump family members who ran the purported charity, including President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump.

“It’s vital that the Special Counsel’s investigation move forward free from any appearance of interference or bias. As such, Acting Attorney General Whitaker has a clear responsibility to recuse himself from any role in the investigation – in order to ensure that the public can trust the integrity of the investigation and to protect DOJ’s fundamental independence,” said Attorney General Underwood.

The letter was signed by the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.


‘You can’t fire the truth’: Watch massive protests gather around the country to protect Mueller’s probe

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

Massive protesters have gathered across the country from New York to California to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump fired his Attorney General Jeff Sessions. This move has been seen as an effort from Trump to regain control over the Russian probe.

Trump appointed Matthew Whitaker as the new acting attorney general. Whitaker once said that he would act to halt the investigation and starve its funding.

See live updates via Twitter below from protests happening across the country.

    Live at the Mueller protest in front of the White House https://t.co/TWUtFhQi8a

    — Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) November 8, 2018

    Wow! The moveon protest in NYC to support Mueller is quite large for short notice. https://t.co/6pmNaCwkF1

    — Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) November 8, 2018

    Downtown #Orlando Mueller Protests! https://t.co/PgFDr6RZ2Y

    — safarishane (@safarishane) November 8, 2018

    #Boston #NobodyIsAboveTheLaw protect Mueller protest. Thanks https://t.co/xV1uJxBV3W

    — Peter Bowden (@Peter_Bowden) November 8, 2018

    Crowd growing. Among chants heard in protest against Trump appointment of Interim AG Matt Whitaker “No Excuse must recuse” “lock him up” and “hands off Mueller” @NY1 pic.twitter.com/NabwnhjQQk

    — Van Tieu (@Van_Tieu) November 8, 2018

    A couple hundred people have come out to march and protest what they believe to be authoritarian efforts by the Trump administration to end Robert Mueller’s investigation. pic.twitter.com/WjlptLi5wK

    — WBEN NewsRadio 930AM (@NewsRadio930) November 8, 2018

    RIGHT NOW: Richmond, Va’s #NobodyisAboveTheLaw protest against @realDonaldTrump firing of AG Jeff Sessions. They’re calling for the Mueller investigation to be protected…as dozens more continue to join @CBS6 pic.twitter.com/l1FvA5sVmy

    — Brendan King CBS 6 (@ImBrendanKing) November 8, 2018

    People have gathered here in downtown Rockville to protest President Trump attempting to stop the Robert Mueller investigation. @MoCoSentinel pic.twitter.com/oxauz1fUO2

    — Harry Lichtman (@hslichtman) November 8, 2018

    Thank you!

    Please consider telling your followers that tonight are protests across America in support of Mueller.

    In Los Angeles:
    Tonight at 5:00 pm at Downtown LA City Hall. 🇺🇸

    For locations: https://t.co/vW5A8B03fy#ThursdayMotivation#DTLA#MuellerInvestigation

    — Nora Charles (@noracharles_) November 8, 2018

    Nationwide protests to protect Mueller investigation | Ours is at LA City Hall @ 5pm| Reuters https://t.co/jG5coSiTVD

    — xx (@Tzitlaly1) November 8, 2018


White House staffers fear backlash over appointment of AG Whitaker: report

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

Staffers inside Donald Trump’s own White House did not know of his plan to tap Matthew Whitaker as the acting Attorney General after firing Jeff Sessions and feel “a growing sense of concern” about the matter, CNN reports.

Whitaker is expected to take on oversight of the Robert Mueller probe despite the fact that he worked for one of the witnesses and has complained about the probe on conservative media. Whitaker had called Mueller’s appointment as special prosecutor”ridiculous” and “a little fishy.”

“It was not widely known among White House staff that he’d commented repeatedly on the special counsel’s investigation in interviews and on television — which is ironic given that this is what drew President Donald Trump to him and raises continued questions over the depth of the administration’s vetting process,” CNN reports.

The insiders said that the continued negative coverage of the appointment would get Trump’s attention and jeopardize his future in the role.


’How stupid is Matthew Whitaker?’: Lawrence O’Donnell explains how the ‘fake attorney general’ could end up in jail

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell explained on Thursday that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker could be facing federal prison time for obstruction of justice if he interferes with special counsel Robert Mueller.

“The question for Matthew Whitaker, who now occupies the Attorney General’s office of the Justice Department, is does he think he can get away with interfering in Robert Mueller’s investigation of the president?” O’Donnell asked. “We know that’s what the president wants him to do.”

The segment aired the same day over 1,000 #ProtectMueller protests were held to defend the special counsel investigation.

“Donald Trump is that peculiar kind of criminally-minded person who publicly declares his criminal intent,” O’Donnell noted. “He has said he wants an attorney general who will work for him personally, who will protect him personally, who will obstruct justice for him personally — if necessary — and not work for the American people and not protect justice.”

O’Donnell laid out the relevant questions about Whitaker’s intelligence that are now critical.

“Is Matthew Whitaker smart enough to know that he is going to have to testify under oath to the House Judiciary Committee about any interference that he might try to engage in with the Mueller investigation?” he wondered.

“Is Matthew Whitaker smart enough to know that there is a five-year statute of limitations on the federal crime of obstruction of justice?” he wondered. “And that the next Democratic attorney general, who will probably be chosen during the presidential transition two years from now, will be empowered to immediately investigate every suspicious thing that Matthew Whitaker might be foolish enough to do as Donald Trump’s fake attorney general?”

“So how smart is Matthew Whitaker? How stupid is Matthew Whitaker?” he asked. “How reckless is Matthew Whitaker?”

“Judging by his previous public comments as a right-wing pundit, he sounds like the kind of guy who could get himself in serious criminal trouble,” O’Donnell concluded.

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFFJDmX7Nzs


‘When was that?’: Watch Lindsey 'I love being Trump's drag queen' Graham bumble after Fox News airs his previous comments about Trump firing Sessions

Martin Cizmar
Raw Story
09 Nov 2018 at 20:14 ET                  

Sen. Lindsey 'I love being Trump's drag queen' Graham (R-SC) has become one of President Donald Trump’s staunchest supporters in Congress—a tireless defender of Trump agenda and character.

But, not so long ago, Graham was a skeptic of Trump who tried to hold his worst impulses in check.

Back in July 2017, Graham said there would be “holy hell to pay” if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions to quash the Robert Mueller probe and warned it would be “the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency.”

    Strong words from Graham: "Holy hell to pay" if Trump fires Sessions, and going after Mueller = beginning of the end of Trump's presidency pic.twitter.com/uFbWnFfKTm

    — Nolan D. McCaskill (@NolanDMcCaskill) July 27, 2017

On Thursday night, Fox News asked Graham about his old comments, making him visibly uncomfortable.

“When was that?” Graham said. “What year?”

“July of 2017,” said anchor Martha MacCallum.

“Hehehehehehehehe,” Graham said. “So… Hehe. Yeah… So, what I’ve been saying for months is that every president deserves an Attorney General they have confidence in.”


WATCH: Former FBI official predicts Mueller is ‘ready to indict some folks’ and explains how he’ll pull it off

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

The former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the Federal Bureau of Investigation laid out a series of fascinating predictions as to how he thinks special counsel Robert Mueller will proceed after the appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting Attorney General.

Frank Figliuzzi joined MSNBC anchor Brian Williams for the “11th Hour” on Thursday.

“So Frank, what do you think is happening with Robert Mueller behind the scenes?” Williams asked.

“Well, I’ve got a theory, Brian — and it’s just a theory — but perhaps Bob Mueller has already indicated to us what he’s going to do,” he suggested. “Perhaps what we’ll see is Bob Mueller telling us the story of a corrupt president through indictments.”

“I think the Whitaker appointment steps up the timeline and I think perhaps if Mueller sticks to the strategy of telling us the story through indictments — the indictments speak to us — that he’ll speak to us soon, very soon, with additional indictments, perhaps that tell the story of a corrupt president,” he continued.

At that point, Figliuzzi’s satellite feed cut out, but he was quickly reconnected with Williams.

Williams asked Figliuzzi about his referring to Mueller as a “short-timer” before the show.

“Well, I think his days are numbered,” he answered. “So Mueller knows that. He’s, you know, he’s been there, done that. He’s prepared for this.”

Figliuzzi said, “I think he’s ready to indict some folks and through those indictments will tell the story of what he’s found against the president.”

“I’m not saying he’s indicting the president. I’m saying there’s a middle ground where he tells us the story, locks it into the court system by indicting others, then files a report with Whitaker,” he concluded.


Democrat who will lead Intel committee reveals plan to look at Trump’s laundering of Russian money

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

The Democrat expected to chair the House Intelligence Committee when his party takes control in January intends to investigate the “national security” implications of alleged Russian money laundering through the Trump Organization.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) currently serves as the ranking member the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Schiff successfully prosecuted a FBI agent for giving secrets to the Soviets.

He joined MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday to explain the change in the committee’s that will occur when it is no longer run by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA).

“We are also going seek to look at the unexplored avenues of investigation, things that could threaten the national security of the United States,” Schiff pledged. “Issues like money laundering, if Russians were laundering money through the Trump Organization — and there’s serious allegation is a long these lines — that would be a powerful point of leverage of a foreign adversary over the president of the United States.”

“That would be something that could warp our foreign policy and jeopardize our national security,” Schiff concluded.

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLKKNiqWmJU


Watch: Nicolle Wallace reveals how corruption became the Trump’s ‘family business’

Raw Story
09 Nov 2018

On Thursday, MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace examined how corruption became the Trump’s “family business” and the extent to which the ir legal liability may have motivated the ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“What’s going to happen to the president’s son?” Wallace asked. “According to Politico, quote, ‘Donald Trump Jr. has told friends in recent weeks that he believes he could be indicted, according to one of those people.'”

“On top of that report, Gab Sherman from Vanity Fair goes a bit further,” Wallace continued. “Three sources tell him junior has been telling friends it could happen this week.”

“It points to the peril the president has placed his own family — in the campaign and in the presidency — he made a choice to bring them into his world to rely on them, to bring them into the highest levels of the campaign and now they’re on the hook for what happened in that campaign,” noted New York Times political reporter Nick Confessore .

“There are four families with two generations ensnared in the Mueller probe,” Wallace noted.

“You’ve got Manafort and his son-in-law. Flynn and his son. Jared … son-in-law of Donald Trump,” she noted. “And Trump and Donald Trump Jr.”

“It’s unbelievable these corrupt political practices became a family business,” Wallace noted.

Watch:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YXJEHNPs8


Trump counting on Kavanaugh to OK his new round of controversial executive orders: report

Noor Al-Sibai
Raw Story
09 Nov 2018 at 16:53 ET                  

White House insiders admit that Donald Trump expects his administration will be sued over its latest immigration policy — but with Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, he expects to win those suits.

Two senior administration officials that spoke to NBC News said that “of the [immigration] measures most likely to be approved by the president, all were likely to lead to a lawsuit.”

With the administration unveiling a new policy Thursday night that will expedite deportations of people who cross into the US illegally and deny previously legal asylum claims and sign an executive order on that policy Friday morning, the White House is prepared for the lawsuits likely to be brought against it.

“Although the Trump administration expects to be enjoined and stopped in the near term,” one of the officials told NBC, “they believe a policy based on the discretionary authority of the president over who is admitted to the U.S. will ultimately hold up in the Supreme Court.”

The other official said that an executive order likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court “is the best alternative” with Congress stalled on immigration.

Despite the administration’s reported confidence in Kavanaugh voting in the president’s favor, the new justice’s most recent record tells a different story.

Slate reported on November 5 that Kavanaugh has declined to “run interference” for Trump in three of his early rulings — when he declined to rule on the controversial citizenship question on the 2020 Census; when he did not publicly share his vote on the deposition of former commerce secretary Wilbur Ross and stayed mum on the court’s decision to punt the legality of the citizenship question to a circuit court.

* the stooge called Matt-Whitaker.jpg (41.29 KB, 800x430 - viewed 92 times.)

* miss-lindsey-has-the-vapors-again-by-hip-is-everything_thumb1.jpg (113.8 KB, 640x654 - viewed 76 times.)

* topshot-us-art-vote-trump-5f699fc39f957917.jpg (140.34 KB, 1024x670 - viewed 86 times.)

* images (2).jpg (10.1 KB, 254x198 - viewed 99 times.)
« Last Edit: Nov 09, 2018, 07:27 AM by Rad » Logged
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28235

« Reply #1067 on: Nov 09, 2018, 06:49 AM »

Sarah Sanders promotes an altered video of CNN reporter, sparking allegations of visual propaganda
Watch two versions of Acosta video side-by-side

By Paul Farhi
November 9 2018
Wa Post

The Trump administration is plainly upset with the behavior of a certain CNN reporter. But how far is it willing to go to make its case that the reporter acted improperly during a news conference with President Trump?

Watch; <iframe width='480' height='290' scrolling='no' src='https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/4b574570-e36b-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac' frameborder='0' webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

One answer emerged Wednesday night when White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of the episode, involving CNN’s Jim Acosta, the network’s chief White House correspondent. Experts said the video, in which Acosta is seen rebuffing a press aide’s attempt to take a microphone out of his hands, was altered to exaggerate the aggressiveness of Acosta’s actions.

If that is the case, the video may belong in a category rarely employed by democratic governments: visual propaganda.

The White House video, apparently made by a contributor to the conspiracy-peddling website Infowars , speeds up the movement of Acosta’s arms as the unidentified aide grabs at the mic during a heated conversation between the reporter and Trump. The video tweeted by Sanders also eliminated Acosta’s comment to the young woman — “Pardon me, ma’am” — as he sought to continue questioning the president.

On Thursday, Sanders offered no apologies. “The question is: Did the reporter make contact or not?” she asked reporters a day after the White House revoked Acosta’s press credentials for his alleged transgression. “The video is clear, he did. We stand by our statement.”

The White House’s actions and account of them has drawn widespread condemnation, particularly from journalists and news organizations. The White House News Photographers Association, among others, said it was appalled by Sanders’s video.

“As visual journalists, we know that manipulating images is manipulating truth,” said the group’s president, Whitney Shefte, a Washington Post videographer. “It’s deceptive, dangerous and unethical. Knowingly sharing manipulated images is equally problematic, particularly when the person sharing them is a representative of our country’s highest office with vast influence over public opinion.”

Totalitarian governments have long recognized the value of altering photos and videos to manipulate public opinion and perception. Officials were regularly airbrushed out of state photos in the Soviet Union as dictators such as Joseph Stalin purged internal enemies. Wartime governments regularly censor images or release them selectively to maintain popular order and morale.

Modern-day regimes vigorously employ digital techniques to fool viewers; North Korea’s propaganda ministry routinely alters images emanating from the isolated nation, from photos of leader Kim Jong Un’s ears to state-issued pictures of the country’s military prowess.

Such tactics are have been irregularly employed in democracies like the United States, too. Political campaigns are rife with fake images. During his red-baiting campaign of the early 1950s, Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) distributed doctored photos of his opponents to suggest communist sympathies, according to Boston University journalism professor Christopher Daly. One “composite” photograph appeared to show Sen. Millard Tydings (D-Md.) deep in conversation with the head of the American Communist Party.

One of the most notorious instances of deliberate image ma­nipu­la­tion by the White House, said Daly, was its presentation of photos of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. The photos, apparently showing a minor naval skirmish, helped persuade Congress to pass a resolution granting President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to provide greater military assistance to the government of South Vietnam.

News organizations disapprove of altering photos and videos, on the premise that doing so deceives readers and viewers. News photos are cropped to better frame the action in them, and videos are edited to enhance clarity and storytelling — all considered legitimate practices. But some images are unethically altered. Judges in the annual World Press Photo competition have regularly disqualified entries because of “excessive” post-processing, such as toning that removes or hides objects in a photo.

Among the most infamous examples of news-photo ma­nipu­la­tion were National Geographic’s shot of the Egyptian pyramids, “squeezed” together to fit on the magazine’s cover in 1982, and Time magazine’s cover image of O.J. Simpson in 1994. Time darkened Simpson’s image, making him look more sinister and menacing.

While Sanders’s Acosta tweet doesn’t rise to Gulf of Tonkin levels, it raises several troubling questions, said Emmett Sullivan, who lectures in modern history and imagemaking at the University of London. He said that the video she distributed is identical to one by Paul Joseph Watson, a conspiracy theorist affiliated with Alex Jones’ Infowars site.

“The issue is then not one of manipulation, but simply judgment in sourcing your information,” said Sullivan. “Why not use the C-SPAN feed directly? America can expect the president’s press secretary to cite the best sources, and Sarah Sanders has failed the American people here.”

In a tweet on Thursday, Watson disputed that his video was altered: “The media, with zero fact checking, launched a conspiracy claiming I ‘sped up’ or ‘doctored’ the Jim Acosta video so they could distract from Acosta’s behavior. This is false. I did not ‘doctor’ or ‘speed up’ anything. It was all fake news.”

Acosta, who has tangled often with the White House and Trump, tweeted that Sanders’s claim that he put his hands on the press aide was “a lie.”

Sullivan says governments are less likely than ever to knowingly pass off a fake. The reason: “It is simply too easy for the manipulation to be spotted now. It generates too much adverse publicity in the media and social media precisely because video is such a common medium of communication.”

Then again, technology has created a kind of “arms race” between tools that permit video and photo ma­nipu­la­tion and those designed to sniff out the fakes, said Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at Dartmouth College.

“Obviously releasing misleading or doctored information is problematic, particularly when done by our officials,” he said. But as the technology advances, he said, the question of what’s real and what’s not may be up for debate. “As the technology that allows us to manipulate images gets more sophisticated and easier to use, then the claim that a video is fake becomes more credible,” he said.

Farid points to another infamous piece of video to illustrate his point, the “Access Hollywood” tape of Trump bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women. When that recording was revealed in 2016, he said, “nobody said it was fake.” Since then, Trump has cast doubt on its authenticity.

“If that recording broke today, he would’ve almost certainly say it is fake,” he said. And given the spread of digital-altering technology, he “would have had plausible deniability.”

* Capture.JPG (96.79 KB, 1008x615 - viewed 83 times.)

* 0 rj0KEkAyI5zRfNwY.jpg (135.76 KB, 847x868 - viewed 82 times.)

* sarah-huckabee-sanders.jpg (80.94 KB, 645x484 - viewed 77 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28235

« Reply #1068 on: Nov 09, 2018, 11:10 AM »

Real America Versus Senate America

Some of us are more equal than others, and they like Trump

By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
NY Times
Nov. 9, 2018

Everyone is delivering post-mortems on Tuesday’s elections, so for what it’s worth, here’s mine: Despite some bitter disappointments and lost ground in the Senate, Democrats won a huge victory. They broke the Republican monopoly on federal power, and that’s a very big deal for an administration that has engaged in blatant corruption and abuse of power, in the belief that an impenetrable red wall would always protect it from accountability. They also made major gains at the state level, which will have a big impact on future elections.

But given this overall success, how do we explain those Senate losses? Many people have pointed out that this year’s Senate map was unusually bad for Democrats, consisting disproportionately of states Donald Trump won in 2016. But there was actually a deeper problem, one that will pose long-term problems, not just for Democrats, but for the legitimacy of our whole political system. For economic and demographic trends have interacted with political change to make the Senate deeply unrepresentative of American reality.

How is America changing? Immigration and our growing racial and cultural diversity are only part of the story. We’re also witnessing a transformation in the geography of our economy, as dynamic industries increasingly gravitate to big metropolitan areas where there are already large numbers of highly educated workers. It’s not an accident that Amazon is planning to put its two new headquarters in New York and the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, both places with an existing deep pool of talent.

Obviously not everyone lives — or wants to live — in these growth centers of the new economy. But we are increasingly a nation of urbanites and suburbanites. Almost 60 percent of us live in metropolitan areas with more than a million people, more than 70 percent in areas with more than 500,000 residents. Conservative politicians may extol the virtues of a “real America” of rural areas and small towns, but the real real America in which we live, while it contains small towns, is mostly metropolitan.

But here’s the thing: The Senate, which gives each state the same number of seats regardless of population — which gives fewer than 600,000 people in Wyoming the same representation as almost 40 million in California — drastically overweights those rural areas and underweights the places where most Americans live.

I find it helpful to contrast the real America, the place we actually live, with what I think of as “Senate America,” the hypothetical nation implied by a simple average across states, which is what the Senate in effect represents.

As I said, real America is mainly metropolitan; Senate America is still largely rural.

Real America is racially and culturally diverse; Senate America is still very white.

Real America includes large numbers of highly educated adults; Senate America, which underweights the dynamic metropolitan areas that attract highly educated workers, has a higher proportion of non-college people, and especially non-college whites.

None of this is meant to denigrate rural, non-college, white voters. We’re all Americans, and we all deserve an equal voice in shaping our national destiny. But as it is, some of us are more equal than others. And that poses a big problem in an era of deep partisan division.

Not to put too fine a point on it: What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism, which is always part of that cocktail. This message repels a majority of Americans. That’s why Tuesday’s election in the House — which despite gerrymandering and other factors is far more representative of the country as a whole than the Senate — produced a major Democratic wave.

But the message does resonate with a minority of Americans. These Americans are, of course, white, and are more likely than not to reside outside big, racially diverse metropolitan areas — because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants. And these are precisely the places that have a disproportionate role in choosing senators.

So what happened Tuesday, with Republicans getting shellacked in the House but gaining in the Senate, wasn’t just an accident of this year’s map or specific campaign issues. It reflected a deep division in culture, indeed values, between the American citizenry at large and the people who get to choose much of the Senate.

This divergence will have profound implications, because the Senate has a lot of power, especially when the president — who, let us not forget, lost the popular vote — leads the party that controls it. In particular, Trump and his Senate friends will spend the next couple of years stuffing the courts with right-wing loyalists.

We may, then, be looking at a growing crisis of legitimacy for the U.S. political system — even if we get through the constitutional crisis that seems to be looming over the next few months.

* corporate slut mconnel.JPG (42.32 KB, 471x465 - viewed 75 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1069 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:23 AM »

The surprising secret to successful psychotherapy

The Conversation

As a clinical psychologist and educator, I am often asked to recommend a psychotherapist for people in need. These requests come with a sense of urgency to find the best possible therapist. Many people are at a loss over what to look for.

Here I offer an answer, not just to the question of what makes for a great therapist, but what else helps make therapy work. Decades of research on what improves psychotherapy outcomes yields surprising answers.

Curiously, some things that could matter a lot don’t. These include the therapist’s experience, gender, profession or graduate degree, and even the school of therapy practised. In fact, differences among therapists account for only five per cent of the variability in treatment outcomes.

Of course, five per cent is not nothing and I’ll come back to what makes up these therapist differences. However, it is clear we need to look elsewhere to discover what else makes therapy work.
Be willing to endure discomfort

First, it’s important to know that, in general, psychotherapy is highly effective. Across a wide range of psychological problems and many different types of people, therapy simply works.

For some, the benefits of therapy can be obtained in as few as seven sessions, while others need more to improve. Considering that many untreated problems last for years, or even a lifetime, psychotherapy can be life-changing.

If the particular therapist and type of therapy received are not as important as we thought, who or what does influence outcome?

To a large extent it’s the client. The quality of a patient’s participation in therapy is a key determinant of the outcome.

Understanding how clients make therapy work requires a drastic overhaul of the assumption that they passively respond to the ministrations of guru-like therapists. On the contrary, it is clients’ active participation in therapy through their involvement, learning and application of what they learn that leads to improvement.

For this to occur, it helps if clients are open to exploring their emotions and internal experiences and are willing to endure discomfort and make efforts to achieve change. This requires motivation; enhancing motivation prior to therapy improves outcomes.

Perhaps this is why clients who are in greater distress at the outset of treatment tend to show greater benefit.

Therapist as dance partner

Clients undergoing in-person therapy don’t do this work on their own but in collaboration with their therapist. The quality of this collaborative relationship is in itself an enormously important contributor to good therapy outcomes.

In a good collaboration, both therapist and client work at maintaining a positive relationship and need to continuously respond and adjust to the other, much like dance partners working in synchrony do.
Successful therapy involves collaboration and attunement.

As it turns out, good therapists (I said I’d come back to this) are attentive to building just such a positive alliance and repairing it as needed. They are good at being responsive to clients’ evolving needs and wishes in treatment.

Finding a good therapist then becomes a matter of finding someone who listens well, empathizes, is responsive and can empower the client with hope and bravery to do the difficult work ahead.The Conversation

Edward A. Johnson, Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Manitoba

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

* shutterstock_247411303.jpg (47.73 KB, 800x430 - viewed 99 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1070 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:34 AM »

Judge Halts Keystone XL, Rules Trump ‘Cannot Simply Disregard’ Climate Science


Of the many Obama-era environmental decisions that President Donald Trump reversed once he took office, one of the most painful was his move to re-approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta's tar sands through Montana to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines leading to the Gulf Coast.

President Barack Obama finally rejected the pipeline after a massive popular movement protested the creation of more fossil fuel infrastructure in an age of runaway climate change. It was disappointing to see all that hard work undone with a scrawl of a pen.

That's why it is so exciting to report that a federal judge has thrown a wrench in the pipeline's construction. Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court in Montana ruled Thursday that the project cannot proceed until the Trump administration produces an environmental impact report that actually deals with the fact of climate change, The Huffington Post Reported.

This is a major victory for the environmental groups that sued the administration to stop the pipeline, as well as the indigenous groups who have long protested it and anyone who cares about life on Earth.

"Despite the best efforts of wealthy, multinational corporations and the powerful politicians who cynically do their bidding, we see that everyday people can still band together and successfully defend their rights," Dena Hoff, a Montana farmer and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council, one of the groups that brought the suit, told The Huffington Post.

Morris ruled that the State Department needed to write a supplement to the 2014 environmental impact statement that the Trump administration relied on to approve the project. The new statement must take into account the risks posed by the project: oil spills, damage to indigenous resources and climate change.

One of the best parts about the whole thing is that Morris is clearly as fed up with Trump's love of alternative facts as the rest of us. He especially called the administration out for simply acting like the climate science that led Obama to block the project didn't exist.

"An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate," Morris wrote.

Since Obama blocked the pipeline in 2015, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued an even starker warnings on how quickly we must act to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Since greenhouse gas emissions need to fall to 45 percent of 2010 levels within 12 years, it's hard to see how any honest environmental impact statement could justify a 1,179 mile pipeline project.

Construction would have begun early next year in Montana and TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, was already moving equipment in preparation. Forgive us if we don't feel sorry for them.

* Capture.JPG (91.32 KB, 822x424 - viewed 97 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1071 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:36 AM »

Congo Basin Rainforest Could Be Gone by 2100

By Morgan Erickson-Davis

Africa's Congo Basin is home to the second largest rainforest on the planet. But according to a new study, this may soon not be the case. It finds that at current rates of deforestation, all primary forest will be gone by the end of the century.

The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) in the U.S. who analyzed satellite data collected between 2000 and 2014. Their results were published Wednesday in Science Advances. It reveals that the Congo Basin lost around 165,000 square kilometers (approximately 64,000 square miles) of forest during their study period.

In other words, one of the world's largest rainforests lost an area of forest bigger than Bangladesh in the span of 15 years.

The Congo Basin rainforest is home to many species, such as this okapi (Okapia johnstoni), which is listed as Endangered by the IUCN and is found only in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

But why? Is it due to industrial pressure like in South America and Southeast Asia where the majority of deforestation has been done for soy, palm oil and other commodity crops? Or commercial logging, which is razing forests on the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea?

Not so much, according to this newest study. It reveals that the dominant force behind rising Congo deforestation, driving more than 80 percent of the region's total forest loss, is actually small-scale clearing for subsistence agriculture. The researchers write that most of it is done by hand with simple axes.

According to the authors, the preponderance of small-scale deforestation of Congo rainforest is due largely to poverty stemming from political instability and conflict in the region. The Congo Basin rainforest is shared by six countries: Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of the Congo (RoC) and Gabon. Of these, the DRC holds the largest share of Congo forest—60 percent—and is home to more people than the other five combined. The DRC, along with CAR, has a human development index in the bottom 10 percent, meaning that lifespans, education levels and per capita GDP there are among the lowest in the world.

Three-year moving average of annual forest loss area for the major disturbance categories in all countries

With few livelihood options, most people survive by carving farmland out of the forest. These plots are farmed until the soil runs dry of nutrients, whereupon a new plot is cleared and planted.

Before now, it wasn't exactly understood how much this type of smallholder farming called "shifting cultivation" and other forms of small-scale agriculture were contributing to overall Congo deforestation. So UMD researchers looked for patterns signaling different types of deforestation in regional tree cover loss data captured by satellites.

According to study coauthor Alexandra Tyukavina, "It was important for us to explicitly quantify proportions of different drivers, to demonstrate just how dominant the small-scale clearing of forests for shifting cultivation is within the region, and to show that it's not only re-clearing of secondary forests, but also expansion into primary forests." Tyukavina is a post-doctoral associate at UMD's Department of Geographical Sciences.

Tyukavina and her colleagues found that small-scale forest clearing for agriculture contributed to around 84 percent of Congo Basin deforestation between 2000 and 2014. When zooming in on the portions contained only in the DRC and CAR, that number goes up to more than 90 percent. The only country where small-scale agriculture isn't the driving force of deforestation is Gabon, where industrial selective logging is the biggest single cause of forest loss.

The study also reveals that the majority—60 percent—of Congo deforestation between 2000 and 2014 happened in primary forests and woodlands, and in mature secondary forests.

Pre-disturbance forest type. (A) Reference pre-disturbance type for sampled pixels identified as forest loss. (B) National estimates of 2000-2014 forest loss area by re-disturbance forest type. Area estimates expressed in ha along with SEs are presented table S2A.

The United Nations projects that there will be a fivefold increase in human population in the Congo Basin by the end of the century. The researchers found that if current trends hold, this means that there will be no primary Congo rainforest left by 2100.

In their study, the researchers also warn of "a new wave" of large-scale clearing for industrial agriculture. While contributing a comparatively scant 1 percent of Congo deforestation during the study period, it appears to be trending upward, particularly in coastal countries.

"Land use planning that minimizes the conversion of natural forest cover for agro-industry will serve to mitigate this nascent and growing threat to primary forests," the researchers write.

* Capture.JPG (103.65 KB, 826x421 - viewed 96 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1072 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:39 AM »

BHP Billiton facing £5bn lawsuit from Brazilian victims of dam disaster

Action launched in Liverpool against Anglo-Australian mining company after 2015 tragedy that killed 19 people

Jonathan Watts Global environment editor
10 Nov 2018 18.50 GMT

The worst environmental disaster in Brazil’s history has triggered one of the biggest legal claims ever filed in a British court.

The Anglo-Australian mining company BHP Billiton is being sued for about £5bn by Brazilian victims of the Samarco dam collapse in Mariana three years ago.

The class action case was filed in the Liverpool high court on Monday by the UK-based SPG Law on behalf of 240,000 individuals, 24 municipal governments, 11,000 businesses, a Catholic archdiocese and about 200 members of the Krenak indigenous community.

Nineteen people died after toxic waters from the failed tailings dam surged through the village of Bento Rodrigues on 5 November 2015. The sludge destroyed hundreds of homes, devastated fisheries, contaminated forests and left hundreds of thousands of dwellers along the Doce River without drinking water.

It emerged that the company had accurately predicted the risks in a worst-case assessment made six months earlier. Prosecutors charged senior executives of the dam operator Samarco Mineração with homicide and accused its parent companies – Vale and BHP Billiton – of environment damage.

A civil case has been filed in Brazilian courts, but the plaintiffs believe they have more chance to get fair and speedy compensation in Britain than in their home country, where courts can take more than a decade to reach a judgement and compensation offers are far short of the damages incurred.

Lawyers in the UK say that, in certain cases, they will seek 10 to 20 times the damages being offered to individuals in Brazil. For example, individuals who lost their water supply for two weeks have been offered £200 in Brazil whereas £2,000 to £4000 will be claimed in the UK. Fishermen who have only been offered £20,000 each to cover the losses associated with three years’ worth of catches will be seeking 20 years’ worth of future losses based on the slow pace of river recovery. Local governments will demand lost tax revenues and compensation for increased health and unemployment costs.

If jurisdiction in the UK is accepted, the lawsuit is likely to raise the international profile of the case. The first hearing would be next summer and the case could last two to five years. Representatives from the affected communities will be called to testify in Liverpool along with expert witnesses, including Brazilian lawyer Érica Gorga.

Tom Goodhead of the Anglo-American SPG Law firm said many of the plaintiffs suffered catastrophic losses yet received almost no compensation after three years in contravention of Brazilian law which says full damages should be paid and the environment be completely restored after an accident.

“Brazil’s courts are cripplingly slow,” he said. “The main purpose of filing this case in the UK is to move at greater speed and to seek a greater amount. People have been let down by the politicians and the courts. We tell them there is no guarantee of winning, but we will put up a proper fight on their behalf.”

The law firm will work on a no-win no-fee basis, taking a maximum of 30% of any compensation they are able to secure for the plaintiffs. This will not be levied in the case of the indigenous community. SPG Law has already spent £1.5m on the case and estimates future costs of £18m, according to Goodhead.

BHP Billiton has yet to respond to a request for a comment, but in previous statements to the Guardian, Samarco, Vale and BHP Billiton said they rejected the charges, that safety had been and remained a priority and that the dam complied with Brazilian legislation. The companies have said they would defend their employees and executives.

Separately from the civil action in Brazil, the three companies made a deal with the federal and state governments in March 2016 to carry out repair, restoration and reconstruction programmes. They have spent more than $1bn on a huge clean-up and relief operation, separate from civil actions launched by prosecutors.

Samarco has paid about $6.7m in fines levied separately by the state government of Minas Gerais. BHP has also announced that it is working on restoring the affected area through a charitable foundation.

• This article was amended on 7 November 2018 to make clear that it is about 200 people, not the entire Krenak community, joining the class action.

* 4000.jpg (58.92 KB, 620x372 - viewed 88 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1073 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:44 AM »

Two Native American women are headed to Congress. This is why it matters

Centuries ago, colonists demoted indigenous women from leadership roles. We’ve been fighting to get them back ever since.

By Sarah Sunshine Manning
Sarah Sunshine Manning (Shoshone-Paiute) is a writer, producer and host of the "While Indigenous"
November 10 2018
Wa Post

History was made, twice over, in Tuesday’s midterm elections, when two Native American women won seats in the House of Representatives. Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo from New Mexico, and Sharice Davids, a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation from Kansas, will be the first Native American women to serve in Congress.

Throughout Indian Country, as the interconnected community of Native Americans is affectionately known, indigenous people were overjoyed. On a night of many firsts (the first Muslim women were elected to Congress, and Davids is also the first openly gay person elected to represent Kansas), these victories were partly about representation. Native Americans were made citizens of this country only in 1924, and they weren’t afforded the right in some states to vote until 1948. “I never imagined a world where I would be represented by someone who looks like me,” Haaland said in her victory speech, to thundering cheers.

But this is about more than a marginalized group seeing its reflection in Congress. For Native American women, this is also about asserting their ancestral right to leadership in a society that has overlooked and undermined the power of indigenous women.

Native American women held tremendous power in pre-colonial, egalitarian societies across the Americas. Yet as a result of generations of colonialism, indigenous women have been made invisible, virtually written out of history and out of leadership by colonial officials.

In pre-colonial nations such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy of the Northeast, clan mothers played central roles in ensuring balanced governance and were responsible for appointing tribal leaders and chiefs. The clan mothers often had the first and the last say, sometimes shaping decisions about whether the men went to war, and served as respected counselors for their clans and communities.

Among the Diné of the Southwest, a matrilineal nation, it was always the women who owned property, and clans were and still are passed down through the women’s lineage. As with the Haudenosaunee and many other tribal nations during the point of contact with early settlers, Diné women were simply not given the same deference as men when it came to recognition from the settler officials.

Colonization fractured the delicate balance in many tribal nations, where women and men alike held valued roles in the community. Forced assimilation through federal government policies undermined the spiritual lifeways of indigenous people, who deeply valued feminine life sources, Mother Earth above all.

Men were designated heads of household by Indian agents in the early reservation era, and the convention of paternal last names helped replace any semblance of traditional gender balance in the home. Settlers also saw indigenous women virtually in the same manner that they perceived the land: there for the taking. Indigenous women have suffered generations of physical and sexual assaults at the hands of white men and colonial forces. Today, Native American women remain the most likely demographic to experience sexual and physical assault.

The historic wins of Davids and Haaland, and the many other victories for Native American women in elections nationwide (including Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota’s lieutenant governor race and Ruth Buffalo winning a seat in North Dakota’s House of Representatives), are indicative of a movement among indigenous people today to decolonize — including efforts to reclaim traditional philosophies and tribal languages and to rethink education in tribal schools — and reconnect to the strength of who we once were: nations with strong women, with gender equity and with women as valued leaders in the community.

Beyond gender, the wins of Davids and Haaland are significant for Native Americans. In my experience, many Native Americans struggle to trust fully in the American political system, because the federal government long eroded tribal sovereignty, stifled indigenous agency and created policies that disenfranchised tribal communities to the point of generational povertyand despair. More recently, legislation in North Dakota created obstacles for Native American voters in the state, adding voter suppression to the history of injustices.

In Albuquerque, Haaland spoke to some of those disparities. “Seventy years ago, Native Americans right here in New Mexico couldn’t vote,” she said. “I want to tell everyone in this room, people who have been under attack who deserve never to be erased: I see you, I’m listening.”

The ascent to political power is a final, formal recognition of the role of indigenous women. It reconnects Native voters to their peoples’ historic respect of all feminine life sources, including Mother Earth. Imagine the world that sort of reverence and balance will create.

* Deb Haaland.jpg (179.44 KB, 1500x994 - viewed 89 times.)

* Sharice Davids.jpg (120.21 KB, 1484x1015 - viewed 94 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1074 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:46 AM »

Sri Lanka's president calls snap election in bid to end power struggle

The country has been engulfed by a political crisis over the ousting of its prime minister

Sat 10 Nov 2018 03.36 GMT

Sri Lanka has plunged deeper into crisis after president Maithripala Sirisena called a snap election, leaving the country facing a further two months of damaging political paralysis with a pair of bitter rivals claiming to run his government.

In what opponents condemned as an illegal move, Sirisena dissolved the country’s parliament on Friday in a gamble that a new election will secure backing for his preferred candidate as prime minister, over an ousted premier who has refused to leave.

Sirisena signed a decree dismissing the island’s 225-member assembly and scheduled parliamentary elections for 5 January, nearly two years ahead of schedule.

Hours earlier Sirisena’s party admitted it did not have enough votes to support former president Mahinda Rajapakse against rival claimant and ousted premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, who has refused to leave his post.

The two have been battling for the prime minister’s post for two weeks as international concern grows over the mounting turmoil.

There was no immediate comment from Wickremesinghe, but his United National Party, or UNP, said it will challenge Sirisena’s sacking of the legislature.

“This dissolution by the President is illegal and goes against the constitution,” the UNP said on Twitter. “We will be fighting this to ensure that democracy reigns supreme in the country.”

“He has robbed the people of their rights and the democracy that we have enjoyed,” the UNP said

Sirisena had come under increased international pressure from the United States, the United Nations and the European Union to allow parliament to vote on which prime minister should form a government.

Washington swiftly criticised Sirisena’s latest move.

“The US is deeply concerned by news the Sri Lanka parliament will be dissolved, further deepening the political crisis,” the US State Department said in a statement on Twitter.

“As a committed partner of Sri Lanka, we believe democratic institutions and processes need to be respected to ensure stability and prosperity,” it said.

Sirisena’s United People’s Freedom Alliance admitted ahead of the president’s stunning announcement that they had failed to secure enough cross-over MPs to win a confidence vote.

By avoiding a test of his majority on the floor of the House, Rajapakse will remain caretaker prime minister until elections are concluded and a new parliament meets on 17 January.

Sirisena sparked the crisis on 26 October by sacking Wickremesinghe and replacing him as prime minister with Rajapakse, the country’s authoritarian president from 2005 until 2015.

Sirisena had claimed on Monday he had the support of 113 legislators when he sacked Wickremesinghe. But the admission of a lack of a majority had fuelled speculation that he might sack the legislature and go for a snap election.

The leftist People’s Liberation Front, which regards the sacking of Wickremesinghe as unconstitutional, accused Sirisena of trying to consolidate his power grab.

“Dissolving parliament at this time is illegal and goes against the constitution,” the party’s general secretary, Tilvin Silva, told reporters.

Sirisena suspended parliament to give himself more time to engineer defections, according to the opposition. Several legislators have said they were offered millions of dollars to switch allegiance and at least eight have already jumped to the president’s side.

Wickremesinghe, who has not left the Temple Trees residence since his sacking, maintains that the action against him was unconstitutional and illegal, and insists his group can muster a majority.

Under pressure from the UN, the US and the EU to allow a parliamentary vote, Sirisena agreed three times to lift the suspension but changed his mind each time.

The EU said on Friday, before the dissolution, that the crisis had scarred the Indian Ocean island’s international reputation.

In a joint statement with Norway and Switzerland, the EU called for parliament to reconvene and hold an immediate vote.

The power struggle on the island of 21 million people has paralysed much of the administration, according to legislators on both sides of the dispute.

* 3056.jpg (34.9 KB, 620x372 - viewed 89 times.)
« Last Edit: Nov 10, 2018, 07:13 AM by Darja » Logged
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1075 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:47 AM »

Germany, France, UK, US and Saudi Arabia 'have Khashoggi tapes'

Turkey has shared audio recording of Saudi journalist’s killing, President Erdoğan says

Reuters in Istanbul
10 Nov 2018 12.28 GMT

Ankara has given recordings on the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi to Saudi Arabia, the US, Germany, France and Britain, Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said.

Turkish sources have said previously that authorities have an audio recording purportedly documenting the murder.

Speaking before his departure for France to attend commemorations to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the first world war, Erdoğan said Saudi Arabia knew that Khashoggi’s killer was among a group of 15 people who arrived in Turkey the day before the journalist’s death.

Khashoggi’s body has still not been found a month after his disappearance when he entered the consulate to obtain marriage papers while his fiancee, Hatice Cengiz, waited outside.

* 4622.jpg (16.94 KB, 620x372 - viewed 94 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1076 on: Nov 10, 2018, 06:50 AM »

French government sounds alarm over rising anti-Semitic acts

New Europe

PARIS  — France's prime minister sounded the alarm Friday over a sharp rise in anti-Semitic acts this year, pledging to increase efforts to punish perpetrators and police hate speech that is flourishing online.

Resurgent anti-Semitism is of national concern in a country with Europe's largest Jewish population, which still struggles to wash away the stain of collaboration with the Nazis and in recent years has seen deadly Islamic extremist attacks targeting Jewish sites.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced on his Facebook page a 69 percent rise in the number of anti-Semitic acts reported to police in the first nine months of 2018 compared to the same period last year.

The government couldn't give a reason for the rise, but Jewish leaders lamented the explosion of hate speech online and beyond. "There's this feeling that something has opened up, a gateway to intolerance and hate," said rabbi and researcher Delphine Horvilleur. "Words kill. It starts with words and very quickly they turn into acts," she said, noting the recent deadly attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

Despite years of French government efforts to fight it, "we are very far from having finished with anti-Semitism," the prime minister wrote. He expressed particular concern because overall, anti-Semitic acts had been on the decline in recent years.

The government won't release specific figures until the end of the year. Over all of 2017, the government reported 311 anti-Semitic acts, from threats to swastikas on Jewish gravesites to physical attacks on people wearing kippas. That was down from 335 the year before, but the number of violent anti-Semitic acts rose, along with anti-Muslim and other violent hate crimes.

The Interior Ministry said part of the recent rise could be attributed to a government push over the past year to encourage people to report hate crimes, including a new online portal to file police reports.

The prime minister promised new measures to better handle victims and punish perpetrators, to take down potentially violent hate speech online more quickly and to help teachers who report anti-Semitic behavior.

"Each attack against one of our compatriots because he or she is Jewish resonates like new broken glass," the prime minister said, in reference to the mass crackdown on Jews throughout Germany and Austria on Nov. 9, 1938 known as the Night of Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht. "It is up to each French person to mobilize 'for' something: for life together, for France's identity, for the values of the Republic."

Islamic extremists targeted a Jewish school and kosher supermarket in two of France's most deadly terrorist attacks in recent years, and some blame Islamic radicalism for resurgent anti-Semitism in France. Muslim leaders acknowledge that some imams have fueled radicalism, but warn against stigmatizing France's millions of moderate Muslims.

"The reality is that when the Jews are targeted it means something is wrong within society," said Horvilleur, the rabbi. "We have to fight together. Anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem. ... It's the nation's problem."

* jpg.jpg (33.23 KB, 940x590 - viewed 81 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1077 on: Nov 10, 2018, 07:09 AM »

There is no way this man should be running the Justice Department

By Editorial Board
WA Post

IS MATTHEW G. WHITAKER the legitimate acting attorney general? From approximately the second President Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and tapped Mr. Whitaker to temporarily exercise the office’s vast authority, legal experts have sparred over whether Mr. Trump can unilaterally elevate someone from a role that does not require Senate confirmation to one that does. But regardless of whether the promotion is legal, it is very clear that it is unwise. Mr. Whitaker is unfit for the job.

Several prominent legal scholars point out that the Constitution demands that “principal officers” of the United States must undergo Senate confirmation. A 19th-century Supreme Court case suggests there may be limited room for temporary fill-ins, but Mr. Whitaker’s appointment is hardly so temporary; he could serve for most of the rest of Mr. Trump’s first term. Even if Mr. Whitaker’s promotion is constitutional, Congress passed a law governing Justice Department succession that also seems to prohibit Mr. Whitaker’s ascent. The department has a capable, Senate-confirmed deputy attorney general in Rod J. Rosenstein; he should be running the department in the absence of a permanent replacement.

The Senate above all should be offended by the president’s end run around its authority. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should demand hearings and consider filing a lawsuit. Instead, he is helping to establish a troubling precedent, saying only that he expects Mr. Whitaker to be a “very interim AG.” Yet no random official should be endowed with all the powers of an office as powerful as attorney general, meant for a Senate-vetted individual, even for a relatively short time.

And Mr. Whitaker is worse than random. It took less than 24 hours for material to emerge suggesting he could not survive even a rudimentary vetting.

First, there are Mr. Whitaker’s statements criticizing the Russia probe of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. At the least, they require him to consult Justice Department ethics counsel about whether he can oversee the inquiry with a plausible appearance of evenhandedness. He will do immediate and lasting harm to the Justice Department’s reputation, and to the nation, if he assumes the role of president’s personal henchman and impedes the Mueller probe.

Then there is Mr. Whitaker’s connection to a defunct patent promotion company the Federal Trade Commission called “an invention-promotion scam that has bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars.” Mr. Whitaker served on its board and once threatened a complaining customer, lending the weight of his former position as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa to the company’s scheme.

Finally, and fundamentally most damning, is Mr. Whitaker’s expressed hostility to Marbury v. Madison, a central case — the central case — in the American constitutional system. It established an indispensable principle: The courts decide what is and is not constitutional. Without Marbury, there would be no effective judicial check on the political branches, no matter how egregious their actions.

If the Senate were consulted, it is impossible to imagine Mr. Whitaker getting close to the attorney general’s office. He should not be there now.


Trump's acting attorney general involved in firm that scammed veterans out of life savings

    Matthew Whitaker was paid advisory board member for WPM
    Veteran: ‘I spent the money on a dream. I lost everything’

Jon Swaine in New York
Sat 10 Nov 2018 12.06 GMT

Donald Trump’s new acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, was involved in a company that scammed US military veterans out of their life savings, according to court filings and interviews.

Whitaker, a former US attorney in Iowa, was paid to work as an advisory board member for World Patent Marketing (WPM), a Florida-based company accused by the US government of tricking aspiring inventors out of millions of dollars. Earlier this year, it was ordered to pay authorities $26m.

Several veterans, two of them with disabilities, said they lost tens of thousands of dollars in the WPM scam, having been enticed into paying for patenting and licensing services by the impressive credentials of Whitaker and his fellow advisers. None said they dealt with Whitaker directly.

“World Patent Marketing has devastated me emotionally, mentally and financially,” Melvin Kiaaina, of Hawaii, told a federal court last year, adding that he trusted the firm with his life savings in part because it “had respected people on the board of directors”.

The 60-year-old said he was a disabled veteran US army paratrooper and paid the company in 2015 and 2016 to patent and promote his ideas for fishing equipment.

“I received nothing for the $14,085 I paid to the company, other than a bad quality drawing and logo that my grandson could have made,” he said.

Kiaaina and other WPM customers described their experiences in declarations to court written under penalty of perjury, as part of a civil lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against WPM and its chief executive, Scott Cooper. Emails filed as evidence to the case showed desperate customers begging Cooper and his team for their money back.

    It was a lot of money, and he blamed me for losing it
    Gwendolyn Artman, ex-wife of WPM client

“You have caused me tremendous grief, I can’t sleep, my stress level is at an all-time high and the last of my savings has been stolen with nothing to show for it,” one unemployed widow, who lost $8,000, wrote to Cooper in December 2016. Another inventor who paid $12,000 said he was left with “a stress related condition that is eating away at my hair”.

In particular, WPM promoted itself as a champion of those who served in the military. “Not only do we honor the veterans and soldiers of our armed forces but we are also celebrating what they are protecting - the American dream,” it said in a statement timed for Veterans Day 2014, which highlighted Whitaker’s role at the firm. WPM claimed to have made an unspecified donation to the Wounded Warrior Project nonprofit, which did not respond to an email seeking confirmation of the payment.

Whitaker publicly vouched for WPM, claiming in a December 2014 statement it went “beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translate[d] those words into action”.

He said: “I would only align myself with a first-class organisation.”

But customers reported to authorities that they had been treated unethically by a company that, beneath its glossy marketing pamphlets, was a shabby operation.

Dennis Artman, a 24-year veteran of the army and air force reserves from Washington state, took $25,000 from his retirement savings account in 2015 to pay WPM to patent and promote a wearable device his then-wife had created to jolt sleepy drivers awake and guide them to accommodation.

“He said, ‘I know it’s a lot of money but I believe in it and I believe in you,’” his ex-wife, Gwendolyn Artman, 58, said in an interview. Gwendolyn Artman said she received approximately 25 emails from WPM that touted the backgrounds of Whitaker and other board members.

In late 2015, Artman said, WPM stopped returning her calls and emails. Only after she complained to the office of Florida’s attorney general did Cooper call – pleading with her to withdraw the complaint and promising to make amends. Again, nothing materialised.

The Artmans divorced this year after more than 10 years of marriage. Gwendolyn, who runs a nonprofit treatment center for people suffering from opioid addiction, said the WPM saga was partly to blame.

“I think he lost faith in me,” she said. “It was a lot of money, and he blamed me for losing it.”

A justice department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said in an email: “Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker has said he was not aware of any fraudulent activity. Any stories suggesting otherwise are false.”

Attorneys for Cooper did not respond to emails seeking comment. Cooper denied wrongdoing in the FTC case. He was ultimately ordered to pay $1m and surrender any proceeds from selling his $3.5m mansion in Miami, in return for the rest of the $26m judgment being suspended.

Some veterans who gave money to WPM said they were impressed by the inclusion on the advisory board of congressman Brian Mast, a Florida Republican who lost both his legs in a September 2010 bombing while serving with the army in Afghanistan.

One of these veterans, identified in court filings and company materials as “John D”, complained to Cooper that WPM had deserted him after using his status as a veteran to promote his idea for a new type of umbrella.

“I’m sure he’ll be your best supporter,” John D wrote of Mast in a September 2016 email, “but what about my product?”

Mast, who was re-elected this week, said in a declaration to court that Cooper appointed him to the advisory board without his consent after the two met twice in February 2016, at an event and then at WPM’s offices in Miami. Last year he returned $5,400 in campaign donations given to him by Cooper.

Another WPM client, Ryan Masti, who served in the navy and suffers from dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), said a WPM representative boasted of the company’s connections to Whitaker and Mast in a promotional telephone call that persuaded him to hand over money.

Masti told the court he lost more than $75,000 after paying WPM to register, develop and promote his idea for “Socially Accepted”, a social network aimed at people with disabilities. He said that in return he received only a press release, a logo and a shoddy website template.

“I spent the money on a dream to help people,” Masti said in an interview on Friday. “And I lost everything.”

Masti, a 26-year-old farmer from upstate New York, borrowed $50,000 from his father’s retirement account, took out a commercial loan for about $20,000 and used another $7,000 he had inherited from his late grandfather, a veteran of the second world war. A WPM executive told him he “could make a million in sales” as a minimum, he said.

Having voted for Trump enthusiastically in 2016, Masti said on Friday he would soon be changing his party affiliation to Democratic, following the president’s elevation of Whitaker.

“It’s totally ridiculous,” said Masti. “It makes the whole Republican party look so bad. How could a president appoint someone like this? And then not have a problem about it when it comes out? He should be taking care of the victims.”


‘They never vet these people’: DOJ officials think the new acting AG is ‘a f*cking fool’

Raw Story

Officials inside the Justice Department think new Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is an “underqualified” “fool” who may cause problems beyond the special counsel investigation.

The Daily Beast reported that the fears within the Department of Justice about Whitaker’s lack of experience and concerns over his comments from his time as a pundit are far more “expansive” than those of the rest of the country.

“He’s a f*cking fool,” a trial attorney said of the new acting AG. “He’s spent so much time trying to suck up to the president to get here. But this is a big job. It comes with many responsibilities. He just simply doesn’t have the wherewithal.”

Whitaker’s past roles — as a former U.S. attorney, a conservative pundit and chief of staff to the now-resigned attorney general Jeff Sessions — have not “instilled confidence,” the Beast noted.

“We’ve seen this over and over again with the Trump administration. They never vet these people,” a former DOJ official told the news site. “It shows that they don’t really have a strategy when it comes to these things and then they end up having to backtrack.”

Yet another official criticized the acting AG’s alleged thirst for power.

“This guy has spent his whole life trying to climb the rungs of power to get to a federal appointment,” the official said. “Now that he is here, and who knows for how long, he’s going to try and make a name for himself. And that could make things harder for us.”


Senate Democrats weigh lawsuit over Trump Justice Department appointment

09 Nov 2018 at 23:58 ET                   

U.S. Senate Democrats are considering legal action over President Donald Trump’s appointment of a new acting attorney general, congressional sources said on Friday, as some outside experts called the move unconstitutional.

Trump on Wednesday named Matthew Whitaker to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was forced out after months of attacks by Trump for recusing himself from an ongoing probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The move made Whitaker supervisor of the investigation, which has hung over Trump’s presidency. Whitaker has criticized the probe in the past as too wide-ranging, which has raised concerns among Democrats that Sessions’ ouster and Whitaker’s appointment might be precursors to Trump moving to end it.

Senate Democrats were considering suing Trump, the sources said, on the grounds that, in naming Whitaker, the president ignored a statutory line of succession at the Justice Department and deprived senators of their constitutional “advice and consent” role on some presidential appointments.

“The only two paths to that office are regular succession, and advice (and) consent,” said a source close to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told Reuters late on Friday he was “considering action that might be brought against an interim appointment that violates the normal statutory line of succession and raises very serious constitutional questions.”

He said he was speaking only for himself and he hoped Republicans might join as plaintiffs if a lawsuit goes forward.

The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that some senior government officials, known as “principal officers,” must be confirmed by the Senate.

A spokesman for Senate Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley said Trump had the authority to appoint Whitaker as acting attorney general temporarily, even though he had not been confirmed by the Senate.

Such appointments can be done for senior officials who have worked in the department for at least 90 days and can last for up to 210 days, spokesman George Hartmann said.

As the minority party in the Senate, Democrats might need some Republican support to have legal standing to sue Trump under the Appointments Clause, said Andrew Wright, who was a White House lawyer under former President Barack Obama.

The source close to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Democrats were unsure whether they would reach out to Republicans to join the lawsuit, but added it was “not likely.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who earlier this year introduced legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is conducting the probe, said Whitaker did not pose a threat to his work.

“Mueller will be allowed to do his job,” Graham said in a Friday interview on Fox News Radio.

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said “the Supreme Court made clear that the Attorney General is a principal officer” in a 1998 case.

“Therefore, Whitaker cannot serve as acting Attorney General … Any other officer in the Justice Department who was appointed through advice and consent can serve, including the Deputy AG, the solicitor general, and the assistant AGs,” said Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official already confirmed by the Senate, should have been named the new attorney general.


U.S. intelligence agencies have said Russia interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to tip it towards Trump and away from his Democratic opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Republican Senator Susan Collins said Mueller must be allowed to complete his investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Moscow.

Trump has repeatedly said there was no collusion, and has slammed the probe as a “witch hunt.” Russia has denied interfering.

“I am concerned about comments that Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has made regarding the Special Counsel and the parameters of his investigation,” Collins said in a statement.

“We should bring to the Senate floor legislation that would put restrictions on the ability of President Donald Trump to fire the Special Counsel.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House before he left on a trip to Paris, Trump defended his choice of Whitaker, saying the former U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa had an excellent reputation and came highly recommended by former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who is now Trump’s ambassador to China.

In a late night Tweet on Friday, Trump reiterated that he did not know Whitaker, but that he was very highly thought of by Iowa senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley and Branstad.

“I feel certain he will make an outstanding Acting Attorney General!,” Trump said.

Trump said on Friday he had not discussed the Mueller probe with Whitaker before appointing him.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department has said Whitaker would oversee all matters under its jurisdiction, including the Mueller investigation. Democrats have called on Whitaker to recuse himself.

Reporting by David Morgan and Jonathan Landay in Washington; Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Jan Wolfe, Susan Cornwell, Amanda Becker and Susan Heavey; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Paul Simao, Sonya Hepinstall and Nick Macfie


Watch HBO’s Bill Maher destroy acting AG Matt Whitaker: ‘I call him Curly because he’s the bald stooge’

Raw Story

On Friday, HBO host Bill Maher opened his show, Real Time, with a monologue about a wild election week and the appointment of a “stooge” to lead the Justice department.

“Democrats took the House,” Maher said. “Russia kept the Senate.”

Maher said the election shows that the United States is more divided than ever.

“We are really devolving into two countries,” Maher said. “The tobacco chewers and the people who vape. That’s America.”

Maher was disturbed by the naming of Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general.

“He’s so far up Trump’s *ss Hannity had to scoot over,” Maher said. “He was involved in a company that defrauded money from aspiring investors—he was the hard guy who beat it out of them. He puts criminals in charge of the justice department.”

Maher said Whitaker looked like “the guy who snapped in Full Metal Jacket.”

“I call him ‘Curly’ because he’s the bald stooge,” Maher said. “Say what you want about Trump’s pother fans—at least Caesar Sayoc took the time to paint on some hair.”

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czm6angguC8


WATCH: HBO’s Bill Maher and Sarah Silverman shred ‘douchebag’ Trump and his ‘cult’ of true believers

Raw Story

Appearing on on HBO’s Real Time to promote her show I Love You, America, comedian Sarah Silverman took some shots at President Donald Trump and his followers and talked about what it is like to be a Jew in the age of Trump.

Speaking with host Bill Maher, Silverman described the president’s avid supporters as a “cult.”

“They don’t know they’re lied to,” Silverman said of Trump fans. “It’s like cults. Cults don’t know they’re lied to.”

She then turned to the increase in attacks on Jews as white nationalists have become more active during Trump’s two years in office.

“You know, Bill, in a time where anti-Semitic crime is up 57 percent since this douchebag has taken office, it is not lost on me that I am very lucky that I get a star and I don’t have to sew it on my clothes,” Silverman said before adding, “I don’t know if that’s gallows humor or just like ‘it’s funny because it’s true’ humor.”

Watch the video via HBO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IIImB3OCI


‘When I learned that I got a chill’: Bob Woodward reveals the scariest thing he knows about Trump to HBO’s Bill Maher

Raw Story

On Friday, HBO’s Bill Maher interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Bob Woodward, one of the journalists who broke the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon.

The two men discussed Woodward’s book, Fear, and Trump’s ability to scare so many Republicans into supporting him. Trump is fundamentally changing the country, the men agreed.

“He’s gambling with who we are and what the country is,” Woodward said.

Maher said he doesn’t see a scenario where Trump gives up his office willingly, and that Trump’s current protests of the election results in Florida are a “dress rehearsal” for a coup.

“It is part of his being to get power over people—to crush them, to demean them,” Woodward said. “What astonished me is getting close to the people who are close to him, the closer they were, the more they worked with him, the more anxiety and fear, so they would do things like steal documents off his desk.”

Woodward said that he would often talk to aides who explained why the United States did certain things to Trump, who did not understand them. Many times the reason came down to “so we don’t have World War III,” which Trump never seemed to fully grasp.

“When I learned about that, I got a chill,” Woodward said.

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdzCz_CuKI

* look at it ... whitaker.jpg (46.01 KB, 800x430 - viewed 88 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28235

« Reply #1078 on: Nov 10, 2018, 07:24 AM »

Trump lost. And it wasn’t even close

President Trump responds to a question from the news media on the South Lawn of the White House.

By Joe Scarborough
November 10 2018
Wa Post

President Trump lost. And it was not even close.

On Tuesday, the president and his allies paid a high political price for their preposterous claims about caravans filled with leprosy, Middle Eastern terrorists, Hispanic “breeders” and gang invaders. Those lies cost the hobbled president every bit as much as his vicious attacks on the free press and his foul campaign calls to imprison political adversaries. Despite all claims to the contrary, Trump Republicans faced a bitter reckoning at the polls in dozens of congressional races and hundreds of legislative battles across the United States.

Trumpism proved to be so politically toxic that Republicans likely took their worst shellacking in U.S. House races since the darkest days of Watergate. Trump Republicans lost at least 30 seats in Congress and took a beating nationally. In state legislative races, the tally was even worse, with more than 300 Republican legislators watching their political careers get washed away by the blue wave.

In states such as Nevada, GOP politicians paid a particularly heavy price for their fealty to the former Manhattan Democratic donor. As the Nevada Independent’s Jon Ralston noted Thursday, his state’s six Republican constitutional officers were reduced to one. Nevada no longer has a Republican representing it in the U.S. Senate and just one in the House of Representatives, and Trump’s party also lost seats in the Nevada Assembly and in the state Senate. As Ralston noted with a dash of understatement: “That is a wave.”

If enough of the remaining undecided races break their way, Democrats could soon control a larger majority in the House than Republican Dennis Hastert ever did during his eight years as speaker. Trump’s sagging fortunes also allowed Democrats to pick up more governorships than either party had done since the GOP landslide of 1994.

Republicans who believed Trump would never pay a price for his misogyny, you were wrong. Historically wrong. When the new Congress is sworn in, more than 100 women will become elected members of the People’s House. That will be the first time in history that so many women will have a hand in running the country’s government, and they will direct our future away from Trump’s dystopian vision. Doesn’t that seem only fitting since their success is owed in part to Trump’s odious attitude toward women?

Another question that hangs over Capitol Hill is how Republican senators will react to the drubbing their colleagues took in the House. The Senate map is shaping up to be almost as challenging for the GOP in 2020 as it was for Democrats in 2018, with Republicans forced to defend at least 21 seats while Democrats only have to defend 12. More important, many of those GOP challenges will be in swing states such as Maine, Colorado and North Carolina. Can the Republicans in those states afford to stick with Trump? Add to that mix a maverick Sen. Mitt Romney, newly elected from Utah, and it’s possible to imagine a Senate that finally finds the courage to push back against Trump’s most abhorrent schemes.

It is long past time that Republicans in Congress begin worrying more about their country’s well-being than fretting over being on the wrong side of one of Trump’s childish tweets. It is also past time for Republicans to understand that their fear of Trump only enabled the president to act on his worst instincts and in turn fueled their party’s decline. The collective weight of Charlottesville, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Scott Pruitt, the president’s multitude of lies, his thoughtless cruelty, his failed Muslim ban, West Wing chaos, White House corruption and gross incompetence on the international stage was too much for Trump’s congressional quislings and political allies to overcome. Voters decided on Tuesday that if their representatives would not provide a check on the president’s worst excesses, they would use their vote to do it themselves.

When the dust finally cleared, Trump had lost. And it was not even close.

* Capture1 (2).JPG (41.67 KB, 466x454 - viewed 77 times.)

* 5a6.jpg (222.93 KB, 888x499 - viewed 72 times.)

* a4f18e2da3ad9e93ff42473de89a5689.jpg (39.62 KB, 650x488 - viewed 80 times.)
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 6695

« Reply #1079 on: Nov 11, 2018, 07:24 AM »

In World War I remembrance, France’s Macron denounces nationalism as a ‘betrayal of patriotism’

By David Nakamura , Seung Min Kim and James McAuley
November 11 2018
WA Post

PARIS — In the shadow of a grand war memorial here, French President Emmanuel Macron marked the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I by delivering a forceful rebuke against rising nationalism, calling it a “betrayal of patriotism” and warning against “old demons coming back to wreak chaos and death.”

Macron’s speech in French to more than 60 global leaders, including President Trump, aimed to draw a clear line between his belief that a global order based on liberal values is worth defending and those who have sought to disrupt that system.

Those millions of soldiers who died in the Great War fought to defend the “universal values” of France, Macron said, and to reject the “selfishness of nations only looking after their own interests. Because patriotism is exactly the opposite of nationalism.”

His words during a solemn Armistice Day ceremony under overcast, drizzly skies at the foot of the Arc de Triomphe in the heart of this French capital were intended for a global audience but also represented a pointed rebuke to Trump, Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and others in the audience.

Macron has attempted to stand as a vocal counterweight to Trump, who recently called himself a “nationalist” and has moved to set the United States apart from global treaties, including the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord and a U.N. program for refugees.

Amid growing divisions in Europe that have strained the European Union, Macron defended that institution, along with the U.N., and declared that the “spirit of cooperation” has “defended the common good of the world.”

He denounced rising ideologies that have warped religious beliefs and set loose extremist forces on a “sinister course once again that could undermine the legacy of peace we thought we had forever sealed.”

The powerful remarks came as the world leaders gathered here have sought to mark the 100 years since the war by honoring those who served and died.

Ahead of the ceremony, dozens of world leaders dressed in black strode shoulder-to-shoulder along the Champs Elysees toward the Arc. Military jets streaked overhead, emitting red, white and blue smoke, the colors of France.

Yet Trump and Putin did not participate in the processions. The group, which had first gathered at the Elysee Palace, had come to the Arc on tour buses along the 230-foot wide boulevard. Bells at Notre Dame cathedral tolled at 11 a.m., marking the signing of the armistice of a war in which 10 million military troops perished.

But Trump and Putin took their own motorcades to the event and made separate entrances a few minutes after the main group. A White House spokeswoman said Trump arrived separately due to “security protocols,” though she did not elaborate.

Trump and Putin shook hands with members, now assembled on risers a the foot of the monument, and took their own positions. Trump and first lady Melania Trump took position next to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while Putin stood next to Macron.

The ceremony could begin.

To the sound of a military brass band, Macron inspected French troops standing at attention and a choir sang the national anthem. Cellist Yo-Yo Ma performed a solo piece.

For Trump, dressed in a dark blue suit and red power tie, the ceremony marked the beginning of a day in which he is scheduled to participate in a luncheon with the world leader and then visit the Suresnes American Cemetery and Memorial — a day after he skipped a visit to a different ceremony.

The relationship between Trump and Macron has soured as the U.S. president has promoted an “America First” foreign policy that has unsettled allies on trade and defense. Macron has sought to counter some of Trump’s agenda and he has organized a three-day Peace Forum that will begin Sunday afternoon, just as Trump heads home to Washington on Air Force One.

In his remarks, Macron warned of the spread of falsehoods that fuel extremism and he encouraged the pursuit of science and art.

“The worst can be overcome as long as we have men and women of good will to guide us,” Macron said. “Without shame, let us be the men and women of good will.”


Critics pile on after Trump cancels visit to U.S. military cemetery outside Paris, citing weather

French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe had to take greater responsibility for its own defense, saying he agreed with President Trump on the need for greater "burden sharing" by Europe in NATO. (Reuters)

By David Nakamura , Seung Min Kim and James McAuley
November 11 2018
WA Post

PARIS — President Trump flew 3,800 miles to this French capital city for ceremonies to honor the military sacrifice in World War I, hoping to take part in the kind of powerful ode to the bravery of the armed forces that he was unable to hold in Washington.

But on his first full day here, it rained on his substitute parade weekend.

Early Saturday, the White House announced Trump and the first lady had scuttled plans, due to bad weather, for their first stop in the weekend’s remembrance activities — a visit to the solemn Aisne Marne American Cemetery, marking the ferocious Battle of Belleau Wood.

It was not completely clear why the Trumps were unable to attend. The cemetery is 50 miles from Paris. Perhaps the president was planning to travel on Marine One, which is occasionally grounded by the Secret Service.

But the sight of dignitaries arriving at other sites outside Paris, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, led some foreign policy analysts to speculate the U.S. commander in chief just wasn’t up for it.

Retired Marine Corps general and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly visits the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial in Belleau, France. (Geoffroy Van Der Hasselt/AFP/Getty Images)

“It’s incredible that a president would travel to France for this significant anniversary — and then remain in his hotel room watching TV rather than pay in person his respects to the Americans who gave their lives in France for the victory gained 100 years ago tomorrow,” David Frum, who served as a speechwriter to President George W. Bush, wrote in tweets. Trump is actually staying at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Paris.

So began a weekend in which Trump — battling on a number of political fronts in Washington — seemed distracted and disengaged. Trump left Washington as the list of White House worries piled up: newly empowered Democrats, criticism of his pick for acting attorney general and backlash over his personal attacks against journalists.

Trump was in France in body but appeared unenthusiastic in spirit.

The White House said Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, would attend the Belleau ceremony in the Trumps’ absence, but Frum suggested Trump could have tried to scramble a motorcade to keep his schedule.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, noted he helped plan Obama’s foreign travel throughout his two terms and said it was common to have a backup plan to deal with inclement weather.

“There is always a rain option. Always,” he wrote in a tweet. “Trump will use the U.S. military for a pre election political stunt but sits in his hotel instead of honoring those who fought and died for America.”

The cemetery has 2,288 grave­sites honoring those who died, including many Americans. The names of 1,060 more Americans who went missing and whose bodies were not recovered are engraved on the walls of the site.

Trump held a bilateral meeting with Macron, but the U.S. president appeared subdued, almost sullen, as Macron tried to mask growing tensions between them.

When Macron tried to pat Trump’s thigh, the president ignored him and didn’t acknowledge the touch or reciprocate it — a marked difference from their demonstrative power-grip handshakes and back slaps during previous meetings.

Trump is still planning to attend the featured ceremony under the Arc de Triomphe on Sunday, where more than 100 world leaders will pay homage to the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended the Great War.

But he won’t really get a parade. The event will not feature tanks or missiles like the parade Trump had envisioned on the streets of Washington on Veterans Day but canceled due to exorbitant costs.

After another scheduled visit to a ceremony on Sunday, the president plans to fly home just as Macron’s Paris Peace Forum kicks off for three days of meetings aimed at galvanizing global action on shared challenges, such as climate change.

Thomas Wright, a Europe expert at the Brookings Institution, noted Trump announced he was going to France on a whim in August after abruptly canceling his order for the Pentagon to stage a parade.

The Peace Forum was intended “a bit as a counterpoint to ‘America First,’ ” Wright said, referring to Trump’s nationalist foreign policy in which he has unsettled allies on trade and defense. “Now they have this weird situation of Trump being there [in Paris] but the forum going against everything he and [National Security Adviser John] Bolton stand for. . . . My impression is that he’s going to pretend like it’s not happening.”

In the evening, Trump tweeted that he had spent the afternoon in meetings and making calls, though he gave no details. He followed up with a tweet warning he is closely watching the election recount in the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races in Florida. “Trying to STEAL two big elections in Florida!” he wrote, apparently referring to Democrats.

Trump’s critics, including former national security aides under Obama, piled on — payback, perhaps, for the times Trump ridiculed Obama by calling him feckless and weak on the world stage.

In the two years since his election, Trump has not visited troops in an active war zone — an attempt to make a surprise visit to the Korean demilitarized zone in November 2017 was aborted when Marine One was forced to turn around due to bad weather.

“Real low energy, @realDonaldTrump to not bother to honor the sacrifice of American soldiers in WWI due to some rain. Somehow everyone else was able to do so today. Obama never had this problem. He also visited our troops in war zones,” Kelly Magsamen, who served as a high-ranking Pentagon official on Asia affairs, wrote on Twitter.

On Instagram, Trump did make a statement to U.S. troops, posting a photo of himself speaking to service members at Air Station Miramar in San Diego.

“Happy 243rd Birthday to the GREAT U.S. Marine Corps!” Trump wrote.

But in Paris, there were some visible signs of strain between Trump and his host amid tensions over Macron’s call for a “true European army” — remarks the U.S. president deemed “very insulting” moments after he landed here on Air Force One late Friday.

Fearful of waning U.S. commitment, Macron hinted at a new path forward for Europe during a radio interview this past week in which he touted the “project of a sovereign Europe” and argued the continent would not be protected “if we don’t decide to have a true European army.”

“We have to have a Europe that can defend itself alone — and without only relying on the United States — in a more sovereign manner,” he said.

That prompted an angry response from Trump in a tweet he sent as Air Force One touched down in Paris late Friday. Trump revived his frustration over countries in the NATO alliance that do not spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their militaries.

Ahead of their bilateral meeting at Elysee Palace, Macron attempted to soothe Trump by stressing publicly that European nations in the NATO alliance should pay more to defend themselves.

Calling Trump “my good friend,” Macron proclaimed “great solidarity” between the two nations and said the leaders will discuss a litany of issues during their one-on-one meeting, including Iran, Syria, Yemen, trade and climate change.

Trump reciprocated Macron’s warm tone, telling the French leader that we “have become very good friends” and that the two countries “have much in common in many ways.”

“I appreciate what you’re saying about burden sharing. You know my view,” Trump said. Later, he added: “We want to help Europe, but it has to be fair.”

Even as their words aimed to gloss over their differences, their body language betrayed the growing tensions.

Foreign policy analysts said Macron and other European leaders have felt burned by Trump, who pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, both negotiated by the Obama administration.

“I think he has shed any illusion about Trump that flattering him will be a way of getting concessions,” said Wright, the Brookings expert. “But he is hesitant to push back hard because he’s not sure what that will get him. It’s cautious realism.”

The Paris weather forecast shows more rain for Sunday.

* Capture22-horz.jpg (96.73 KB, 642x304 - viewed 87 times.)

* Capture.JPG (55.41 KB, 657x424 - viewed 88 times.)

* trump (3).JPG (42.14 KB, 270x381 - viewed 88 times.)
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 241   Go Up
Jump to: