1143: Nance in the Hood

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 15:25

As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally. This sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life'--overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime. Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across the Southern Border and directly into our communities. Thousands of innocent lives are taken every year as a result of this lawless chaos. It must end NOW!

Mexico's passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. Mexico has very strong immigration laws and could easily halt the illegal flow of migrants, including by returning them to their home countries. Additionally, Mexico could quickly and easily stop illegal aliens from coming through its southern border with Guatemala.

For decades, the United States has suffered the severe and dangerous consequences of illegal immigration. Sadly, Mexico has allowed this situation to go on for many years, growing only worse with the passage of time. From a safety, national security, military, economic, and humanitarian standpoint, we cannot allow this grave disaster to continue. The current state of affairs is profoundly unfair to the American taxpayer, who bears the extraordinary financial cost imposed by large-scale illegal migration. Even worse is the terrible and preventable loss of human life. Some of the most deadly and vicious gangs on the planet operate just across our border and terrorize innocent communities.

Mexico must step up and help solve this problem. We welcome people who come to the United States legally, but we cannot allow our laws to be broken and our borders to be violated. For years, Mexico has not treated us fairly'--but we are now asserting our rights as a sovereign Nation.

To address the emergency at the Southern Border, I am invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019, the United States will impose a 5 percent Tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however, the Tariffs will be raised to 10 percent on July 1, 2019. Similarly, if Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019. Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory. Workers who come to our country through the legal admissions process, including those working on farms, ranches, and in other businesses, will be allowed easy passage.

If Mexico fails to act, Tariffs will remain at the high level, and companies located in Mexico may start moving back to the United States to make their products and goods. Companies that relocate to the United States will not pay the Tariffs or be affected in any way.

Over the years, Mexico has made massive amounts of money in its dealings with the United States, and this includes the tremendous number of jobs leaving our country.

Should Mexico choose not to cooperate on reducing unlawful migration, the sustained imposition of Tariffs will produce a massive return of jobs back to American cities and towns. Remember, our great country has been the ''piggy bank'' from which everybody wants only to TAKE. The difference is that now we are firmly and forcefully standing up for America's interests.

We have confidence that Mexico can and will act swiftly to help the United States stop this long-term, dangerous, and deeply unfair problem. The United States has been very good to Mexico for many years. We are now asking that Mexico immediately do its fair share to stop the use of its territory as a conduit for illegal immigration into our country.

The cartels and coyotes are having a greater and greater impact on the Mexican side of our Southern Border. This is a dire threat that must be decisively eliminated. Billions of dollars are made, and countless lives are ruined, by these ruthless and merciless criminal organizations. Mexico must bring law and order to its side of the border.

Democrats in Congress are fully aware of this horrible situation and yet refuse to help in any way, shape, or form. This is a total dereliction of duty. The migrant crisis is a calamity that must now be solved'--and can easily be solved'--in Congress. Our broken asylum laws, court system, catch-and-release, visa lottery, chain migration, and many other loopholes can all be promptly corrected. When that happens, the measures being announced today can be more readily reduced or removed.

The United States is a great country that can no longer be exploited due to its foolish and irresponsible immigration laws. For the sake of our people, and for the sake of our future, these horrendous laws must be changed now.

At the same time, Mexico cannot allow hundreds of thousands of people to pour over its land and into our country'--violating the sovereign territory of the United States. If Mexico does not take decisive measures, it will come at a significant price.

We therefore look forward to, and appreciate, the swift and effective actions that we hope Mexico will immediately install.

As President of the United States, my highest duty is the defense of the country and its citizens. A nation without borders is not a nation at all. I will not stand by and allow our sovereignty to be eroded, our laws to be trampled, or our borders to be disrespected anymore.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 04:06

This post has been updated, 6:30 p.m.

Amid calls for impeachment, a persistently underwater approval rating, subpoenas for financial records and an ever-growing list of scandals, the strong economy is pretty much the only thing President Trump has going for him right now. It's his best shot at reelection.

And for some reason he seems keen on destroying it.

On Thursday evening the Trump administration announced that it would impose a new 5 percent tariff on Mexican imports, ratcheting up in increments to 25 percent by Oct. 1. This is allegedly to pressure Mexico to stop the flow of immigrants coming to the United States.

This decision is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it's hard to keep track of all the reasons it's dumb. Here are a few.

1. Americans are paying these tariffs. We already have two studies by teams of top-notch trade economists who have found that the costs of Trump's earlier tariffs are being passed along to American businesses and consumers. An update of one of those studies pegged the cost of tariffs announced before Thursday (including the most recent escalation on $200 billion of Chinese goods) at $831 per U.S. household. It seems reasonable that this latest round of tariffs on Mexican goods will also be largely absorbed by Americans.

Industry groups, including those for produce and retail, have put out statements warning about the cost to consumers of these tariffs.

2. This will seriously screw up supply chains and hurt American companies '-- including American companies that need Mexican parts to make their own products that get sold here or exported abroad.

Mexico recently became our No. 1 trading partner. Two-thirds of our imports from Mexico are intra-company trade (i.e., a firm trading with itself across the border).

Chart via Torsten Slok, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities.The auto industry is especially vulnerable; of U.S. auto exports, about 35 percent of the value-added comes from imported inputs, according to Deutsche Bank Securities chief economist Torsten Slok. Note also that the U.S. auto industry is already in trouble. Announced layoffs for the first four months of this year in autos are the highest since 2009, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

3. We don't know the full economic cost of the tariffs, but it would be painful for the United States. Two years ago, a research and consulting firm calculated an estimate for the costs of a similar (20 percent) tariff on Mexican imports: ''Over three years, the bill comes to $286 billion in lost value to the U.S. economy and a loss of 755,000 American jobs. Two-thirds of those job losses would be at the expense of low- to medium-skilled workers.''

4. It's not clear the tariffs are legal. The White House said its legal justification for the tariffs is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This 1977 law is mostly related to sanctions; it has never been used for tariffs, according to the Congressional Research Service. Some trade lawyers have suggested that the law does not give the president power to unilaterally impose trade duties.

power to do so. I don't read IEEPA as a clear delegation of power to impose tariffs. Probably why no President has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs. The other laws Trump has used--232 and 301--clearly speak of "import restrictions" and "duties". IEEPA does not.

'-- Jennifer Hillman (@JAHillmanGULaw) May 31, 20195. Mexico does not have power to do the thing Trump seems to be asking the country to do. He's asking Mexico to block people from Central America from crossing into the United States to exercise their internationally recognized legal right to seek asylum.

6. There is no plan. There was never a plan. Even acting White House chief of staff (and Office of Management and Budget director, and apparently new Labor Department overlord) Mick Mulvaney acknowledged this in a call with reporters. When asked what it would take to remove the tariffs, he said the decision would be ''ad hoc.''

7. This new self-inflicted trade-war wound gives us less leverage in negotiating a new trade deal with China (and the European Union and Japan, both of which we're also simultaneously trade-warring with). The tariffs will damage our economy and encourage already suffering trade-dependent sectors '-- including agriculture and manufacturing '-- to place more pressure on the administration to reach a deal as soon as possible. Basically, it makes our stated willingness to absorb a little more trade-war-related pain less credible, since we've absorbed so much pain already.

8. It will also damage our ability to negotiate with China (and the E.U. and Japan) because it proves, once again, that Trump can't be trusted to keep his word, including in the form of a signed international agreement.

Recall that Trump had previously said that his global steel and aluminum tariffs would stay on our friends in Canada and Mexico until a new North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. But after it was signed last fall, he still didn't remove the tariffs. Finally, two weeks ago, under pressure from lawmakers, he did remove them ... only to turn around and announce fresh across-the-board tariffs on everything from Mexico.

Mexico negotiated the new NAFTA in good faith, and then was punished for it. Why would anyone ever make a deal with this president, one that required literally any concessions, given this track record?

9. The decision to impose tariffs '-- and thereby harm red-state farmers and manufacturers '-- could cause a rift with the Republican lawmakers who have been protecting him. To be sure, they've supported him through the trade wars so far. But at some point even they might break, especially if they think another trade war front could jeopardize their own reelection chances.

10. If Trump does indeed manage to wreck the Mexican economy, that would likely increase the flow of immigrants trying to cross the border into the United States. When the Mexican economy is lousy, after all, demand to come to the United States rises.

Of course maybe Trump is counting on making the U.S. economy so lousy too that it's no longer an attractive destination.

Read more:

Greg Sargent: Three crazy things about Trump's latest rage-threat

Jennifer Rubin: Republicans are expert at hurting their own voters

Le"n Krauze: Trump's Mexico tariffs show he has no interest in solving the immigration crisis

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:12

President Donald Trump sent shockwaves through the global economy on Thursday when he unexpectedly announced new tariffs that would be imposed on imports from Mexico. The tariffs could be avoided if Mexico took immediate action to address illegal immigration and the shared border crisis, which they may very well do.

Trump tweeted, ''On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,..''

'''.... at which time the Tariffs will be removed. Details from the White House to follow,'' he added.

It didn't take long before that threat of economic consequences caused a reaction from Mexican leaders, according to a report from Reuters.

JUST IN: Mexico's President Lopez Obrador asks Trump to have U.S. officials meet with the Mexican foreign minister in Washington on Friday to seek a solution that benefits both nations https://t.co/FqaPR9apcm pic.twitter.com/onyEIhklic

'-- Reuters Top News (@Reuters) May 31, 2019

TRENDING: Bill O'Reilly Cuts Alyssa Milano Down to Size After Smug 'F-Lister' Comment

Within hours of Trump's tweets, Mexican President Andr(C)s Manuel L"pez Obrador called for a high-level meeting in Washington, D.C. involving top officials from both nations on Friday to try and seek an amenable solution.

Mexico has good reason to be concerned by the proposed tariffs, due to its position as a top trading partner with the United States, with tens of billions of dollars worth of goods moving across the border at any given time.

Reuters reported that China '-- which has also been hit with trade tariffs from President Trump '-- released a statement commiserating with Mexico against the Trump administration's ''trade bullying.''

Do you approve of Trump's use of tariffs as a negotiating tool?99% (2456 Votes)

1% (28 Votes)

The big difference is that China's economy is believed to be large enough to withstand, for a time at least, a trade war with the U.S., while Mexico's economy is far less robust in that regard.

To be sure, L"pez Obrador had some choice words in response to the threatened tariffs.

''With all due respect, although you have the right to express it, 'America First' is a fallacy because until the end of times, even beyond national borders, justice and universal fraternity will prevail,'' L"pez Obrador, wrote in Spanish, according to Axios.

He added that ''social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.''

It is worth noting that L"pez Obrador refrained from threatening retaliatory economic actions and vowed to avoid a confrontation.

RELATED: Cornel West: Biden Will Lose Black Voters to Trump if He Doesn't 'Get Off His Symbolic Crack Pipe'

The White House issued an official statement detailing the long-standing crisis at the southern border, how Mexico has taken advantage of the U.S. while failing to live up to promises of assisting with illegal immigration, and how the new tariffs would work.

Starting at 5 percent on June 10, the tariff on all imports from Mexico would increase to 10 percent on July 1, followed by an additional 5 percent increase each successive month after that until it reached a maximum of 25 percent in October.

''Tariffs will remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory,'' the statement read.

President Trump made it clear that the ball is on Mexico's side of the court right now, and it is up to that nation to decide whether it will cooperate with regard to stemming the flow of illegal migrants through its territory or attempt to withstand a trade war with its top trading partner that could brutalize its economy.

Hopefully, the meeting Friday, and any additional meetings, went smoothly, and both nations can avoid a costly economic fight over issues as fundamental as national sovereignty and effective border controls.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:35

When tenants first walk into their new apartment at the Brandon Place complex in Oklahoma City, they aren't likely to notice anything out of the ordinary for 2019'--there are smart locks on the door with keycode entry, and contemporary thermostats with LCD touch screens. During their move-in briefing, they're told the unit's smart systems can be operated from Amazon.com Inc.'s Alexa-powered devices. But they aren't told how hard Amazon worked to get those devices into their new home.

While Amazon's smart-speaker competitors, Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Apple Inc., are striving to grow their user base by luring individual buyers with more elegant or higher-quality products, Amazon has figured out a way to get into millions of homes without consumers ever having to choose its hardware and services in the first place. Amazon's Alexa Smart Properties team, a little known part of its Alexa division, is working on partnerships with homebuilders, property managers and hoteliers to push millions of Alexa smart speakers into domiciles all across the U.S.

Amazon is hoping to find a new way to build market share by offering discounted hardware, customized software and new ways for property managers to harvest and use data.

For Amazon, the appeal is obvious: Adding millions of new users to its services and gaining access to data like their voice-based wish lists and Alexa-powered shopping habits will put it further ahead of the competition which, at the moment, doesn't have a significant presence in rental properties and new-home construction.

For tenants like those at Brandon Place, the smart-home upgrades can mean getting amenities they wouldn't be able to install themselves in a rental property. It also means being able to add other Alexa-controlled devices, like speakers, smart plugs and lights, more easily.

However, tenants and home buyers aren't necessarily given a choice of smart-home technology. It might be impossible, or at least harder, to switch to Google Home and Nest products, or those compatible with Apple's HomeKit and the Siri voice assistant.

And there's a question of privacy: Renters, home buyers and hotel guests are all surrendering more data as a result of these innovations, and may not be aware of all the parties monitoring their smart-home interactions.

'Hey Alexa, Pay My Rent'Last November, Amazon announced its partnership with Zego, now a subsidiary of PayLease, one of the largest rent-payment services in the U.S.

Zego has created a system that can be installed in apartments; each apartment gets a network of smart-home devices and a hub, the wireless radio that helps smart devices in the home to connect to the internet. Tenants either receive one of Amazon's Echo speakers or bring their own, and can use it to control the apartment's thermostat and locks, as well as other Alexa-compatible smart-home devices the tenants add on, which now range from light bulbs to microwave ovens. The system is already in more than 30,000 apartments across the U.S.

Zego also offers an app that tenants can download on their phones and use to request repairs and even pay the rent. Even those capabilities may soon extend to the Echo speaker.

''We envision a day when you can say 'Hey Alexa, pay my rent,' and it will transfer that money from a resident's bank account,'' says PayLease chief executive Dirk Wakeham. He says his company is aiming to roll out its Zego-built, Alexa-compatible smart-home system to more than six million apartments in the U.S. within five years.

As with all Alexa services, Amazon records audio requests users make through its devices, and gives users the ability to delete them. But Zego's system doesn't have access to any interactions with Alexa in the apartment unless they are specifically passed to the Zego system through an Alexa app (Amazon calls its apps ''skills''), created by Zego and approved by Amazon. Through that skill and its own mobile app, Zego collects data specific to its own hub and connected devices, including the smart thermostats and locks'--enough data to paint a picture of the tenant's experience.

''We can predict if residents are happy based on their digital interactions with the service, which gives us more information about whether they will renew their leases,'' says Zego CEO Adam Blake. The signals that inform this prediction include the sentiments of tenants during in-app chats with apartment managers, whether and how many smart home devices they've added to their apartment, and if they pay rent on time, he says.

A big driver of increased smart-home technology in rental complexes is the potential for property managers to save money. Simplifying the ability to grant access to contractors, change door locks and cut back on heating or air conditioning in vacant units helps reduce costs, says Nick Stefanov, director of IT at BSR, an owner of apartment complexes in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Mr. Stefanov says his company began rolling out Zego systems in January, and has installed them in 225 units.

Eventually, Alexa-fied apartments with smart locks and pre-installed Echo devices might even replace rental agents. Initial data from trials of such systems indicates that people are twice as likely to rent an apartment when no human is present to try and sell them on it, says Mr. Wakeham.

The Zego partnership is the biggest push Amazon has made so far with rental properties, but it is working on other ways to get into homes en masse. Lennar Corp. , the nation's largest home builder by revenue (and second-largest by units), began offering Amazon's smart speakers in an unspecified portion of the 35,000 new homes it constructed in 23 states last year. The company will continue to offer Alexa-powered smart speakers in new homes in 2019 and beyond, says David Kaiserman, president of Lennar's special situations group. A Lennar spokesman declined to say whether Amazon offered any consideration for being featured in the company's announcement of its new smart homes.

The global market for smart-home devices is growing quickly, according to IDC, which projected that shipments of all smart-home devices will increase 27% in 2019 compared to 2018. Excluding smart TVs, IDC projects that 358 million smart speakers, thermostats, lights, home security and other devices will ship this year. One in four American adults now owns a smart speaker of some sort. Several estimates peg Amazon's share of the smart-speaker market at around two thirds of all smart speakers in use, while Google represents at most a quarter. Apple's HomePod has about a 4% market share.

Google is also making a push to partner with builders and property managers. KB Homes, the fifth largest builder in the U.S. by units, offers Google Assistant-powered systems to buyers who request them in a handful of communities, and in one development in Irvine, Calif., they're a standard feature. Century Communities, the ninth-largest builder in the U.S., has begun including a Nest Hub in the more than 10,000 new homes they construct every year, says a Google spokeswoman. Alliance Residential will roll out Google Nest thermostats and Google Home Minis across 25,000 luxury apartments, in a collaboration with yet another third-party smart apartment technology and services company, Dwelo.

Apple has announced no formal partnerships with builders or property owners.

Welcome to the Hotel Alexa Job postings on Amazon's own website indicate the company aspires in the future to push its Alexa service and Echo devices into stadiums and hospitals. A spokeswoman said senior-living communities and vacation-rental operators were also in the company's sights.

In some cases, Amazon is willing to share data, insights and even some of the revenue that flows from putting smart devices in living spaces.

Marriott, for example, is the launch partner for Amazon's Alexa for Hospitality service. Amazon is building out dashboards for Marriott and any other hotelier that wants to use its service. These hubs for data and insight will allow Amazon to measure and pass on information about ''guest engagement'' with the in-room Alexa devices, which will be capable of doing everything from making restaurant recommendations to adjusting the thermostat and ordering fresh towels. They will not, however, allow hotels to hear guests' actual voice recordings.

All of these partnerships are consistent with Amazon's larger strategy, which is to get more people using its services and locked into its Alexa ecosystem. Ultimately, even the presence of Echo speakers might not be necessary to continue the expansion. Amazon offers Alexa to any manufacturer who would like to integrate the service into its products. As companies like Zego develop their hardware, speakers of their own devising could be part of the system. Eventually, it could be as if the buildings themselves were extensions of Alexa'--and Amazon's ever-growing empire.

''The devices are just endpoints,'' says Rohit Prasad, vice president and head scientist at Amazon's Alexa Artificial Intelligence, speaking about the company's existing array of Echo smart speakers. It's getting people into Amazon's retail ecosystem'--where they can shop, sign up for Prime, and give their data to Amazon so it can continue to expand and improve its services'--that really matters.

For more WSJ Technology analysis, reviews, advice and headlines, sign up for our weekly newsletter. And don't forget to subscribe to our Instant Message podcast.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 16:18

A year ago, Benjamin "Mako" Hill gave a groundbreaking lecture explaining how Big Tech companies had managed to monopolize all the benefits of free software licenses, using a combination of dirty tricks to ensure that the tools that were nominally owned by no one and licensed under free and open terms nevertheless remained under their control, so that the contributions that software developers made to "open" projects ended up benefiting big companies without big companies having to return the favor.

Mako was focused on the ways that "software as a service" subverted free/open software licenses, but just as pernicious is "digital rights management" (DRM), which is afforded a special kind of legal protection under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: under this rule, it's illegal to reverse-engineer and re-implement code that has some connection with restricting access to copyrighted works. That means that once a product or service has a skin of DRM around it, the company that controls that DRM also controls who can make an interoperable product.

That's where Google's web-dominating Chrome browser (and its nominally free/open cousin, Chromium) come in: these have become the defacto standard for web browsing, serving as the core for browsers like Microsoft Edge and Opera.

And while you can use or adapt Chromium to your heart's content, your new browser won't work with most internet video unless you license a proprietary DRM component called Widevine from Google. The API that connects to Widevine was standardized in 2017 by the World Wide Web Consortium, whose members narrowly voted down a proposal to change the membership rules for the W3C to require members not to abuse the DMCA to prevent DRM from becoming a tool to undermine competition.

Prior to 2017, all W3C standards were free for anyone to implement, allowing free/open browser developers to create their own rivals to the big companies' offerings. But now, a key W3C standard requires a proprietary component to be functional, and that component is under Google's control, and the company will not authorize free/open source developers to use that component.

This is literally exactly what the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other opponents of standardizing DRM at the W3C predicted would happen.

Wait for the next shoe to drop: DMCA 1201 is so badly drafted that it exposes security researchers to criminal and civil penalties if they reveal defects in DRM systems. Now that Widevine is becoming a common component of virtually every browser, any defects in Widevine could have disastrous consequences for billions of people -- and the W3C also refused to enshrine protection for security researchers who came forward with true disclosures about defects in DRM in its standard. Google is every bit as capable of making security errors as anyone else, and DRM is particularly risky because by its nature, it hides its operations from the owners of the computers it runs on, to prevent those owners from shutting it down or subverting it. When (not if) a critical vulnerability in Widevine is discovered, only bad guys will be able to use that discovery (to attack billions of people), while good guys will have to face major legal hurdles just to warn us all about what they've found.

''The browser is the thing which sees the most of you,'' said Eben Moglen, an antitrust law professor at Columbia Law School who has studied browsers and their role in competition for decades. Chrome has become outright hostile to services that seek to cut down on advertising, like ad blockers, Moglen added.

Google's Chrome Becomes Web 'Gatekeeper' and Rivals Complain [Gerrit De Vynck/Bloomberg]

Help wanted! EFF is hiring a new copyright/trademark litigatorThe Electronic Frontier Foundation is hiring a new staff copyright/trademark litigator, and "experience with or strong interest in patent, unfair competition, administrative law, privacy and/or First Amendment litigation is preferred but not required."

READ THE RESTSleuthing from public sources to figure out how the Hateful Eight leaker was caughtIn 2014, Quentin Tarantino sued Gawker for publishing a link to a leaked pre-release screener of his movie "The Hateful Eight." The ensuing court-case revealed that the screeners Tarantino's company had released had some forensic "traitor tracing" features to enable them to track down the identities of people who leaked copies.

READ THE RESTThe New York Times on Carl Malamud and his tireless battle to make the law free for all to readFor years, we've covered the efforts of rogue archivist Carl Malamud (previously) to make the law free for all to read, from liberating paywalled court records from PACER to risking fines and even prison to make standards that have been incorporated into regulation available, to his longrunning fight with the State of Georgia to make ['...]

READ THE RESTNever lose a password again with this encrypted appPasswords are necessary. Passwords are also a pain '' especially when you've got multiple ones to remember for your email, subscriptions, bills and work sites. The problem is keeping all those passwords stored and ready, yet still secure from hackers and malware. The solution? A subscription to the RememBear Password Manager. Brought to you by ['...]

READ THE RESTGet 50+ hours of Microsoft Excel training for a price you pickMicrosoft Excel know-how is a plus in nearly any business. More than just a spreadsheet program, this popular software suite has applications for data analytics, accounting, security and more. It can take months of tutelage under an expert to master all the features in Excel '' or a couple of weeks with the Epic Excel ['...]

READ THE REST10 auto accessories that will help you drive safer and easierAfter too many trips to the mechanic, we're conditioned to think anything you add to our car is going to be expensive. In a word: Nope. Turns out there's plenty of tech you can add on to your car for a steal, both inside and outside. Here are ten of our favorite auto accessories, from ['...]

READ THE REST

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:59

(Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc is interested in buying prepaid cellphone wireless service Boost Mobile from U.S. carriers T-Mobile US Inc and Sprint Corp, two sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

Amazon is considering buying Boost - currently one of Sprint's prepaid brands - mainly because the deal would allow it to use the new T-Mobile's wireless network for at least six years, one of the sources said.

New T-Mobile is the name used by T-Mobile and Sprint to refer to the new entity that will result from their potential merger.

Amazon would also be interested in any wireless spectrum that could be divested, the source said.

Amazon declined to comment. T-Mobile and Sprint did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

It was not immediately clear why the largest U.S. online retailer would want the wireless network and spectrum.

Amazon has already been building experience by offering phone calls through its Echo Connect product, which uses a person's home phone service and allows an Alexa-enabled voice-activated speaker to make phone calls.

Amazon, which started out selling books, has a long history of exploring new ventures, such as making original TV shows for Amazon Prime members. It is now one of the Big Four technology companies along with Alphabet Inc, Apple Inc and Facebook Inc, and is a leading cloud services provider.

T-Mobile and Sprint have already pledged to sell Boost as part of measures to reduce their market share in the prepaid wireless business and gain regulatory approval for their planned $26 billion merger.

The U.S. Justice Department would need to scrutinize the buyer of a divested asset to ensure it would stay viable and preserve competition.

The carriers are also considering divesting wireless spectrum, or airwaves that carry data, in order to push the merger through.

The merger, if approved, would leave the United States with three wireless carriers instead of four. Some consumer advocates have raised concerns that the merger could raise prices for wireless users and have called for an additional competitor.

Slideshow (3 Images) The sale of Boost could fetch up to $3 billion, potential bidders previously told Reuters.

This month, analysts at Cowen estimated Boost has 7 million to 8 million customers and a transaction could be valued at $4.5 billion if the deal included wireless spectrum, or the airwaves that carry data, and facilities.

Sprint has not disclosed the number of Boost customers.

Reporting by Angela Moon and Sheila Dang in New York and Diane Bartz in Washington; editing by Kenneth Li, Rosalba O'Brien, Richard Chang and Leslie Adler

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:38

Facial recognition has been heralded a key innovation in surveillance and security, but the technology may be coming to an airport near you in a bid to cut queues and speed up passenger travel.

Its detractors warn that facial recognition systems could wind up going full Skynet, resulting in some kind of robo-apocalypse even Arnie can't save us from. But it's supporters say that it could transform travel by allaying security concerns while making for a much smoother passenger experience.

Here are some of the airports having a run at the futuristic tech in a bid to banish passenger backlogs:

Trendsetting SingaporeSingapore was among the first in the world to pioneer such technology to shuttle passengers through its airports more swiftly. Changi Airport launched its facial recognition support systems in late 2017, using biometric technology to free up passenger queues from check-in, through to immigrant checks and boarding.

Also on rt.com Only 2% of Amazon shareholders vote against giving facial recognition to government Taking off in the USThe US opened its first biometric terminal in December 2017 at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia. The airport plays a huge role in US flights and international transfers through North America, and is the busiest in the US in terms of passenger numbers.

Biometric e-gates have since opened in LAX in California, New York's JFK Airport and Orlando International Airport in Florida, and more are being unrolled at other sites across the country.

China's ChengduChengdu Shuangliu International Airport in China uses facial recognition to provide travel information to passengers after scanning their features, to the surprise of some who pass through the facility.

Wow! China Airport face recognition systems to help you check your flight status and find the way to your gate. Note I did not input anything, it accurately identified my full flight information from my face! pic.twitter.com/5ASdrwA7wj

'-- Matthew Brennan (@mbrennanchina) March 24, 2019Tokyo 2020Japan's busy Narita Airport near Tokyo plans to become the nation's first to use passengers' own faces as their boarding cards. The move is said to be part of Japan's preparations for the 2020 Summer Olympics and Paralympics to help ease queues at the airport as sports fans flock in.

Although travelers will still need their passports for clearing immigration, they can use facial recognition to check themselves and their bags in for their flights, and to get through security checks.

Also on rt.com You've been warned: Widespread US face surveillance is 'imminent reality', says tech privacy report Heathrow hub

Heathrow Airport (the UK's biggest) says it's going to use facial recognition for passengers instead of boarding cards starting this summer. The airport already uses facial recognition in its security systems and is currently rolling out the tech to ease passenger congestion.

Last summer saw huge queues at the airport, with some unfortunate travelers spending more than two-and-a-half hours waiting to get through border controls.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 04:52

On May 22, a Donald Trump superfan and occasional sports blogger from the Bronx named Shawn Brooks posted a video clip of Nancy Pelosi on his personal Facebook page. The clip showed Pelosi at her most excitable, stammering during a press conference as she voiced frustration over an abortive infrastructure meeting with the president. Brooks' commentary on the video was succinct: ''Is Pelosi drunk?''

Thirteen minutes later, a Facebook official told The Daily Beast, Brooks posted a very different Pelosi video to a Facebook page called Politics WatchDog'--one of a series of hyperpartisan news operations Brooks runs (with help, he claims). This clip had been altered to slow Pelosi down without lowering the pitch of her voice. The effect was to make it sound as though the Speaker of the House was slurring her words drunkenly while criticizing Donald Trump.

Fifteen minutes after that, the same doctored video appeared on a second Facebook page Brooks manages, AllNews 24/7. This clip was identical to the Politics WatchDog video on every way, except that it didn't carry the Politics WatchDog branding that was superimposed over the earlier video. Whoever posted it had access to the director's cut. On both pages the clip was accompanied by the exact same dispassionate, newsy prose: ''House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on President Trump walking out infrastructure meeting: 'It was very, very, very strange.'''

The video was an instant social media smash, surging through the Internet's well worn ley lines of credulity and venom. It was shared more than 60 thousand times on Facebook and accumulated four million page views from links. ''Drunk as a skunk,'' mused actor turned alt-right curmudgeon James Woods, whose tweet of the video scored 17,000 retweets and 55,000 likes. ''What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi?'', wrote Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, in a tweet linking to the AllNews 24/7 post. ''Her speech pattern is bizarre.''

Brooks, a 34-year-old day laborer currently on probation after pleading guilty to domestic battery, claims that his ''drunk'' commentary on an unaltered Pelosi video had no connection to the now-infamous fake clip that premiered less than 15 minutes later. ''I wasn't the individual who created that Pelosi video,'' he insisted in a telephone interview.

It's conceivable that someone else actually edited the clip. But a Facebook official, confirming a Daily Beast investigation, said the video was first posted on Politics WatchDog directly from Brooks' personal Facebook account.

''I couldn't believe it... The president's lawyer, what the hell? If he believed that [Pelosi] was really drunk, and he shared it, that's kind of bad. Somebody that high up.''

'-- Shawn Brooks

Brooks acknowledged that he's involved in the management of both Politics WatchDog and AllNews 24/7, the Facebook pages that sent the bogus video on it's viral tear. To the outside observer, the two pages are unconnected, but after a tell-tale link on one of the pages led The Daily Beast to Brooks, he admitted that the ad revenue for both outlets goes directly into his personal PayPal account.

In the first hint at a possible motive for the Pelosi smear, Brooks volunteered that the video brought in nearly $1,000 in shared ad revenue.

That number would have been higher, he said, except that Facebook cut off any future earnings when the company's fact-check partners ruled the clip a hoax about 36-hours after its Politics WatchDog debut. ''It makes money for Facebook too,'' he groused. ''I'm sure that's their motive for not taking it down."

In a statement, Facebook disputed that, saying, ''We have zero interest in making money from fake news and our policy is to not allow people to make money from content that has been rated false by a fact-checker.''

Over the course of an hour-and-a-half interview, Brooks insisted repeatedly that he wasn't the one who posted the Pelosi clip on Politics WatchDog. He claimed he's just one of half-a-dozen administrators who jointly control the page and its content. It was one of the others, he said, who debuted the doctored video. ''It was a female admin who posted it.''

He declined to identify the ''female admin'' or any of his other supposed colleagues. And a Facebook official told The Daily Beast that they simply don't exist.

According to the official, there were indeed six other accounts registered alongside Brooks as page administrators, but the company determined last week that all six of them were controlled by Brooks. Facebook deleted those accounts under its real-name policy, the Facebook official said.

Politics WatchDog ran an online poll as the furor crested, asking if the page should keep the video up. (58% of respondents said yes.) Now, Brooks professes concern over how easily prominent figures like Rudy Giuliani were fooled by a little audio trickery. ''I couldn't believe it,'' he said ''I was reading an article and it said, the president's lawyer, and I was like, what the hell? If he believed that she was really drunk, and he shared it, that's kind of bad. Somebody that high up.''

The Daily Beast started looking for Brooks last week after noticing a donation link at the bottom of AllNews 24/7's ''about'' page that had ''ShawnBrooks32'' plainly coded in the URL. Brooks personally outed his connection to Politics Watchdog in a May 24 tweet first noticed by Manic News. In it, Brooks responds to PolitFact's pants-on-fire debunking of the video hoax, which singled out Politics WatchDog. ''I'm one of the admins for the page,'' he wrote. ''I did not post the video. I deal with the inbox and emails. I notice you said you tried to reach the page but didn't get a response. Why did you lie about reaching out?''

A review of Brooks' personal fan page reveals him as an avowed conservative and a proud member of Trump's razor-thin African American support base. A couple of Brooks' Instagram posts feature misogyny. The strongest example is a post last year featuring a photo he evidently snapped of a woman sitting next to him on the subway. ''This dumb bitch sitting in front of me on the E-train continues to kick me without saying excuse me,'' he wrote.

He runs other pages as well. An ardent New England Patriots fan, Brooks has a long history of online ventures around athletics, including a Facebook page called Out Kick the Sports. Brooks' sparse LinkedIn profile lists him as an ''Analyst at Sports Blogger,'' a long-shuttered blog platform where Brooks once blogged under his current Twitter screen name, ''SportsGurufsr.''

At first Brooks didn't respond to emails, phone calls, text messages, Facebook messages and a direct message over Instagram, and he blocked this reporter on Twitter. On Friday he called back, explaining that he was worried over the prospect of being publicly linked to the video fakery.

''I'm in New York City,'' he said. ''Very liberal. People make judgments. I just don't want to be linked to a conservative right-winger and be potentially denied services and stuff'... People are nasty. You should see some of the messages that are coming in.''

As he tells it, Brooks' gravitated to conservatism after seeing first hand the failure of liberal policies during the Obama era. "I've traveled around and seen too many things, and I don't like the way things have been run,'' he said. A key personal turning point came years ago when he was working in a warehouse in Queens doing ''forklift work, loading, unloading, labeling,'' he said ''Basic stuff.'' He'd started the job off-the-books, but eventually became an official hire. Then the managers began supplementing their workforce with undocumented immigrants willing to do the same work for less, he claimed.

''He's deeply into politics... He has this thing with being a secret agent and working for the government.''

'-- Brooks' former girlfriend

''I was working there four or five years and I was being paid pretty well,'' he said. ''And then they "starting bringing these guys in vans through the side door. This was going on for months. Then all of a sudden they told me, 'We can't pay you anymore."

Since then he's struggled to find steady employment, taking temporary jobs in light construction or janitorial work. In 2017 he uprooted from his apartment in the Bronx and relocated to Greenville, North Carolina where he found work cleaning hotel rooms. When that didn't work out, he headed west to California and turned up on the doorstep of an ex-girlfriend. He crashed at her Riverside apartment for about a month, the woman told The Daily Beast. ''We got into arguments and fights all the time,'' she said. ''He has a lot of issues going on. He has a lot of anger issues.''

That October one of those fights ended with Brooks being arrested on a misdemeanor domestic battery charge. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail, 20 hours community service and three years of probation, and ordered to enroll in a 52-week domestic violence program. His ex-girlfriend took out a restraining order, and she said she hasn't seen or heard from him since.

The woman, who asked not be named in this story, said she never had much interest in Brooks' Facebook activities, but knew he was passionate about politics. ''He's deeply into politics,'' she said. ''That drew me into him more because he's smart on politics.'' His other obsession, she added, was spycraft. ''He has this thing with being a secret agent and working for the government,'' she said. ''He always said, 'Oh I want to be a secret agent.'''

When he got out of jail Brooks promptly moved back to New York, where he's been ever since. He said he had permission to move, but failed to complete the court-ordered domestic violence program. ''I did probably 10 weeks of it and I couldn't afford doing more classes,'' he said. Court records show that In February 2018 he was written up for a probation violation, and a California judge issued a warrant for his arrest. A spokesperson for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department confirmed the warrant is still outstanding.

Throughout all of this, Brooks was leading a second life on Facebook.

''As the 2020 election draws closer there's an urgent lesson in the Pelosi video hoax: Fake news is the most egalitarian of fields, where even a hastily produced, low-budget fraud can fool millions if it lands just right.''

An early version of AllNews 24/7 appeared as a Wordpress blog and Facebook page in 2015. It launched in its current form in November 2016 shortly before the election. The page purports to be a straightforward news aggregation feed, describing itself as ''the only News Page on the planet that never sleeps'.... Unbiased and Unfiltered.'' It has around 18,000 followers on Facebook. Its presence on other platforms has been touch-and-go. Prior to the Pelosi controversy, AllNews 24/7 had already been suspended from Twitter at least once, and was banned altogether from YouTube for ''multiple or severe violations'' of the site's content policies. Both times it quickly returned under a slightly different account name.

Politics WatchDog is newer and more successful, boasting 35,000 followers. It was set up in February 2017 and depicts itself as non-partisan political news and commentary by a select group of anonymous co-administrators, though most of its content is on the far right.

The phoney video plunged op-ed pages and cable news talk shows into a fierce discussion of social media's vulnerability to even half-hearted fakery. Hillary Clinton called the doctored clip ''sexist trash.'' Facebook responded by demoting the video's ranking so severely it became all but unfindable on the platform, and surrounded the clip with conspicuous links to fact-checks debunking its authenticity. But the plattform refuses to remove the video, despite harsh words from critics, including Pelosi. ''I think they have proven '--by not taking down something they know is false'--that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election,'' Pelosi said in a radio interview Wednesday.

But as the 2020 election draws closer there's a more urgent lesson in the Pelosi video hoax: Russia doesn't have a monopoly on disinformation. Fake news is the most egalitarian of fields, where even a hastily produced, low-budget fraud can fool millions if it lands just right. In the end the Speaker of the House didn't have to look so far to find the people behind her viral hoax. One of them was just a few hours north, in the Bronx.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 09:21

WASHINGTON'--The Justice Department is gearing up for an antitrust investigation of Alphabet Inc.'s Google, a move that could present a major new layer of regulatory scrutiny for the search giant, according to people familiar with the matter.

The department's antitrust division in recent weeks has been laying the groundwork for the probe, the people said. The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust authority with the department, previously conducted a broad investigation of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action, though Google made some voluntary changes to certain business practices.

The FTC and the department have been in talks recently on who would oversee any new antitrust investigation of a leading U.S. tech giant, and the commission agreed to give the Justice Department jurisdiction over Google, the people said.

With turf now settled, the department is preparing to closely examine Google's business practices related to its search and other businesses, the people said.

It couldn't immediately be learned whether Google has been contacted by the department. Third-party critics of the search giant, however, already have been in contact with Justice Department officials, some of the people familiar with the matter said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did an FTC spokeswoman. Google didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

A Justice Department investigation would put Google'--and potentially other tech giants'--in an unwanted spotlight at a time when major internet companies already have seen their political fortunes turning, both in the U.S. and overseas.

The shift has come with multibillion-dollar antitrust fines for Google from the European Union. Facebook Inc. has come under intense fire over Russian use of its platform to meddle in the 2016 election. Policy makers also are increasingly skeptical of internet companies' privacy practices, as well as their potential to create other public harm.

Alphabet, Google's parent, typically is ranked among the world's five largest firms by market capitalization, nourished by its powerful position in online advertising, a lucrative market that threatens to eclipse other forms of advertising. Along with Facebook, it has become a major player in the complex market. But other firms'--notably Amazon.com Inc.'--also have begun to compete for the business, raising competitive concerns for Google.

Increasingly, U.S. leaders have begun to question the size and dominance of some of the tech giants.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, a senator from Massachusetts, called for the breakup of the nation's top tech companies earlier this year, sending tremors through the large field of contenders for the party's nomination and winning praise from populist liberal activists'--as well as from Steve Bannon, a former strategist for President Trump.

Others candidates, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), a leading Democrat on antitrust issues, haven't gone that far, but they have called for more scrutiny of big tech.

A recent letter from Sens. Klobuchar and Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) urged the FTC to ''take action'' in response to antitrust and privacy concerns around companies such as Google and Facebook, noting the companies' large market shares in internet markets such as search and advertising.

Some Republicans also have linked the companies' size and influence to alleged stifling of conservative speech online'--a charge the companies deny.

''If we have tech companies using the power of monopoly to censor political speech I think that raises real antitrust issues,'' Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz said in an April hearing.

But Google would be a daunting foe for U.S. antitrust enforcers. Despite growing public concern about dominance by a few Silicon Valley giants, Google's products remain highly popular with consumers, and the company has spent years developing a support network in Washington and around the country. It has been a funder of dozens of nonprofit groups active on antitrust issues across the political spectrum, including the American Antitrust Institute as well as several conservative think tanks.

The FTC created high expectations in its earlier Google investigation, but the company emerged largely unscathed. Some FTC staffers raised a variety of concerns internally about Google practices they believed to be anticompetitive, but they also said Google had strong procompetitive justifications for its actions and was focused on delivering services consumers liked.

The ''evidence paints a complex portrait of a company working toward an overall goal of maintaining its market share by providing the best user experience, while simultaneously engaging in tactics that resulted in harm to many vertical competitors, and likely helped to entrench Google's monopoly power over search and search advertising,'' one 2012 FTC staff memo said.

The rise of big tech has seen three corporate titans that didn't exist 30 years ago'--Amazon, Google, and Facebook'--suddenly amassing the power to sway large parts of the U.S. economy and society, from the stock market to political discourse, from personal shopping habits to how small businesses sell their wares.

With their enormous size and dominance have come network advantages, data caches and economies of scale that can make it challenging for new rivals to succeed. Many firms that compete with those giants in one sector also depend on their platforms to reach customers, and they complain of being unfairly squeezed.

Supporters of the big tech companies say there is so much dynamism in the sector that the giants are sure to be knocked off soon. However, their power and reach keep growing.

Antitrust leaders at the Justice Department and the FTC have publicly acknowledged the competition concerns and said those issues merit close attention.

Justice Department antitrust chief Makan Delrahim has said there is nothing wrong with a large tech firm winning its dominance through innovation, but he has said companies must compete fairly to achieve and maintain their position.

''Antitrust enforcers may need to take a close look to see whether competition is suffering and consumers are losing out on new innovations as a result of misdeeds by a monopoly incumbent,'' Mr. Delrahim said last year in a speech about digital platforms at the University of Chicago.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Mr. Delrahim's boss, voiced similar sentiments during his confirmation hearings in January.

''I don't think big is necessarily bad, but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers,'' Mr. Barr told senators. ''You can win that place in the marketplace without violating the antitrust laws, but I want to find out more about that dynamic.''

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:21

Apple will unveil a series of changes to its platforms during its keynote presentation at the Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday, including the shuttering of iTunes, according to a new report.

CEO Tim Cook and other company leaders will present sweeping changes to the organization's operating systems and hardware, Bloomberg News reported Friday. The changes will highlight new Apple Watches that operate more independently from iPhones, iPads with advanced software that will reduce reliance on laptops, and advancements in areas such as virtual reality and personal health management.

The company is reportedly planning to replace iTunes '-- the application consumers have used to download music, movies and more '-- with three separate apps: Music, TV and Podcasts.

The move comes amid speculation that iTunes has struggled to compete with the rise of platforms such as Spotify as consumers increasingly turn to streaming platforms for music rather than buying individual albums.

Apple is also reportedly planning to roll out new apps for Mac laptops and desktops in an effort to eventually allow single versions of apps to run on all of its platforms.

''The transition might not be finished for a couple of years, but this is the strongest push Apple has made toward the unification of its two platforms,'' developer Steven Troughton-Smith told Bloomberg. ''Apple and developers can put more effort into one version of things instead of having to build everything twice.''

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:09

'):""},t.getDefinedParams=function(n,e){return e.filter(function(e){return n[e]}).reduce(function(e,t){return l(e,function(e,t,n){t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n;return e}({},t,n[t]))},{})},t.isValidMediaTypes=function(e){var t=["banner","native","video"];if(!Object.keys(e).every(function(e){return s()(t,e)}))return!1;if(e.video&&e.video.context)return s()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],e.video.context);return!0},t.getBidderRequest=function(e,t,n){return c()(e,function(e){return 0t[n]?-1:0}};var r=n(3),i=n(91),o=n.n(i),a=n(11),c=n.n(a),u=n(8),s=n.n(u),d=n(10);function f(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t\n ')):""}function se(e,t,n){return null==t?n:X(t)?t:Z(t)?t.toString():void C.logWarn("Unsuported type for param: "+e+" required type: String")}function de(e,t,n){return n.indexOf(e)===t}function fe(e,t){return e.concat(t)}function le(e){return Object.keys(e)}function pe(e,t){return e[t]}var ge=ye("timeToRespond",function(e,t){return ti;)a(r,n=t[i++])&&(~u(o,n)||o.push(n));return o}},142:function(e,t,n){var r=n(18).document;e.exports=r&&r.documentElement},143:function(e,t,n){var r=n(26),i=n(41),o=n(50)("IE_PROTO"),a=Object.prototype;e.exports=Object.getPrototypeOf||function(e){return e=i(e),r(e,o)?e[o]:"function"==typeof e.constructor&&e instanceof e.constructor?e.constructor.prototype:e instanceof Object?a:null}},144:function(e,t,n){n(145);for(var r=n(18),i=n(20),o=n(28),a=n(15)("toStringTag"),c="CSSRuleList,CSSStyleDeclaration,CSSValueList,ClientRectList,DOMRectList,DOMStringList,DOMTokenList,DataTransferItemList,FileList,HTMLAllCollection,HTMLCollection,HTMLFormElement,HTMLSelectElement,MediaList,MimeTypeArray,NamedNodeMap,NodeList,PaintRequestList,Plugin,PluginArray,SVGLengthList,SVGNumberList,SVGPathSegList,SVGPointList,SVGStringList,SVGTransformList,SourceBufferList,StyleSheetList,TextTrackCueList,TextTrackList,TouchList".split(","),u=0;u=e.length?(this._t=void 0,i(1)):i(0,"keys"==t?n:"values"==t?e[n]:[n,e[n]])},"values"),o.Arguments=o.Array,r("keys"),r("values"),r("entries")},146:function(e,t,n){"use strict";var r=n(147),i=n(78);e.exports=n(149)("Set",function(e){return function(){return e(this,0=c.syncsPerBidder?s.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(t,'"')):r.canBidderRegisterSync(e,t)?(i[e].push([t,n]),void(o=function(e,t){return e[t]?e[t]+=1:e[t]=1,e}(o,t))):s.logWarn('Bidder "'.concat(t,'" not permitted to register their "').concat(e,'" userSync pixels.')):s.logWarn("Bidder is required for registering sync"):s.logWarn('User sync type "'.concat(e,'" not supported'))},r.syncUsers=function(){var e=0i&&(r=!1)),!r}),r&&e.run(),r}function c(e,t){void 0===e[t]?e[t]=1:e[t]++}},addWinningBid:function(e){S=S.concat(e),B.callBidWonBidder(e.bidder,e,c)},setBidTargeting:function(e){B.callSetTargetingBidder(e.bidder,e)},getWinningBids:function(){return S},getTimeout:function(){return m},getAuctionId:function(){return y},getAuctionStatus:function(){return u},getAdUnits:function(){return f},getAdUnitCodes:function(){return p},getBidRequests:function(){return g},getBidsReceived:function(){return b},getNoBids:function(){return v}}},n.d(t,"c",function(){return G}),t.f=d,t.d=v,n.d(t,"e",function(){return h}),t.g=S;var w=n(0),s=n(10),f=n(52),a=n(27),o=n(64),l=n(12),_=n(3),r=n(24),i=n(17),c=n(11),p=n.n(c),u=n(46);function g(e){return(g="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}function b(){return(b=Object.assign||function(e){for(var t=1;te.getTimeout()+_.config.getConfig("timeoutBuffer")&&e.executeCallback(!0)}function v(e,t){var n=e.getBidRequests(),r=p()(n,function(e){return e.bidderCode===t.bidderCode});!function(t,e){var n;if(t.bidderCode&&(0t.max?e:t},{max:0}),t=a()(e.buckets,function(e){if(n>o.max*r){var t=e.precision;void 0===t&&(t=s),i=(e.max*r).toFixed(t)}else if(n=e.min*r)return e});return t&&(i=function(e,t,n){var r=void 0!==t.precision?t.precision:s,i=t.increment*n,o=t.min*n,a=Math.pow(10,r+2),c=(e*a-o*a)/(i*a),u=Math.floor(c)*i+o;return(u=Number(u.toFixed(10))).toFixed(r)}(n,t,r)),i}function g(e){if(i.isEmpty(e)||!e.buckets||!Array.isArray(e.buckets))return!1;var t=!0;return e.buckets.forEach(function(e){void 0!==e.min&&e.max&&e.increment||(t=!1)}),t}},53:function(e,t){e.exports=function(e){if("function"!=typeof e)throw TypeError(e+" is not a function!");return e}},54:function(e,t,n){var r=n(16),i=n(18).document,o=r(i)&&r(i.createElement);e.exports=function(e){return o?i.createElement(e):{}}},55:function(e,t,n){var r=n(31);e.exports=Object("z").propertyIsEnumerable(0)?Object:function(e){return"String"==r(e)?e.split(""):Object(e)}},56:function(e,t,n){var r=n(31);e.exports=Array.isArray||function(e){return"Array"==r(e)}},57:function(e,t,n){var r=n(14),i=n(18),o="__core-js_shared__",a=i[o]||(i[o]={});(e.exports=function(e,t){return a[e]||(a[e]=void 0!==t?t:{})})("versions",[]).push({version:r.version,mode:n(58)?"pure":"global",copyright:"(C) 2019 Denis Pushkarev (zloirock.ru)"})},58:function(e,t){e.exports=!0},59:function(e,t,n){var u=n(44),s=n(33),d=n(89);e.exports=function(c){return function(e,t,n){var r,i=u(e),o=s(i.length),a=d(n,o);if(c&&t!=t){for(;at.cpm/t.video.durationBucket)return-1;return 0};var s=n(0),d=n(36),r=n(65),i=n(46),o=n(17),f=n(64),c=n(3),u=n(2),a=n(134),l=n.n(a),p=n(11),g=n.n(p);function b(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t"):"";return'\n \n \n prebid.org wrapper\n \n ").concat(n,"\n \n \n \n ")}(e.vastUrl,e.vastImpUrl),ttlseconds:Number(e.ttl)};return"string"==typeof e.customCacheKey&&""!==e.customCacheKey&&(t.key=e.customCacheKey),t}},65:function(e,t,n){"use strict";Object.defineProperty(t,"__esModule",{value:!0}),n.d(t,"checkAdUnitSetup",function(){return G});var r=n(48),c=n(0),i=n(132),o=n(24),a=n(47),d=n(3),v=n(37),f=n(66),u=n(17),s=n(133),l=n(8),p=n.n(l),g=n(61),y=n(12),b=n(22);function h(e){return(h="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}function m(){return(m=Object.assign||function(e){for(var t=1;t (eg mediaTypes.banner.sizes)."),e.sizes=n);if(t&&t.video){var i=t.video;if(i.playerSize)if(Array.isArray(i.playerSize)&&1===i.playerSize.length&&i.playerSize.every(function(e){return Object(c.isArrayOfNums)(e,2)}))e.sizes=i.playerSize;else if(Object(c.isArrayOfNums)(i.playerSize,2)){var o=[];o.push(i.playerSize),A.logInfo("Transforming video.playerSize from [".concat(i.playerSize,"] to [[").concat(o,"]] so it's in the proper format.")),e.sizes=i.playerSize=o}else A.logError("Detected incorrect configuration of mediaTypes.video.playerSize. Please specify only one set of dimensions in a format like: [[640, 480]]. Removing invalid mediaTypes.video.playerSize property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize}if(t&&t.native){var a=t.native;a.image&&a.image.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.image.sizes)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.sizes property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.image.sizes),a.image&&a.image.aspect_ratios&&!Array.isArray(a.image.aspect_ratios)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.aspect_ratios field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios),a.icon&&a.icon.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.icon.sizes)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.icon.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes)}}),e},"checkAdUnitSetup");function W(e){var n=v.a[e]().filter(A.bind.call(c.adUnitsFilter,this,v.a.getAdUnitCodes())),r=v.a.getLastAuctionId();return n.map(function(e){return e.adUnitCode}).filter(c.uniques).map(function(t){return n.filter(function(e){return e.auctionId===r&&e.adUnitCode===t})}).filter(function(e){return e&&e[0]&&e[0].adUnitCode}).map(function(e){return function(e,t,n){return t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n,e}({},e[0].adUnitCode,{bids:e})}).reduce(function(e,t){return m(e,t)},{})}function L(e,t,n){var r={};r.reason=e,r.message=t,n&&(r.bid=n),A.logError(t),I.emit(U,r)}function z(e){e.forEach(function(e){if(void 0===e.called)try{e.call(),e.called=!0}catch(e){A.logError("Error processing command :","prebid.js",e)}})}S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr=function(e){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr",arguments),e){var t=S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode(e);return A.transformAdServerTargetingObj(t)}A.logMessage("Need to call getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr with adunitCode")},S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode=function(e){return S.getAdserverTargeting(e)[e]},S.getAdserverTargeting=function(e){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargeting",arguments),f.b.getAllTargeting(e)},S.getNoBids=function(){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getNoBids",arguments),W("getNoBids")},S.getBidResponses=function(){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getBidResponses",arguments),W("getBidsReceived")},S.getBidResponsesForAdUnitCode=function(t){return{bids:v.a.getBidsReceived().filter(function(e){return e.adUnitCode===t})}},S.setTargetingForGPTAsync=function(e,t){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForGPTAsync",arguments),Object(c.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var n=f.b.getAllTargeting(e);f.b.resetPresetTargeting(e),f.b.setTargetingForGPT(n,t),Object.keys(n).forEach(function(t){Object.keys(n[t]).forEach(function(e){"hb_adid"===e&&v.a.setStatusForBids(n[t][e],E.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET)})}),I.emit(B,n)}else A.logError("window.googletag is not defined on the page")},S.setTargetingForAst=function(e){A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForAn",arguments),f.b.isApntagDefined()?(f.b.setTargetingForAst(e),I.emit(B,f.b.getAllTargeting())):A.logError("window.apntag is not defined on the page")},S.renderAd=function(e,t){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.renderAd",arguments),A.logMessage("Calling renderAd with adId :"+t),e&&t)try{var n=v.a.findBidByAdId(t);if(n){n.status=E.BID_STATUS.RENDERED,n.ad=A.replaceAuctionPrice(n.ad,n.cpm),n.adUrl=A.replaceAuctionPrice(n.adUrl,n.cpm),v.a.addWinningBid(n),I.emit(C,n);var r=n.height,i=n.width,o=n.ad,a=n.mediaType,c=n.adUrl,u=n.renderer,s=document.createComment("Creative ".concat(n.creativeId," served by ").concat(n.bidder," Prebid.js Header Bidding"));if(A.insertElement(s,e,"body"),Object(y.c)(u))Object(y.b)(u,n);else if(e===document&&!A.inIframe()||"video"===a){var d="Error trying to write ad. Ad render call ad id ".concat(t," was prevented from writing to the main document.");L(R,d,n)}else if(o)e.open("text/html","replace"),e.write(o),e.close(),q(e,i,r),A.callBurl(n);else if(c){var f=A.createInvisibleIframe();f.height=r,f.width=i,f.style.display="inline",f.style.overflow="hidden",f.src=c,A.insertElement(f,e,"body"),q(e,i,r),A.callBurl(n)}else{var l="Error trying to write ad. No ad for bid response id: ".concat(t);L(N,l,n)}}else{var p="Error trying to write ad. Cannot find ad by given id : ".concat(t);L(x,p)}}catch(e){var g="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(t," to the page:").concat(e.message);L(k,g)}else{var b="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(t," to the page. Missing document or adId");L(P,b)}},S.removeAdUnit=function(e){(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.removeAdUnit",arguments),e)?(A.isArray(e)?e:[e]).forEach(function(e){for(var t=0;tObject(f.timestamp)()},O=function(e){return e&&(e.status&&!v()([E.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET,E.BID_STATUS.RENDERED],e.status)||!e.status)};function w(e,n){var r=[],i=Object(f.groupBy)(e,"adUnitCode");return Object.keys(i).forEach(function(e){var t=Object(f.groupBy)(i[e],"bidderCode");Object.keys(t).forEach(function(e){return r.push(t[e].reduce(n))})}),r}var o=function(n){var i={},r={};function o(e){return"string"==typeof e?[e]:S.isArray(e)?e:n.getAdUnitCodes()||[]}function a(){var e=n.getBidsReceived();return l.config.getConfig("useBidCache")||(e=e.filter(function(e){return r[e.adUnitCode]===e.auctionId})),w(e=e.filter(function(e){return Object(f.deepAccess)(e,"video.context")!==b.a}).filter(function(e){return"banner"!==e.mediaType||Object(g.c)([e.width,e.height])}).filter(O).filter(I),f.getOldestHighestCpmBid)}function c(){return n.getStandardBidderAdServerTargeting().map(function(e){return e.key}).concat(T).filter(f.uniques)}function u(t,n,e,r){return Object.keys(n.adserverTargeting).filter(s()).forEach(function(e){t.length&&t.filter(function(t){return function(e){return e.adUnitCode===n.adUnitCode&&e.adserverTargeting[t]}}(e)).forEach(function(t){return function(e){S.isArray(e.adserverTargeting[t])||(e.adserverTargeting[t]=[e.adserverTargeting[t]]),e.adserverTargeting[t]=e.adserverTargeting[t].concat(n.adserverTargeting[t]).filter(f.uniques),delete n.adserverTargeting[t]}}(e))}),t.push(n),t}function s(){var t=c();return function(e){return-1===t.indexOf(e)}}function d(t){return m({},t.adUnitCode,Object.keys(t.adserverTargeting).filter(s()).map(function(e){return m({},e.substring(0,20),[t.adserverTargeting[e]])}))}return i.setLatestAuctionForAdUnit=function(e,t){r[e]=t},i.resetPresetTargeting=function(e){if(Object(f.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var t=o(e),r=n.getAdUnits().filter(function(e){return v()(t,e.code)});window.googletag.pubads().getSlots().forEach(function(n){A.forEach(function(t){r.forEach(function(e){e.code!==n.getAdUnitPath()&&e.code!==n.getSlotElementId()||n.setTargeting(t,null)})})})}},i.resetPresetTargetingAST=function(e){o(e).forEach(function(e){var t=window.apntag.getTag(e);if(t&&t.keywords){var n=Object.keys(t.keywords),r={};n.forEach(function(e){v()(A,e.toLowerCase())||(r[e]=t.keywords[e])}),window.apntag.modifyTag(e,{keywords:r})}})},i.getAllTargeting=function(e){var t=1=t.length?{value:void 0,done:!0}:(e=r(t,n),this._i+=e.length,{value:e,done:!1})})},68:function(e,t,r){var i=r(25),o=r(139),a=r(69),c=r(50)("IE_PROTO"),u=function(){},s="prototype",d=function(){var e,t=r(54)("iframe"),n=a.length;for(t.style.display="none",r(142).appendChild(t),t.src="javascript:",(e=t.contentWindow.document).open(),e.write("

")}(r,a,e),u={requestId:f[n],cpm:o/100,width:c,height:s,ad:d,ttl:600,creativeId:r,netRevenue:!0,currency:"USD",hb_bidder:"fan",fb_bidid:e,fb_format:a,fb_placementid:r};if(S(a)){var l=T();u.mediaType="video",u.vastUrl="https://an.facebook.com/v1/instream/vast.xml?placementid=".concat(r,"&pageurl=").concat(l,"&playerwidth=").concat(c,"&playerheight=").concat(s,"&bidid=").concat(e),u.ttl=3600}return u})},transformBidParams:function(t,n){return Object(y.convertTypes)({placementId:"string"},t)}};Object(r.registerBidder)(s)}},[199]);pbjsChunk([0],{335:function(e,r,t){e.exports=t(336)},336:function(e,r,t){"use strict";Object.defineProperty(r,"__esModule",{value:!0}),t.d(r,"spec",function(){return b});var w=t(0),n=t(2),I=t(3),a=t(337),i=t.n(a),o=t(339),s=t.n(o),d=t(1);function P(e){return(P="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}var p=[n.b],f=100,c=35,m=!0,y={JPY:1};function u(e){return i()(e)&&2===e.length&&s()(e[0])&&s()(e[1])}var b={code:"ix",supportedMediaTypes:p,isBidRequestValid:function(e){if(!u(e.params.size))return!1;if(!function(e,r){if(u(e))return e[0]===r[0]&&e[1]===r[1];for(var t=0;tr(e)?t:e})}(t.strData.sizes)),[{requestId:t.data.bidId,width:s[0],height:s[1],cpm:n.cpm,creativeId:n.creative.creative_key,dealId:n.creative.deal_id,currency:"USD",netRevenue:!0,ttl:360,ad:function(e,t){var r="str_response_".concat(t.data.bidId),n='\n\n

\n HomeVideoPoliticsUSWorldEntertainmentSportsBusinessOpinionOutdoorsComedyShopDaily Caller ShopDaily DealerWine ClubSend a Tip3:57 PM 05/30/2019 | BusinessRudy Takala | Contributor

CNN is reportedly set to impose a ''net 90'' payment term on freelance employees beginning in June, meaning the company's freelancers will be paid just once every three months.

''In a blow to their financial stability, CNN sent a letter to several of the network's freelancers this week, extending their payment terms to net 90 (payment 90 days after invoice). The change is to 'be better aligned with our corporate requirements,''' a Twitter user named Marcus DiPaola said on Tuesday night. (RELATED: CNN Lays Off Almost Entire Division, Surprises Employees As 'Crazy Rumor' Comes True)

The move has met with significant blowback.

''Net 90 is NOT a reasonable payment term for people who must pay rent every 30 days,'' Freelancers Union Executive Director Caitlin Pierce wrote on Thursday. ''CNN is effectively asking freelancers to finance the cash flow of a multi-billion dollar company by waiting one quarter of a year for payment.''

The CNN Headquarters is pictured in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., Oct. 29, 2018. REUTERS/Chris Aluka Berry

Pierce said the law challenged New York's ''Freelance Isn't Free'' law, which sets a 30-day standard for payment.

CNN said in a letter to employees that it was ''working with Citi to provide a financing tool '... with a process to get paid faster than 90 days.'' (Related: CNN Issues Correction After Identifying Virginia Gov. Northam As A Republican)

Here is the copy of the letter the freelancers received. Sorry for the delay. Wanted to get explicit permission from my source to post. pic.twitter.com/XZZAHT4X1q

'-- Marcus DiPaola (@marcusdipaola) May 29, 2019

CNN commonly hires freelance employees to fill writer, producer and photographer positions, among many others. The arrangement saves the company money, in part, by reducing health insurance costs imposed by President Obama's Affordable Care Act. The legislation required large companies to provide insurance for employees who work at least 30 hours weekly.

CNN also eliminated more than 100 full-time employees this month via buyouts.

''We have nearly 4,000 people at CNN,'' a spokesman said at the time. ''Around 100 of them exercised the option for a program that was offered. That's it.''

Follow Rudy on Twitter.

Tags : cnn economy business employment media rudy takalaSearch

Trending(C) Copyright 2010 - 2018 | The Daily Caller

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 04:42

Ariana Garcia Saturday Jun 1, 2019 at 8:01 PM Jun 1, 2019 at 8:16 PM

A truck pulling a trailer carrying approximately 20 scooters caught fire Friday night in downtown Austin, according to the Austin Fire Department. They said the truck was picking up scooters near Brazos Street.

A generator charging the scooters on the trailer overheated, sparking the fire, officials said.

No one was injured but 15 to 18 of the scooters were damaged in the fire, they said.

Instagram user @ut_mish3al, who did not give his real name, captured the blaze around 11 p.m. near the Four Seasons Hotel. He said he stopped his car to respond to text messages when he noticed the huge fire and started filming.

"It was an absolutely amazing sight," he said. "It was probably burning for at least five to 10 minutes before police and the fire trucks got there. It was crazy."

View this post on Instagram

A big truck with about 100 #scooters on it catches fire in #downtown #Austin happening #NowPlaying There were like 5 rows of scooters and each row had about 12-15

A post shared by Nymble Digitz (@ut_mish3al) onMay 31, 2019 at 9:54pm PDT

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:03

Teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg will take a year out of school and travel to the US to continue her campaign to promote environmental protection.

The teen kicked off the hugely popular 'school strike' movement last year for kids to push their elders into taking a serious stand to tackle the devastating effects of climate change and safeguard their future.

Millions of schoolchildren around the world have marched or held events as part of the movement.

Thunberg, 16, told Swedish outlet Dagens Nyheter that it was a difficult decision to take more time off school, but that while her education won't suffer by being delayed for a year, fast action is crucial in tackling climate change.

As part of her commitment to the cause of reducing carbon emissions, Thunberg does not travel by plane. Accepting an invite to the UN's special climate change meeting in New York in September means a lengthy transatlantic voyage ahead, so she's decided to take a sabbatical year to make the journey.

Also on rt.com Energy watchdog warns aging nuclear power plants spell doom for green future Thunberg also plans to attend the UN Cop25 climate change summit in Santiago, Chile in December.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 14:21

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates '-- Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the 29-year-old commander of the almost negligible air force of the United Arab Emirates, had come to Washington shopping for weapons.

In 1991, in the months after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the young prince wanted to buy so much military hardware to protect his own oil-rich monarchy '-- from Hellfire missiles to Apache helicopters to F-16 jets '-- that Congress worried he might destabilize the region.

But the Pentagon, trying to cultivate accommodating allies in the Gulf, had identified Prince Mohammed as a promising partner. The favorite son of the semi-literate Bedouin who founded the United Arab Emirates, Prince Mohammed was a serious-minded, British-trained helicopter pilot who had persuaded his father to transfer $4 billion into the United States Treasury to help pay for the 1991 war in Iraq.

Richard A. Clarke, then an assistant secretary of state, reassured lawmakers that the young prince would never become ''an aggressor.''

''The U.A.E. is not now and never will be a threat to stability or peace in the region,'' Mr. Clarke said in congressional testimony. ''That is very hard to imagine. Indeed, the U.A.E. is a force for peace.''

Thirty years later, Prince Mohammed, now 58, crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, is arguably the most powerful leader in the Arab world. He is also among the most influential foreign voices in Washington, urging the United States to adopt his increasingly bellicose approach to the region.

[Here are five takeaways from our report on Prince Mohammed.]

Prince Mohammed is almost unknown to the American public and his tiny country has fewer citizens than Rhode Island. But he may be the richest man in the world. He controls sovereign wealth funds worth $1.3 trillion, more than any other country.

His influence operation in Washington is legendary (Mr. Clarke got rich on his payroll). His military is the Arab world's most potent, equipped through its work with the United States to conduct high-tech surveillance and combat operations far beyond its borders.

Image Desert Falcons from the United Arab Emirates Air Force flying in formation with United States F-35A Lightning IIs last month. Credit U.S. Air Force, via Associated Press For decades, the prince has been a key American ally, following Washington's lead, but now he is going his own way. His special forces are active in Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Egypt's North Sinai. He has worked to thwart democratic transitions in the Middle East, helped install a reliable autocrat in Egypt and boosted a prot(C)g(C) to power in Saudi Arabia.

At times, the prince has contradicted American policy and destabilized neighbors. Rights groups have criticized him for jailing dissidents at home, for his role in creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and for backing the Saudi prince whose agents killed the dissident writer Jamal Khashoggi.

Yet under the Trump administration, his influence in Washington appears greater than ever. He has a rapport with President Trump, who has frequently adopted the prince's views on Qatar, Libya and Saudi Arabia, even over the advice of cabinet officials or senior national security staff.

Western diplomats who know the prince '-- known as M.B.Z. '-- say he is obsessed with two enemies, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Trump has sought to move strongly against both and last week took steps to bypass congressional opposition to keep selling weapons to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

''M.B.Z. has an extraordinary way of telling Americans his own interests but making it come across as good advice about the region,'' said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, whose sympathy for the Arab Spring and negotiations with Iran brought blistering criticism from the Emirati prince. When it comes to influence in Washington, Mr. Rhodes added, ''M.B.Z. is in a class by himself.''

Prince Mohammed worked assiduously before the presidential election to crack Mr. Trump's inner circle, and secured a secret meeting during the transition period with the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The prince also tried to broker talks between the Trump administration and Russia, a gambit that later entangled him in the special counsel's investigation into foreign election interference.

Image President Trump welcoming Prince Mohammed at the White House in 2017. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times Today, at least five people working for Prince Mohammed have been caught up in criminal investigations growing out of that inquiry. A regular visitor to the United States for three decades, Prince Mohammed has now stayed away for two years, in part because he fears prosecutors might seek to question him or his aides, according to two people familiar with his thinking. (His brother, the foreign minister, has visited.)

The United Arab Emirates' Embassy in Washington declined to comment. The prince's many American defenders say it is only prudent of him to try to shape United States policy, as many governments do, and that he sees his interventions as an attempt to compensate for an American pullback.

But Prince Mohammed's critics say that his rise is a study in unintended consequences. The obscure young prince whom Washington adopted as a pliant ally is now fanning his volatile region's flames.

By arming the United Arab Emirates with such advanced surveillance technology, commandos and weaponry, argued Tamara Cofman Wittes, a former State Department official and fellow at the Brookings Institution. ''We have created a little Frankenstein.''

Image Prince Mohammed has overseen a construction boom in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi. Credit Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters The Perfect PrinceMost Arab royals are paunchy, long-winded and prone to keep visitors waiting. Not Prince Mohammed.

He graduated at the age of 18 from the British officers' training program at Sandhurst. He stays slim and fit, trades tips with visitors about workout machines, and never arrives late for a meeting.

American officials invariably describe him as concise, inquisitive, even humble. He pours his own coffee, and to illustrate his love for America, sometimes tells visitors that he has taken his grandchildren to Disney World incognito.

He makes time for low-ranking American officials and greets senior dignitaries at the airport. With a shy, lopsided smile, he will offer a tour of his country, then climb into a helicopter to fly his guest over the skyscrapers and lagoons of Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

''There was always a 'wow' factor with M.B.Z.,'' recalled Marcelle Wahba, a former American ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.

In the capital, Abu Dhabi, he has overseen a construction craze that has hidden the former coastline behind man-made islands. One is intended to become a financial district akin to Wall Street. Another includes a campus of New York University, a franchise of the Louvre and a planned extension of the Guggenheim.

When he meets Americans, Prince Mohammed emphasizes the things that make the United Arab Emirates more liberal than their neighbors. Women have more opportunities: A third of the cabinet ministers are female.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates allow Christian churches and Hindu or Sikh temples, partly to accommodate a vast foreign work force. (The country is estimated to have nine million residents, but fewer than a million citizens; the rest are foreign workers.)

To underscore the point, the prince last year created a Ministry of Tolerance and declared this the ''Year of Tolerance.'' He has hosted the Special Olympics and Pope Francis.

Image Pope Francis celebrated Mass at the Zayed Sports City Stadium in Abu Dhabi in February. Credit Ali Haider/EPA, via Shutterstock ''I think he has done admirable work not just in diversifying the economy but in diversifying the system of thought of the population as well,'' said Gen. John R. Allen, former commander of United States and N.A.T.O. forces in Afghanistan, now president of the Brookings Institution. (In between, General Allen was an adviser to the United Arab Emirates' Ministry of Defense.)

The United Arab Emirates are a tiny federation of city-states, yet Abu Dhabi alone accounts for 6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, making it a tempting target to a larger neighbor like Iran. In 1971, when the U.A.E. gained independence from Britain, the shah of Iran seized three disputed Persian Gulf islands.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a 90-year-old Islamist movement founded in Egypt, has become mainstream in many Arab countries. On that subject, Prince Mohammed says his dread is more personal.

His father assigned a prominent Brotherhood member, Ezzedine Ibrahim, as Prince Mohammed's tutor, and he attempted an indoctrination that backfired, the prince often says.

''I am an Arab, I am a Muslim and I pray. And in the 1970s and early 1980s I was one of them,'' Prince Mohammed told visiting American diplomats in 2007, as they reported in a classified cable released by WikiLeaks. ''I believe these guys have an agenda.''

He worries about the appeal of Islamist politics to his population. As many as 80 percent of the soldiers in his forces would answer the call of ''some holy man in Mecca,'' he once told American diplomats, according to a cable released by WikiLeaks.

For that reason, diplomats say, Prince Mohammed has long argued that the Arab world is not ready for democracy. Islamists would win any elections.

''In any Muslim country, you will see the same result,'' he said in a 2007 meeting with American officials. ''The Middle East is not California.''

The United Arab Emirates began allowing American forces to operate from bases inside the country during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. Since then, the prince's commandos and air forces have been deployed with the Americans in Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan and Libya, as well as against the Islamic State.

Image A demonstration by members of the U.A.E. during the opening of the International Defence Exhibition & Conference in Abu Dhabi in February. Credit Christopher Pike/Reuters He has recruited American commanders to run his military and former spies to set up his intelligence services. He also acquired more weaponry in the four years before 2010 than the other five Gulf monarchies combined, including 80 F-16 fighters, 30 Apache combat helicopters, and 62 French Mirage jets.

Some American officers describe the United Arab Emirates as ''Little Sparta.''

With advice from former top military commanders including former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and General Allen, Prince Mohammed has even developed an Emirati defense industry, producing an amphibious armored vehicle known as The Beast and others that he is already supplying to clients in Libya and Egypt.

The United Arab Emirates are also preparing a low-altitude propeller-driven bomber for counterinsurgency combat '-- an idea Mr. Mattis had long recommended for the United States, a former officer close to him said.

Prince Mohammed has often told American officials that he saw Israel as an ally against Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel trusted him enough to sell him upgrades for his F-16s, as well as advanced mobile phone spyware.

To many in Washington, Prince Mohammed had become America's best friend in the region, a dutiful partner who could be counted on for tasks from countering Iranian influence in Lebanon to funding construction in Iraq.

''It was well known that if you needed something done in the Middle East,'' recalled Richard G. Olson, a former United States ambassador to Abu Dhabi, ''the Emiratis would do it.''

Image President Barack Obama welcoming Prince Mohammed at the White House in 2015. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times A Prince Goes RoguePrince Mohammed seemed to find a kindred spirit when President Barack Obama took office in 2009, White House aides said. Both were detached, analytic and intrigued by big questions. For a time, Mr. Obama sought out phone conversations with Prince Mohammed more than with any other foreign leader, several senior White House officials recalled.

But the Arab Spring came between them. Uprisings swept the region. The Muslim Brotherhood was winning elections. And Mr. Obama appeared to endorse the demands for democracy '-- though in Syria, where the uprising threatened a foe of the Emiratis, he balked at military action.

500 mileS

IRAQ

IRAN

EGYPT

OMAN

SUDAN

YEMEN

ETH.

DJIBOUTI

iran

100 mileS

Dubai

QATAR

Abu Dhabi

oman

saudi arabia

Then it emerged that the Obama administration was in secret nuclear talks with Iran.

''They felt not only ignored '-- they felt betrayed by the Obama administration, and I think Prince Mohammed felt it particularly and personally,'' said Stephen Hadley, a national security adviser under President George W. Bush who has stayed close to the prince.

After the uprisings, Prince Mohammed saw the United Arab Emirates as the only one of the 22 Arab states still on its feet, with a stable government, functional economy, able military and ''moderate ideology,'' said Abdulkhalleq Abdulla, an Emirati political scientist with access to the country's senior officials.

''The U.A.E. is part of this very dangerous region that is getting more dangerous by the day '-- full of chaos and wars and extremists,'' he said. ''So the motivation is this: If we don't go after the bad guys, they will come after us.''

Image Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2012. Mr. Obama's sympathy for the Arab Spring drew blistering criticism from the Emirati prince. Credit Moises Saman for The New York Times At home, Prince Mohammed hired a company linked to Erik Prince, the founder of the private security company formerly known as Blackwater, to create a force of Colombian, South African and other mercenaries. He crushed any hint of dissent, arresting five activists for organizing a petition for democratic reforms (signed by only 132 people) and rounding up dozens suspected of sympathizing with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United Arab Emirates revved up its influence machine in Washington, too. They were among the biggest spenders among foreign governments on Washington advocates and consultants, paying as much $21 million in 2017, according to a tally by the Center for Responsive Politics. They earned good will with million-dollar donations after natural disasters, and they sought to frame public debate by giving millions more to major think tanks.

The Middle East Institute recently received $20 million. Its chairman is Mr. Clarke, the former official who pushed through the U.A.E. defense contracts. After leaving government in 2003, he had also founded a consultancy with the United Arab Emirates as a primary client. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Emirati Ambassador Yousef Otaiba hammered his many contacts in the White House and on Capitol Hill, arguing that Mr. Obama was ceding the region to extremists and Iran. The prince himself made the case at the highest levels. He ''gave me an earful,'' former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recalled in a memoir.

In the Middle East, Prince Mohammed did more than talk. In Egypt, he backed a military takeover in 2013 that removed an elected president who was a Muslim Brotherhood leader. In the Horn of Africa, he dispatched a force to Somalia first to combat piracy and then to fight extremists. He went on to establish commercial ports or naval bases around the Gulf of Aden.

In Libya, Prince Mohammed defied American pleas and a United Nations embargo by arming the forces of the militia leader and would-be strongman Khalifa Hifter. Emirati pilots carried out airstrikes in Tripoli and eventually established an air base in eastern Libya.

In the past, the prince looked for a ''green light'' from Washington, said Ms. Wahba, the former American ambassador. Now he may send a heads-up, she said, but ''he is not asking permission anymore.''

Saudi Arabia, the giant next door, had quarreled with the United Arab Emirates over borders and, as the regional heavyweight, also constrained U.A.E. foreign policy. By the end of 2014, the position of crown prince '-- next in line for the throne '-- had passed to a known foe of the Emirati prince.

Image The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, right, with Prince Mohammed in Abu Dhabi last year. Credit Bandar Al-Jaloud/Saudi Royal Palace, via Agence France-Presse '-- Getty Images So he plunged into the internal Saudi succession battle and waged an all-out lobbying campaign in Washington on behalf of a little-known alternative: the 29-year-old Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a favorite son of the aged Saudi king.

''M.B.Z.'s message was, if you trust me and you like me, you will like this guy because he is cut from the same cloth,'' recalled Mr. Rhodes, the Obama adviser.

By March 2015, the two princes had invaded Yemen together to roll back a takeover by a faction aligned with Iran. Then in 2017, as the Saudi prince consolidated his power, they cut off all trade and diplomatic ties with Qatar to pressure it into abandoning support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Both the Yemen and Qatar conflicts are routinely described as Saudi-led, but the Emirati prince first sought to sell them to Washington, Mr. Rhodes and other former officials recalled.

By late 2015, American diplomats say, Prince Mohammed was also suggesting that the United Arab Emirates and a new Saudi leadership could be crucial in bringing the Palestinians around to some new peace agreement '-- the so-called ''outside-in'' approach to a deal.

But for that, Prince Mohammed awaited a new administration.

Image The Russian businessman Kirill Dmitriev acts as a liaison between President Vladimir V. Putin and the Persian Gulf monarchs, according to the special counsel's report. Credit Fayez Nureldine/Agence France-Presse '-- Getty Images All the Prince's MenIt was meant to be a personal farewell.

Despite their sharp differences, Prince Mohammed had remained cordial with Mr. Obama, and the president thought they shared a mutual respect, according to four senior White House officials. So when the prince requested a final meeting, as friends, Mr. Obama agreed to a lunch at the White House in December 2016.

But Prince Mohammed backed out without much explanation. He flew instead to New York for his first face-to-face meeting with Jared Kushner and other advisers to the president-elect, Donald J. Trump.

To arrange the meetings, Prince Mohammed had turned to a financier, Richard Gerson, founder of Falcon Edge Capital. He had worked with the prince for years, and he was also a friend of Mr. Kushner.

''I am always here as your trusted family back channel any time you want to discreetly pass something,'' Mr. Gerson wrote to the prince after the election in a private text message, one of several provided to The Times by a third party and corroborated independently. He signed off another message as ''your loyal soldier.''

The trip was supposed to be secret, but intelligence agencies detected the prince's arrival. Mr. Obama's advisers were stunned. But Prince Mohammed was already working to reverse the administration's policies, talking to Mr. Trump's advisers about the dangers of Iran and about Palestinian peace talks, according to two people familiar with the meetings.

''They were deeply impressed with you and already are convinced that you are their true friend and closest ally,'' Mr. Gerson wrote to the prince after the meetings.

Prince Mohammed was positioning himself as an intermediary to Russia, too.

One of Prince Mohammed's younger brothers had introduced Mr. Gerson to a Russian businessman who acts as a liaison between President Vladimir V. Putin and the Persian Gulf monarchs, according to the special counsel's report. The Russian businessman, Kirill Dmitriev, conferred with Mr. Gerson about a ''reconciliation plan'' for the United States and Russia, and shortly before the inauguration Mr. Gerson gave a two-page summary of the plan to Mr. Kushner.

Mr. Gerson declined to comment for this article.

The next month, in January, Prince Mohammed invited Mr. Dmitriev to an Emirati retreat in the Seychelles to meet with someone else they thought represented the Trump team: Mr. Prince, the Blackwater founder who had recruited mercenaries for the United Arab Emirates.

Image Prince Mohammed hired an American security company linked to Erik Prince to create a security force of mercenaries. Credit Zach Gibson for The New York Times Why Prince Mohammed would seek to connect Russia with Mr. Trump's circle remains a matter of debate, but he has worked for years to try to entice Mr. Putin away from Iran, according to American diplomats and leaked emails from the Emirati ambassador in Washington.

But prosecutors are also investigating the activities of other operatives and go-betweens working for the prince who tried to insinuate themselves around Mr. Trump.

Investigators are still examining the campaign contacts of an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation who has worked for Prince Mohammed and of a Lebanese-American businessman who acted as his emissary. Other prosecutors are investigating whether another top Republican donor whose security company worked for the prince should legally have registered as his agent.

The special counsel's office has also questioned Rashid al-Malik, an Emirati real-estate developer based in Los Angeles who is close to Prince Mohammed and to his brother '-- the head of Emirati intelligence. Mr. al-Malik is also close to Mr. Trump's friend Tom Barrack, and investigators are asking whether Mr. al-Malik was part of an illegal influence scheme, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Another investigation, prompted by a whistle-blower, is examining the possibility that the United Arab Emirates used cyberespionage techniques from former American operatives to spy on American citizens.

Yet the prince's courtship of the Trump administration has not been damaged. In the two and a half years since his first meeting with Mr. Kushner, Prince Mohammed has received almost everything he sought from the White House.

Image President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt and Prince Mohammed in Cairo last year. Credit Egyptian Presidency, via Reuters A Prince UndauntedEach winter, Prince Mohammed invites financiers and former officials to Abu Dhabi for a salon that demonstrates his global influence.

The guest list last December included former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; former French President Nicolas Sarkozy; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Mr. Hadley, the Bush-era national security adviser; the American investors Mohamed A. El-Erian, David M. Rubenstein and Thomas S. Kaplan; and the Chinese computer scientist and investor Kai-Fu Lee.

Undeterred, the prince also included Mr. Dmitriev, the Russian businessman linked to Mr. Putin.

Prince Mohammed's post-Arab Spring interventions have hardly stabilized the region. An aide he sent to Cairo to help turn around the moribund economy has returned in frustration.

Egypt's military-backed government still depends on billions of dollars a year in assistance from the United Arab Emirates and its Gulf allies, and despite Emirati help and Israeli airstrikes, Cairo has not yet quelled a militant backlash centered in the North Sinai.

The isolation of Qatar has failed to change its policies. In Libya, Khalifa Hifter is mired in a bloody stalemate.

Prince Mohammed's push in the Horn of Africa has set off a competition for access and influence among rivals like Turkey and Qatar. In Somalia, after allegations of bribery by the fragile central government, Emirati forces have shifted to the semiautonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland.

Djibouti, alleging neglect, last year replaced its Emirati port managers with a Chinese rival.

''He thinks he is Machiavelli but he acts more like Mussolini,'' said Bruce Riedel, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and a former official in the Central Intelligence Agency.

In Saudi Arabia, the Emirati prince has been embarrassed by the conclusion of American intelligence agencies that his Saudi prot(C)g(C) had ordered the brutal murder of Mr. Khashoggi, a Virginia-based Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist. Their joint, four-year-old intervention in Yemen is turning into a quagmire, with horrific civilian casualties.

Image A tribute to the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last year. Credit Emrah Gurel/Associated Press ''The U.A.E. is a stain on the world conscience '-- the U.A.E. as it is currently governed is violating every norm of the civilized world,'' said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California.

Yet the prince's standing remains strong inside the Trump administration. The ''outside-in'' proposals for Israeli-Palestinian peace passed over by the Obama administration are at the core of Mr. Kushner's emerging plans.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly backed the positions of the Emirati prince: by endorsing his Saudi prot(C)g(C) after the Khashoggi killing, by applauding the isolation of Qatar even as the secretary of state and secretary of defense publicly opposed it, by canceling the nuclear deal with Iran, by seeking to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, and by vetoing legislation to cut off American military support for Saudi and Emirati forces in Yemen.

Last month, Mr. Trump publicly endorsed the Emiratis' favored militia leader in Libya one day after a phone call with Prince Mohammed '-- even through Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had previously urged the same leader to retreat.

Mr. Mattis, the former secretary of defense, last month delivered a lecture in Abu Dhabi sponsored by Prince Mohammed. When he joined the Trump administration, Mr. Mattis disclosed that he had received $242,000 in annual fees as well as valuable stock options as a board member at the defense contractor General Dynamics, which does extensive business with Abu Dhabi. He had also worked as an unpaid adviser to Prince Mohammed.

''It's the Year of Tolerance. How many countries in the world right now are having a year of tolerance?'' Mr. Mattis asked. ''I don't know of any,'' he said. ''You are an example.''

Image Jim Mattis, the former United States secretary of defense, in Abu Dhabi in May. Credit Eissa Al Hammadi/Saudi Press Agency, via Associated Press Mark Mazzetti and Adam Goldman contributed reporting from Washington, and Ronen Bergman from Jerusalem.

A version of this article appears in print on

, on Page

A

1

of the New York edition

with the headline:

The Most Powerful Prince in Washington

. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 08:42

by Uri Dowbenko

from The Nationalist Times

1998 - October

Where do candidates come from?

Do they emerge out of nowhere?

Do they just erupt on the national scene?

Or, are they quietly chosen by covert power brokers to move the planet closer to a New World Order , a One World Government, a global dictatorship with high-tech feudalism as its goal?

Take for example Jimmy Carter. He was an obscure peanut farmer, the almost unknown governor of Georgia. Then -- as if by magic -- a media blitz blew him onto the covers of national magazines and established him as a front-runner in the 1976 election.Likewise, Bill Clinton was an unknown governor of the state of Arkansas -- a defacto Rockefeller fiefdom, notorious for generational corruption that surpassed even the legendary graft of New York'‚¬'s Tammany Hall and the Democratic machine of the Daleys'‚¬' Chicago.

After Clinton was invited to a 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg Group in Baden-Baden, Germany, he became a front-running candidate for President in 1992. Then, despite --- or maybe because of -- his well-known sexual/drug addictions and compromised background, Clinton was selected as the Group'‚¬'s choice for U.S. President.

Since its inception in 1954, the supra-national and highly secretive Bilderberg Group has played an active role in coordinating economic and political policies on a global level. An international cabal of corporate honchos and government officials, the Bilderbergers are simply the overlords of the Global Ruling Class.

According to Peter Thompson'‚¬'s essay "Bilderberg and the West" from the book "Trilateralism" (edited by Holly Sklar, South End Press, Boston),

"Bilderberg is neither a world super-government nor is it merely a club where incidental shoptalk takes place. Top executives from the world'‚¬'s leading multinational corporations meet with top national political figures at Bilderberg meetings to consider jointly the immediate and long-term policies facing the West..."

"Bilderberg is not the only means of Western collective management of the world order, it is part of an increasingly dense system of transnational management. . ." writes Thompson. "Where necessary, a consensus is engineered on issues which must get congressional/parliamentary approval, but wherever possible executive agreements between governments are used to avoid the democratic process altogether."

Thompson writes that,

"bodies like the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the British Royal Institute for International Affairs, commonly known as '‚¬'Chatham House, and transnational counterparts like Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission play a crucial role in formulating policy directions, molding establishment consensus and even testing for likely opposition."

At a GOP fundraiser in Paradise Valley, Montana, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman denied that she was tapped by the Bilderberg Group to run for U.S. President in 2000. "I was just learning," asserted Whitman, one of a literal handful of women invited to attend the secretive May 14-17, 1998 meeting in Turnberry Hotel, Ayrshire, Scotland.At a picturesque ranch house about 40 miles north of Yellowstone National Park --- where Dennis Quaid filmed his TNT movie "Everything That Rises" --- Whitman was the guest of honor, introduced by Montana Gov. Mark Racicot at a fundraiser for Montana Rep. Rick Hill. Whitman'‚¬'s speech included the cryptic comment that "in the year 2000, the country'‚¬'s going to get the kind of president it deserves."

Afterwards, in remarks to the press, Whitman alluded to the conspiratorial reputation of the Bilderberger Group, saying "it'‚¬'s not a cabal."

Notwithstanding her remarks, 1998 Bilderberg Group attendees included the usual Globalist Good Ole Boys, regulars like David Rockefeller, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank; and Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State and current Chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc., a schmooze-for-hire firm that sells high-level introductions to world-class tyrants, arms dealers and their ilk.

Women attendees at Turnberry were few.

Her Majesty Queen of the Netherlands

CFR member Jessica Tuchman Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Margaret MacMillan, Editor of International Journal

Marie-Josee Kravis, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute

several European Community bureaucrats shared this "honor" with the New Jersey Governor

Whitman herself acknowledged the fact that the obsessive secrecy has roiled many within the Group. She hinted that there was internal dissent regarding the bizarre and restrictive protocols, but defended the exclusion of the media, saying that people can speak privately and acknowledge their mistakes without being held to task by their constituents.Her congenial husband, Bill Whitman, who facetiously referred to himself as "the first lady of New Jersey in drag," added that when he flew in from London, he stayed in a motel down the road; he wasn'‚¬'t even allowed to sleep at the Turnberry Resort with his wife, the Governor.

Playing a round of golf at the exclusive resort the next day, Bill Whitman remarked in amusement that "people would be popping up from behind the shrubbery taking pictures." The Bilderbergers'‚¬' tradition of secrecy has evidently created its own mystique and celebrity status.

It'‚¬'s not hard to see why the Group, command-and-control globalists, tapped Gov. Whitman. She'‚¬'s photogenic; she'‚¬'s attractive; and her politics reflect the Group'‚¬'s agenda --- people control under the guise of "environmentalism" and "free trade."

In Montana, dressed in an ivory blouse, dark slacks and cowboy boots, Whitman, with her blonde Princess Di hairstyle, appeared casually elegant even in a country setting. She spoke passionately of her "goal of preserving one million acres in New Jersey that'‚¬'s undeveloped but not preserved" as a "protective" measure, a faux-environmentalist stance that will undoubtedly win her many supporters.

Likewise her veto of a New Jersey bill that would have banned so-called partial birth abortions earned her the animosity of the religious right. Her answer to continuing criticism? "I'‚¬'m not pro-abortion," said Whitman. "I'‚¬'m pro-choice." This kind of sophistry is also highly respected by the political elites. [That is not sophistry, that is a legitimate and meaningful statement. -Ed.]

Repeating the mantra that "we are in a global economy," she inferred agreement with the Group'‚¬'s agenda --- linking countries through entangling economic treaties like GATT and NAFTA, as well as financial strangleholds through the International Monetary Fund and other multinational corporate loans with the usual draconian conditions.

After the scandalous record of the disgraced Clinton administration, Gov. Whitman as a "pragmatic" pro-choice Republican woman would appear to be the Group'‚¬'s obvious choice for President.

Since its founding, the Bilderberg Group has functioned as adefacto private Global Politburo with 120 attendees at recent yearly meetings. Historically, the Group'‚¬'s power is awesome. Bill Clinton, an obscure Arkansas governor, was tapped to run for president. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher as well as Tony Blair were tapped by the Bilderbergers to assume the reins of government in the United Kingdom. Congressman Gerald Ford --- later U.S. president --- also attended Group meetings in 1964 and 1966.

After Gov. Whitman'‚¬'s attendance at Turnberry, it'‚¬'s highly probable that she will either be a Republican vice presidential candidate with George W. Bush in 2000 or a presidential candidate herself in 2004.

In fact, the propaganda machine has already started. Bilderberger Bill Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, has had his editor Fred Barnes write a glowing report of Bush Jr. as "The Heavyweight." This puff piece on behalf of the Texas governor attempts to establish him as a primary contender for president in the next election.

Objections to Bilderberg range from all sides of the political spectrum. A private, secret --- and by all accounts conspiratorial --- consensus on matters of public importance is considered at least in bad taste if not poor judgment by all serious advocates of representative government. In fact, the diffidence and arrogance of the Global Ruling Class --- the elites and their technocrats, the New World Orderlies --- seems outrageously antiquated in the face of continuing global problems.

These interlocking supra-national elites - members of the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs, as well as the foundations and think tanks of the Global Plutocrats - would do well to reconsider their activities.If global techno-feudalism, as posited by George Orwell'‚¬'s blueprint for world tyranny, "1984 ," and H. G. Wells'‚¬' "The Open Conspiracy" is the Group'‚¬'s objective, then sovereign individuals of every nation will rise up with unprecedented fervor. An historical precedent, of course, is the collapse of the Tower of Babel, a case of seeming divine intervention which shattered the globalists'‚¬' plan for their precious One World Government .

Those who pride themselves as the descendants of Nimrod had better think twice. There will be no cushions for them when they fall the next time around.

Gov. Whitman'‚¬'s choice is after all the Hobbes'‚¬' choice. She is merely a pawn in the game, another contingency in the Group'‚¬'s global ledger of assets and liabilities. And the Group --- covert global king-makers and king-breakers --- is known to hedge its bets. Walter Mondale and Dianne Feinstein were Bilderbergers once too, but their political stars rose only so high.

The significance of her choice? As the Group has chosen Gov. Whitman, so she can still choose to opt out.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:55

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is calling for the public release of "all backup and source documentation" related to Robert Mueller's Russia investigation after a discrepancy surfaced in source documents provided by the special counsel's office.

What are the details?Nunes' reaction came after the public release of a Nov. 2017 voicemail transcript from former Trump lawyer John Dowd to the attorney representing former national security adviser Michael Flynn in which Dowd asked Flynn's attorney for a "heads up" if Flynn knew material damaging to the president.

The transcript released Friday included new content that was not included in Mueller's source documentation.

"It's all a fraud," Nunes said.

Side-by-side comparison shows documentation provided by Mueller left out crucial contextual details, including where Dowd explicitly said he was not asking for "any confidential information" and when Dowd said his request was "not only for the president but for the country."

Here's the complete Dowd transcript:Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I'm-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms. If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.Flynn, who plead guilty to lying to federal investigators in Dec. 2017, claims the call is evidence of an effort to obstruct Mueller's investigation, according to Fox News.

Dowd, however, vehemently disagrees, calling the voicemail transcript a "baseless, political document designed to smear and damage the reputation of counsel and innocent people."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:02

His own public service career includes a number of spectacular failures as well:

He kept four innocent men in jail for years (one for 35 years) to protect the vicious criminal Whitey Bulger, who had at times been an FBI informant.

Ripping FBI special counsel Robert Mueller as a political "zealot," Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reminded staunch Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.

"I think Mueller is a zealot," Dershowitz told "The Cats Roundtable" on 970 AM-N.Y. "...I don't think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he's a partisan and zealot.

"He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer. Those of us in Boston don't have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia...

"And that's regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial history. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston."

He bungled the anthrax case (along with James Comey) so that one man -- whom it is far from certain was responsible -- killed himself and a clearly innocent man, Steven Hatfill, underwent incredible harassment and career destruction based on the flimsiest of evidence and the government (that is the taxpayers) again was forced to pay him millions in recompense.

Under his watch at the FBI, that agency and the Department of Justice's criminal division framed Senator Ted Stevens and failed to stop the Boston bombing even though the Russians had warned them of the perpetrators in advance.

There's more, of course, but is there any doubt in your mind that only a made man could have such a history of flops and still be considered for further high public office?

In the past weeks he tried to outsmart Attorney General William Barr. He'd earlier tried to sandbag Barr into not revealing the gist of his very flawed report. He delayed redacting the grand jury testimony in the belief that he would get the first public statement on the report. Barr outfoxed him by releasing a summary after first offering it to Mueller, an offer he refused.

This fiasco should be the last of his blundering career.

Clearly unhappy that Barr had exposed the 2½ year investigation as an expensive, partisan sham when he released early his summary of it, Mueller called a no-questions-allowed presser in which he unethically tried to muddy the waters again on obstruction, tarring the president with tales of suspicious (in his mind) behavior instead of evidence of wrongdoing. He was nervous, never departed from a written text, which he stumbled over reading. It appeared he was unfamiliar with its contents and at times appeared to be a hostage of some outside forces. He did all but blink an SOS.

The gist of his halting presentation was the implication that but for the DoJ policy that a president cannot be indicted, he had ample evidence of obstruction.

Barr batted that back.

If you read nothing else this week read this transcript of the interview by CBS' Jan Crawford of the attorney general:

Two exchanges in particular are noteworthy. In this one he sweeps away the suggestion that the department's rules precluded Mueller from concluding the president obstructed justice:

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would've stopped him in the regulations or in those... that opinion itself, he could've -- in your view he could've reached a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could've reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress's investigative powers.

In the second quote, he was being generous to both Mueller and Comey:

Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can -- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don't realize.

I say generous because I think a better characterization would be that these people regularly have masked self-interest and partisanship as ''higher interest.''

In any event, a number of people quickly concluded that there was a conflict between Mueller's recitation of how the department policy tied his hands and Barr's claim that it clearly did not. Nonetheless, Mueller had repeatedly conceded -- and there were witnesses to that concession -- that the Office of Legal Counsel's longstanding policy of not indicting a president had never precluded him from determining the president had criminally obstructed justice.

Shortly after the Barr interview, Mueller and Barr released a joint statement in which Mueller clearly backtracked from the calumny in his presser:

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller released a joint statement with Attorney General William Barr Wednesday evening; raising even more questions over his unusual press conference that fueled Democrats' calls for impeaching President Trump.

''The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination -one way or the other- about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,'' said a joint press release from Barr and Mueller's offices.

Nothing in the memos even remotely bars a special counsel from reaching conclusions on the basis of possible criminal charges. Indeed, the memos accept that the Justice Department needs to establish such evidence to preserve a record for possible later charges. That is why Mueller was told by his superiors that there was no policy barring him from finding criminal conduct, only the policy against indicting while the president is in office. Even if you twist the memos to suggest some prohibition to reaching conclusions on criminal conduct, that debate should have ended when his two superiors, the attorney general and deputy attorney general, told him there was no such policy and asked him to reach a conclusion.

So it is clear that the song and dance in his presser was intended only to leave a cloud of suspicion over the White House. If he'd had any evidence of wrongdoing he was free to -- in fact, encouraged -- to so state that.

The editors of the NY Sun observed that the Mueller ''swan song illustrates nothing so much as the constitutional illogic of having a special prosecutor set up to investigate the president in the first place.'' The editors continue with an argument with which I fully agree:

It is not a partisan thing with us. We have been arguing since the days of Nixon against anything that smacks of independence from the president of any prosecutor. It was our view when Judge Walsh was sicced on Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, during Judge Starr's long pursuit of President Clinton, and Mr. Mueller's mission against President Trump.

All these probes or prosecutions were crosswise with the logic of the Constitution. Only the president is authorized and required to take care that our laws be faithfully executed. To ensure he is able to do that, only the president is given the power to commission the officers of the United States. It is why there is a grant of authority to the Representatives House to investigate a president and forward to the Senate articles of impeachment.

It is also why the Framers established that ''Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.'' Yet it's why they also established that if a president is removed from office through impeachment, his immunities end and he ''shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.''

And here we get to the nub of it -- the Democrats hoped that they could use the Special Counsel and his biased staff to do the work for them in their drive to impeach a president whose only failing was beating their candidate.

In another article I strongly urge you to read in its entirety, David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley explain that Congress cannot outsource impeachment and use Mueller's probe to do their job:

Yet if there is a constitutional crisis, its source is the Democrats. They are abusing the powers of investigation and impeachment in an illegitimate effort to unseat a president they despise.

Congressional Democrats claim they have the power to investigate the president to conduct ''oversight'' and hold him ''accountable.'' That elides an important constitutional distinction. As the Supreme Court said in Watkins v. U.S. (1957), Congress may ''inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.'' Executive departments and agencies are created by Congress and therefore accountable to it. The president, by contrast is not a creature of lawmakers. He is Congress's coequal, accountable to Congress only via impeachment.

To commence impeachment, the House has a constitutional obligation to articulate clear evidence of ''high crimes and misdemeanors.'' A two-year Justice Department investigation did not find that Mr. Trump had committed crimes. [snip]

House Democrats claim they're entitled to see Mr. Mueller's underlying materials. But Congress may not use its subpoena power for a prosecutorial do-over... Turnover of prosecutorial materials would allow Congress to hide behind the fact-finding and legal determinations of the other branches, thereby diminishing its own political accountability. Because the nation's law-enforcement officials have concluded Mr. Trump has not committed any crimes, Democratic representatives cannot legitimately draft articles of impeachment accusing him of criminal conduct involving the same offenses of which he was cleared by the Mueller investigation.

I can see where they'd figure this was okay: They've outsourced much of their legislative responsibilities to partisan judges and the administrative bureaucracy and figure collecting campaign donations and reading statements drafted by their staffs to complaisant reporters is the limit of their responsibilities -- that is, when they aren't trying to run the White House from the bowels of the DNC. In truth, they hoped Mueller would throw enough mud on the president that they could continue to hamstring him and vote to impeach without any evidence to warrant it. Mueller failed them and covered himself, not the president, in slime.

In common parlance, a made man is someone whose path to success was greased by circumstances. It also refers to someone formally inducted as a full member of a criminal outfit -- the Mafia. In the political atmosphere in which Robert Mueller was born, he, like John Kerry, was virtually assured of a prestigious place in society: He was a tall white man with a hatchet jaw who (like his classmate Kerry) went to an expensive private school '' St. Paul's -- and came from a well-connected and well-off family.

His wife, Ann Cabell Standish Mueller, is related to Charles Cabell, once deputy director of the CIA. Richard Bissell, formerly the CIA's director of plans, is his cousin. Both men were fired by President Kennedy for their roles in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

His own public service career includes a number of spectacular failures as well:

He kept four innocent men in jail for years (one for 35 years) to protect the vicious criminal Whitey Bulger, who had at times been an FBI informant.

Ripping FBI special counsel Robert Mueller as a political "zealot," Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reminded staunch Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.

"I think Mueller is a zealot," Dershowitz told "The Cats Roundtable" on 970 AM-N.Y. "...I don't think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he's a partisan and zealot.

"He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer. Those of us in Boston don't have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia...

"And that's regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial history. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston."

He bungled the anthrax case (along with James Comey) so that one man -- whom it is far from certain was responsible -- killed himself and a clearly innocent man, Steven Hatfill, underwent incredible harassment and career destruction based on the flimsiest of evidence and the government (that is the taxpayers) again was forced to pay him millions in recompense.

Under his watch at the FBI, that agency and the Department of Justice's criminal division framed Senator Ted Stevens and failed to stop the Boston bombing even though the Russians had warned them of the perpetrators in advance.

There's more, of course, but is there any doubt in your mind that only a made man could have such a history of flops and still be considered for further high public office?

In the past weeks he tried to outsmart Attorney General William Barr. He'd earlier tried to sandbag Barr into not revealing the gist of his very flawed report. He delayed redacting the grand jury testimony in the belief that he would get the first public statement on the report. Barr outfoxed him by releasing a summary after first offering it to Mueller, an offer he refused.

This fiasco should be the last of his blundering career.

Clearly unhappy that Barr had exposed the 2½ year investigation as an expensive, partisan sham when he released early his summary of it, Mueller called a no-questions-allowed presser in which he unethically tried to muddy the waters again on obstruction, tarring the president with tales of suspicious (in his mind) behavior instead of evidence of wrongdoing. He was nervous, never departed from a written text, which he stumbled over reading. It appeared he was unfamiliar with its contents and at times appeared to be a hostage of some outside forces. He did all but blink an SOS.

The gist of his halting presentation was the implication that but for the DoJ policy that a president cannot be indicted, he had ample evidence of obstruction.

Barr batted that back.

If you read nothing else this week read this transcript of the interview by CBS' Jan Crawford of the attorney general:

Two exchanges in particular are noteworthy. In this one he sweeps away the suggestion that the department's rules precluded Mueller from concluding the president obstructed justice:

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would've stopped him in the regulations or in those... that opinion itself, he could've -- in your view he could've reached a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could've reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress's investigative powers.

In the second quote, he was being generous to both Mueller and Comey:

Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can -- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don't realize.

I say generous because I think a better characterization would be that these people regularly have masked self-interest and partisanship as ''higher interest.''

In any event, a number of people quickly concluded that there was a conflict between Mueller's recitation of how the department policy tied his hands and Barr's claim that it clearly did not. Nonetheless, Mueller had repeatedly conceded -- and there were witnesses to that concession -- that the Office of Legal Counsel's longstanding policy of not indicting a president had never precluded him from determining the president had criminally obstructed justice.

Shortly after the Barr interview, Mueller and Barr released a joint statement in which Mueller clearly backtracked from the calumny in his presser:

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller released a joint statement with Attorney General William Barr Wednesday evening; raising even more questions over his unusual press conference that fueled Democrats' calls for impeaching President Trump.

''The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination -one way or the other- about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,'' said a joint press release from Barr and Mueller's offices.

Nothing in the memos even remotely bars a special counsel from reaching conclusions on the basis of possible criminal charges. Indeed, the memos accept that the Justice Department needs to establish such evidence to preserve a record for possible later charges. That is why Mueller was told by his superiors that there was no policy barring him from finding criminal conduct, only the policy against indicting while the president is in office. Even if you twist the memos to suggest some prohibition to reaching conclusions on criminal conduct, that debate should have ended when his two superiors, the attorney general and deputy attorney general, told him there was no such policy and asked him to reach a conclusion.

So it is clear that the song and dance in his presser was intended only to leave a cloud of suspicion over the White House. If he'd had any evidence of wrongdoing he was free to -- in fact, encouraged -- to so state that.

The editors of the NY Sun observed that the Mueller ''swan song illustrates nothing so much as the constitutional illogic of having a special prosecutor set up to investigate the president in the first place.'' The editors continue with an argument with which I fully agree:

It is not a partisan thing with us. We have been arguing since the days of Nixon against anything that smacks of independence from the president of any prosecutor. It was our view when Judge Walsh was sicced on Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, during Judge Starr's long pursuit of President Clinton, and Mr. Mueller's mission against President Trump.

All these probes or prosecutions were crosswise with the logic of the Constitution. Only the president is authorized and required to take care that our laws be faithfully executed. To ensure he is able to do that, only the president is given the power to commission the officers of the United States. It is why there is a grant of authority to the Representatives House to investigate a president and forward to the Senate articles of impeachment.

It is also why the Framers established that ''Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.'' Yet it's why they also established that if a president is removed from office through impeachment, his immunities end and he ''shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.''

And here we get to the nub of it -- the Democrats hoped that they could use the Special Counsel and his biased staff to do the work for them in their drive to impeach a president whose only failing was beating their candidate.

In another article I strongly urge you to read in its entirety, David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley explain that Congress cannot outsource impeachment and use Mueller's probe to do their job:

Yet if there is a constitutional crisis, its source is the Democrats. They are abusing the powers of investigation and impeachment in an illegitimate effort to unseat a president they despise.

Congressional Democrats claim they have the power to investigate the president to conduct ''oversight'' and hold him ''accountable.'' That elides an important constitutional distinction. As the Supreme Court said in Watkins v. U.S. (1957), Congress may ''inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.'' Executive departments and agencies are created by Congress and therefore accountable to it. The president, by contrast is not a creature of lawmakers. He is Congress's coequal, accountable to Congress only via impeachment.

To commence impeachment, the House has a constitutional obligation to articulate clear evidence of ''high crimes and misdemeanors.'' A two-year Justice Department investigation did not find that Mr. Trump had committed crimes. [snip]

House Democrats claim they're entitled to see Mr. Mueller's underlying materials. But Congress may not use its subpoena power for a prosecutorial do-over... Turnover of prosecutorial materials would allow Congress to hide behind the fact-finding and legal determinations of the other branches, thereby diminishing its own political accountability. Because the nation's law-enforcement officials have concluded Mr. Trump has not committed any crimes, Democratic representatives cannot legitimately draft articles of impeachment accusing him of criminal conduct involving the same offenses of which he was cleared by the Mueller investigation.

I can see where they'd figure this was okay: They've outsourced much of their legislative responsibilities to partisan judges and the administrative bureaucracy and figure collecting campaign donations and reading statements drafted by their staffs to complaisant reporters is the limit of their responsibilities -- that is, when they aren't trying to run the White House from the bowels of the DNC. In truth, they hoped Mueller would throw enough mud on the president that they could continue to hamstring him and vote to impeach without any evidence to warrant it. Mueller failed them and covered himself, not the president, in slime.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:18

Nervous, Jim? Comey Accuses Bill Barr of ''Echoing Conspiracy Theories'' '' Lectures Barr on 'What Justice Is About' by Cristina Laila June 1, 2019James Comey

Fired FBI Director James Comey on Saturday accused Attorney General Bill Barr of ''echoing conspiracy theories'' and then lectured him on what 'justice is about.'

Attorney General Bill Barr sat for an interview with CBS's Jan Crawford in Alaska on Thursday that aired on Friday morning.

Barr spoke bluntly about the corrupt Democrat-Deep State-media and made it clear that he is unfazed about the attacks on his reputation.

At one point Barr sharply rebuked Mueller's ''legal analysis'' in the Weissmann Mueller report and said it does not reflect the views of the Justice Department.

Barr also said that the Deep State and Dems resisting a democratically elected president are ''shredding'' our institutions.

Barr just launched a massive, inter-agency investigation into the origins of Spygate so Comey knows he is in hot water which is why he is lashing out at the Attorney General.

COMEY: ''Bill Barr on CBS offers no facts. An AG should not be echoing conspiracy theories. He should gather facts and show them. That is what Justice is about.''

Bill Barr on CBS offers no facts. An AG should not be echoing conspiracy theories. He should gather facts and show them. That is what Justice is about.

'-- James Comey (@Comey) June 1, 2019

Don't worry, Comey '-- AG Barr is gathering all the facts and they will be out for everyone to see.

And what does Bill Barr have to say about people like Comey who attack his reputation? ''Everyone dies.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:28

by Jim Hoft June 1, 2019 On Friday evening Deep State Federal prosecutors released the full transcript from President Trump's attorneys to General Michael Flynn's attorneys.Mueller and Weissmann used the phone call as evidence that Trump was attempting to interfere with the special counsel Russia collusion witch hunt.

The Hill reported:

Federal prosecutors have released the full transcript of a voicemail from one of President Trump's attorneys to an attorney for Michael Flynn that special counsel Robert Mueller examined as part of his obstruction inquiry.

The voicemail was left for Robert Kelner, a lawyer for the former national security adviser, after Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with Trump's attorneys and began cooperating in Mueller's investigation.

According to the voicemail transcript, Trump's lawyer asked Flynn's attorney for a ''heads up'' if he knew of information that ''implicates the president,'' describing it as a ''national security issue.'' The president's attorney also said that Trump's feeling toward Flynn ''still remains.''

Mueller examined the voicemail as part of his investigation into whether Trump or others obstructed justice, in which Flynn provided information. Mueller ultimately did not make a decision on whether Trump obstructed the investigation.

After the call was released several internet sleuths compared the call transcript to the transcript published in the Mueller report.

Robert Mueller and his hitman Andrew Weissmann manipulated the transcript and lied about the call.This is more proof the deep state used any means possible including lying to get Trump.

Rosie Memos discovered the Mueller-Weissmann edited the report to make it look more damaging.

Via Rosie Memos: Once again #MuellerReport edited messages to make them appear more damaging, full transcript of this phone call reveals Dowd's message was pretty typical for a lawyer and he clearly states he's not interested in any confidential info. What else did they manipulate

Conservative Treehouse later explained: Notice how Mueller leaves out (via edits) the context of the call, and the important qualifier: ''without you having to give up any confidential information.'' Clearly Dowd does not want to interfere in Flynn's cooperation with the special counsel, which is opposite to the twisted claim presented by Weissmann and Mueller's report.

Attorney Techno Fog got a response from John Dowd last night about the Mueller-Weissmann manipulations.

EXCLUSIVE

We got a statement from former Trump lawyer John Dowd, responding to the Special Counsel's deceptive edits of his voicemail to Flynn's lawyer

"It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel '' with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed" pic.twitter.com/gizOEl0Fxu

'-- Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 31, 2019

Mueller and Weissmann lied in their report to get President Trump and General Flynn.Will these criminals ever face justice for their perjury?

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 14:48

To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science has mobilized an elite team of creative minds across art, industry, academia, the Department of Defense and the US intelligence community with the goal of advancing our current understanding of scientific phenomena and its technological implications. Our best-in-class experts believe there are transformative discoveries within our reach, but we can only find them through the unrestricted support of breakthrough research, innovation, and education. As a public benefit corporation, our goal is to inspire, explore and apply discoveries in ways that can advance human knowledge and have a profound impact on the future of humanity. We accomplish our efforts through a dynamic collaboration between three divisions in entertainment, science, and aerospace.

The Team Tom DeLonge

Interim CEO and President

Tom DeLonge is the co-founder and interim CEO of To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science. As President of the company's subsidiary, To The Stars Inc., since 2015, he was primarily engaged within the entertainment sector. His career spans over two decades, selling over 25 million records worldwide with the bands he co-founded, Blink182 and Angels & Airwaves. Prior to forming the TTS Academy, Mr. DeLonge co-founded Really Likeable People, Inc. (''RLP''), the parent company of international consumer lifestyle brands including Atticus Clothing and Macbeth Footwear, and the technology monetization platform, Modlife. Mr. DeLonge has taken his award-winning creative content that spans music, books, and film and built To The Stars Inc. as a vertically integrated entertainment business that develops, produces and distributes multi-media and merchandise worldwide.

Jim Semivan

Vice President Operations

Jim Semivan is the co-founder and Vice President Operations of TTS Academy. In 2007, Mr. Semivan founded the consulting firm, JimSem1 LLC, after his retirement as a senior intelligence service member of the Central Intelligence Agency. Since retirement, Mr. Semivan primarily worked as a consultant for the Intelligence Community (IC) on classified topics including IC leadership training, CIA tradecraft training and IC programs for countering weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Semivan retired from the Central Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Operations after 25 years as an operations officer, both overseas and domestically. Mr. Semivan holds bachelor's degrees from The Ohio State University and a M.A. from San Francisco State University.

Dr. Hal Puthoff

Vice President Science & Technology

Dr. Harold E. Puthoff is the co-founder and Vice President of Science and Technology of TTS Academy. Since 1985, Dr. Puthoff has served as President and CEO of EarthTech International, Inc. (ETI), and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (IASA). He has published numerous papers on electron-beam devices, lasers and space propulsion and has patents issued in the laser, communications, and energy fields. Dr. Puthoff's professional background spans more than five decades of research at General Electric, Sperry, the National Security Agency, Stanford University and SRI International. Dr. Puthoff regularly advises NASA , the Department of Defense and intelligence communities, corporations and foundations on leading-edge technologies and future technology trends. He earned his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1967 and won a Who's Who Lifetime Achievement in 2017 that recognizes individuals that have achieved greatness in their industry and have excelled in their field for at least 20 years.

Steve Justice

Chief Operating Officer and Aerospace Division Director

Steve is the Chief Operating Officer and Director of the TTS Academy Aerospace Division, tasked with leading the effort to examine the possibilities of emerging sciences and technologies. This team will work to define advanced systems exploiting radical technologies, prototypes promising concepts, and develop operational systems that shatter conventional thinking. He entered the defense aerospace industry in 1978 after graduating from the Georgia Institute of Technology. After 31 years, Stephen is the recently retired Program Director for Advanced Systems from Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs '' better known as the ''Skunk Works''. Stephen's industry experience brings to TTS Academy a deep understanding of strategy definition, breakthrough technology development, advanced concept design, prototyping, system fielding, and program planning and execution using a leadership style that inspires innovation.

Luis Elizondo

Director of Global Security & Special Programs

Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East. Most recently, Luis managed the security for certain sensitive portfolios for the US Government as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff. For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies. Luis' academic background includes Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, with research experience in tropical diseases. Luis is also an inventor who holds several patents.

Chris Mellon

National Security Affairs Advisor

Christopher Mellon is a private equity investor, political commentator and the Chair of the Science Committee at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. He served 20 years in the federal government, including as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and Bush Administrations. In addition, he's worked many years on Capitol Hill including as the Minority Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. As an aide to Senator William S. Cohen, he drafted the legislation that established the US Special Operations Command. He is the author of numerous articles on politics and national security, and the recipient of multiple awards from the Department of Defense and agencies of the US Intelligence Community. He holds a B.A. in economics from Colby College and an M.A. in international affairs from Yale University.

Dr. Paul Rapp

Brain Function & Consciousness Consultant

Dr. Paul Rapp is a Professor of Military and Emergency Medicine at the Uniformed Services University and Director of the Traumatic Injury Research Program. He also holds a secondary appointment as a Professor of Medical and Clinical Psychology. He is a past editor of Physica, and served on the editorial boards of the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Chaos and Complexity Letters, and Cognitive Neurodynamics. His past honors include a Certificate of Commendation from the Central Intelligence Agency for ''significant contributions to the mission of the Office of Research and Development.'' Dr. Rapp attended the University of Illinois and earned degrees in physiology (minor in Chemistry, Summa cum Laude) and engineering physics (Summa cum Laude). He received a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, working under the supervision of Professor Sir James Lighthill in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.

Dr. Norm Kahn

National Security & Program Management Consultant

Dr. Norm Kahn is currently a consultant on national security for the US Government, with a focus on preventing the use of biological weapons of mass destruction/disruption. Dr. Kahn had over a 30-year career with the Central Intelligence Agency, culminating in his development and direction of the Intelligence Community's Counter-Biological Weapons Program. Dr. Kahn is the recipient of the Agency's Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal and the Director of National Intelligence's National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. Dr. Kahn holds a B.S. degree in biology from the City College of New York and a Ph.D. in oceanography from the University of Rhode Island.

Dr. Colm Kelleher

Biotech Consultant

Dr. Colm Kelleher is a biochemist with a twenty-eight-year research career in cell and molecular biology currently working in senior management in the aerospace sector. He served as Laboratory Director at biotech company, Prosetta Corporation, leading several small molecule drug discovery programs focused on viruses of interest to the United States Department of Defense. He worked for eight years as Deputy Director of the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), a research organization using forensic science methodology to unravel scientific anomalies. From 2008-2011, he served as Deputy Administrator of a US government funded threat assessment program focused on advanced aerospace technology. Dr. Kelleher has authored more than forty peer reviewed scientific articles in cell and molecular biology, immunology and virology as well as two best-selling books, ''Hunt for the Skinwalker'' and ''Brain Trust''. He holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Dublin, Trinity College.

Dr. Adele Gilpin

Biomedical Research & Attorney

Dr. Adele Gilpin is a scientist with biomedical academic and research experience as well as an active, licensed, attorney. She served on the faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and the Medical College of Pennsylvania. She taught biostatistics, epidemiology, and the design and conduct of clinical trials. Dr. Gilpin led an international team of scientists and physicians in designing and implementing two multi-project programs that were, together, awarded $10 million by NIH, designing and conducting multiple clinical trials. Her regulatory law practice focuses on FDA regulated products such as medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and on research law. Since the program's inception in 2007, Dr. Gilpin has collaborated with the DOD's Traumatic Injury Research Program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. She was awarded the E. Randolph William award for exceptional pro bono service in both 2009 and 2011. She received B.A. and M.A. degrees and a Ph.D. from Temple University (psychology; quantitative psychology) and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center (cum laude).

The Company

The Entertainment Division is composed of the company's wholly-owned subsidiary To The Stars, a brand manager and vertically integrated business that licenses and creates original intellectual property brought to life by award-winning content creators. Spanning film, television, books, music, art, and merchandise, fans find themselves immersed in exciting stories that inspire a new understanding and appreciation for the profound mysteries of our universe. With our unique access to both credible and incredible information by our team of experts, To The Stars is informed storytelling where the line between science and science fiction is blurred.

The company's Science Division is a theoretical and experimental laboratory that seeks to challenge conventional thinking and discover the next-generation of physics. We have access to world-renowned scientists with advanced knowledge to pursue the company's research projects, which include quantum communication technology, the A.D.A.M. (Acquisition & Data Analysis of Materials) Research Project, and our Community of Interest ''COI'' database.

The company's Aerospace Division is dedicated to finding revolutionary breakthroughs in propulsion, energy, and communication. We are currently working with lead engineers from major Department of Defense and aerospace companies with the capability to pursue an advanced engineering approach to fundamental aerospace topics like Beamed-Energy Propulsion Launch Systems (''BELS''), Space-Time Metrics Engineering (''STME''), and warp-drive metrics.

Mission

Public BenefitTo The Stars Academy is a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), which means we take people and the planet into consideration in addition to the traditional goal of maximizing profit for shareholders. Our public purpose includes engaging in R&D and producing content to promote knowledge, discussion, awareness, and generate funds for research that has a positive impact on society.Education - Community - Sustainability - Transparency

News HISTORY® GREENLIGHTS NEW GROUNDBREAKING SERIES 'UNIDENTIFIED: INSIDE AMERICA'S UFO INVESTIGATION Tuesday March 12th, 2019

HISTORY® GREENLIGHTS NEW GROUNDBREAKING LIMITED NON-FICTION SERIES 'UNIDENTIFIED: INSIDE AMERICA'S UFO INVESTIGATION'' EXPOSING NEW EVIDENCE ON UFOs LEAD BY THE FORMER SPECIAL AGENT-IN-CHARGE AND DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S TOP SECRET PROGRAM AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCED BY TOM DELONGE

CLICK HERE to READ MORE

ENTERTAINMENT NEWS: 'STRANGE TIMES' SERIES IN DEVELOPMENT AT TBS (EXCLUSIVE AT VARIETY.COM) Monday December 10th, 2018

[EXCERPT] Former Blink-182 member Tom DeLonge left the hugely successful band in 2015 in part to explore other opportunities... His passion resulted in the acclaimed graphic novel, ''Strange Times,'' which is now being turned into a series for TBS.The series, which Variety can exclusively announce is being put into development, will be written and executive produced by Aaron Karo. DeLonge, The Cartel's Stan Spry and Jeff Holland and Strike Entertainment's Russell Binder will serve as executive producers.

DeLonge, who played guitar in Blink and fronted his own band, Angels and Airwaves, spoke with Variety about the new series and his long-term plans for ''Strange Times.''

Read the full article at Variety.com.

TTS Academy Announces The ADAM Research Project Thursday July 26th, 2018

To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science Announces The ADAM Research Project, an Academic Research Program Focused on Exotic Materials for Technology Innovation

Investors and Friends,Today we announce the launch of our flagship research program, The ADAM Research Project, and our partnership with EarthTech International ( www.earthtech.org ), a pioneering research organization in Austin, Texas, at the forefront of next-generation science and technology.

Project ADAM, an acronym for Acquisition & Data Analysis of Materials, will focus on the collection and scientific evaluation of material samples obtained through reliable reports of advanced aerospace vehicles of unknown origin.

We are overwhelmed by the reception our world-class team has received since the launch of the company and are confident in our ability to be among the leading research teams focused on trying to answer some of the biggest questions of our lifetime. We have been busy the past few months setting up infrastructure and operations. We have been fortunate to have incredible people reaching out to us from all over the globe to collaborate in our scientific exploration and are committed to a thoughtful, open-minded approach to our endeavor.

None of this would be possible without your continued support for which we are grateful. We look forward to sharing our journey with you.

Tom DeLongeCEO, To The Stars Academy of Arts & ScienceRead more about The ADAM Research Project HERE.

Committed To Our Community and Planet Thursday April 12th, 2018

TTS Academy is committed to our Public Benefit Corporation initiatives of education, community, sustainability and transparency. Here is a recap of the top moments of the last 6 months.

GO FAST: NEW Official USG Footage Available on our COI Friday March 9th, 2018

GO FAST is the third of three official USG videos selected for release after official review by multiple government organizations. While To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science was the first to obtain a copy, it should be available to any member of the press or public via the Freedom of Information Act. This footage was captured by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet using the Raytheon ATFLIR Pod that was being operated by a highly trained aerial observer and weapons system operator whom the government has spent millions of dollars to train. Go Fast reveals a previously undisclosed Navy encounter that occurred off the East Coast of the United States in 2015 and the object in view remains unidentified.

Read further analysis of what is being observed by our team of experts including additional videos and reports on our community of interest: coi.tothestarsacademy.com.

Who knows what perils we may avoid or opportunities we might identify if we follow the data? Friday March 9th, 2018

Poet Anderson ...In Darkness Hits #1 New Release Monday January 8th, 2018

Poet Anderson ...In Darkness, the second book in the award-winning franchise about the power of lucid dreamers, hits the #1 New Release spot on Amazon ahead of its January 30th release. Featuring the artwork of an original painting by Tom French on the cover, the novel leads the pack in the competitive Teen & Young Adult genre within the Fantasy & Supernatural Mysteries & Thrillers category.

TTS Academy's Director of Global Security Discusses Release of USG UAP Footage Wednesday December 20th, 2017

History in the Making: The First Official USG Footage of UAPs Saturday December 16th, 2017

It is the mission of To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science to collaborate with global citizens in order to help push science, technology, and ultimately humanity forward. To help accomplish this, we plan on building a powerful and robust community of interest (COI) platform where we can enable interdisciplinary collaboration on reporting and analysis of anomalies among the public at large, academia, industry partners, government and every level of law enforcement. Our vision is to collect, triage, and partition signature data, utilizing forensic and scientific methodology, into a central database that can be used to shed light on anomalies, trends, and patterns. We believe these data, when analyzed rigorously, could lead to a better understanding of our reality, including some of the most fascinating and mysterious phenomena in the universe. In turn, our vision is to involve the public with the discovery of revolutionary breakthroughs in science and technology. Today we are excited to announce the first step has been taken towards our goal with the launch of the TTS Academy Community of Interest. On this site you will find the first official footage of UAP's, Gimbal and FLIR1, that have gone through the US government declassification process and have been approved for release. These videos are accompanied by an analysis performed by Steve Justice, TTS Academy Aerospace Division Director and Lue Elizondo, Director of Global Security & Special Programs with further in-depth analysis to follow. You will also be able to read a report from a highly decorated fighter pilot who is a recognized expert in aviation and Navy combat flight operations with Top Secret clearance, who was interviewed about his encounter with a UAP during the 2004 Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego. Make sure to sign up to the email list to be notified as additional intelligence and analyses are added. Go to the TTS Academy Community of Interest by clicking HERE.

LUIS ELIZONDO REVEALS DETAILS ABOUT PENTAGON'S HIDDEN UFO PROGRAM IN STUNNING NEW YORK TIMES FRONT PAGE EXPOS‰ Saturday December 16th, 2017

LUIS ELIZONDO REVEALS DETAILS ABOUT PENTAGON'S HIDDEN UFO PROGRAM IN STUNNING NEW YORK TIMES FRONT PAGE EXPOS‰ELIZONDO LEAVES PENTAGON TO JOIN TO THE STARS ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCEELIZONDO AND TO THE STARS ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCE LAUNCH''COMMUNITY OF INTEREST'' WEBSITE WITH FIRST OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT VIDEOS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA '' VIDEOS SEEN HERE

Los Angeles (December 16, 2017 ) '' The New York Times has published a stunning expos(C) titled ''Glowing Auras and 'Black Money': The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program.'' In it, former Pentagon military intelligence official LUIS ELIZONDO confirmed the existence of a hidden government program (the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program) that investigated the existence of U.F.O's, a department he ran under a veil of secrecy since 2009.The Times story featured an excerpt from Elizondo's resignation letter in which he expressed his frustration with the limitations placed on the program, telling higher-ups ''there remains a vital need to ascertain capability and intent of these phenomena for the benefit of the armed forces and the nation.''

Elizondo left his Pentagon post to join To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, a consortium of scientists, aerospace engineers and creatives founded by company President and CEO Tom DeLonge, VP of Science and Technology Dr. Hal Puthoff (also quoted in the Times story) and = VP of Operations Jim Semivan. The principals include Aerospace Division Director Steve Justice and National Security Affairs Advisor Chris Mellon. The company launched this past October with a mission to explore exotic science and technologies to rapidly transition innovative ideas into world-changing products and services.

"I am first and foremost a soldier,'' says Elizondo, who now serves as Director of Global Security & Special Programs for To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science. ''I was honored to serve at the DOD and took my mission of exploring unexplained aerial phenomena quite seriously. In the end, however, I couldn't carry out that mission, because the Department '-- which was understandably overstretched '-- couldn't give it the resources that the mounting evidence deserved. So, under very good terms, I left to find an environment where investigating these phenomena is priority number one. I'm thrilled to say I found that environment at the To The Stars Academy, an amazing team of top-flight scientists from the defense, industry and intelligence communities alongside passionate creatives to help tell the story. We look forward to working closely with the US government to produce the best possible results for America and the world."

Today Elizondo and the TTS Academy launched a ''Community of Interest'' website to serve as a central database and communal hub '' clickHERE. The website will be home to video footage, documents and other materials that can be studied and explored for transformative breakthroughs in science and engineering through a unique collaboration among scientists, academics, industry partners, government and the public at large.

Its content at launch includes two of the first official U.S. government videos of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) referenced in the Times article, which have recently gone through the U.S. government's official declassification review process to be approved for public release. Alongside each video is technical analysis from Elizondo and TTS Academy's Aerospace Division Director (and former Program Director for Advanced Systems at Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works) Steve Justice. Click HERE.

Footage in the videos was captured by advanced sensor tracking technology in separate U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets. In the 34-second ''Gimbal'' (the name likely a reference to the UAP's free-tilting movement), astonished pilots can be heard talking excitedly about an oval-shaped craft spotted at an altitude close to 25,000 feet. The object has no distinguishable flight surfaces or exhaust plume, and its flight seems to defy the known laws of physics. In the under-1:30 video ''FLIR1'' (reference to footage captured by the F/A-18's Forward Looking Infrared System), an unknown object is seen at appx. 24,000 feet. The footage, which has no sound, shows the object hovering with no exhaust plume, displaying extreme maneuverability and sudden acceleration that cannot be achieved by any known aircraft. These are two of several official videos obtained by TTS Academy that serve as credible proof of the physics of advanced flight.

Visitors to TTS Academy's Community of Interest website are encouraged to sign up for email to receive updates when additional intelligence is added.

About the TTS Academy Community of InterestIt's the mission of To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science to collaborate with global citizens in order to help push science, technology, and ultimately humanity forward. To help accomplish this, the company is building a powerful and robust community of interest (COI) platform to enable interdisciplinary collaboration on reporting and analysis of anomalies among the public at large, academia, industry partners, government and every level of law enforcement.

TTS Academy's vision is to collect, triage, and partition signature data, utilizing forensic and scientific methodology, into a central database that can be used to shed light on anomalies, trends, and patterns. They believe these data, when analyzed rigorously, could lead to a better understanding of our reality, including some of the most fascinating and mysterious phenomena in the universe. In turn, their vision is to involve the public with the discovery of revolutionary breakthroughs in science and technology.

About To The Stars Academy of Arts & ScienceTo The Stars Academy of Arts & Science is a public benefit organization that strives to be a powerful vehicle for change by creating a dynamic consortium, free of bureaucratic constraint, between science, aerospace and entertainment. Led by a team of the most experienced, connected and passionately curious minds form the US intelligence community, TTS Academy believes there are transformative discoveries within our reach, but they can only be accomplished through unrestricted support of breakthrough research, discovery, education and innovation.

To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science believes it's the duty of private entities to invest in scientific discovery and disclosure unconstrained by government priorities, done with the help of citizens who collaborate and join by investing in the mission via the DPO. For more information, visit www.ToTheStarsAcademy.com.

Aerospace Division Update by Steve Justice Friday November 10th, 2017

Since our 11 October launch event, there has been great interest and speculation regarding the details of the Aerospace Division. Allow me to share some insights into our organization and near-term plans. The organization is structured to be the central technology and program development arm for TTS Academy. It is composed of three groups:

Concept Definition - harvest technologies and information from the Science Division for maturation efforts (lab demonstrations and prototyping) Product Realization - transition prototypes to production operational systems Operations - support for fielded production systems

As of today, TTS Academy is evaluating hundreds of newly received technical papers and studies created by universities and technology companies. This information covers materials, physics, and analyses of observed events. While we evaluate and expand our understanding of breakthrough physics for advanced propulsion, we also expect near-term, demonstrated progress in advancing technology. We are building plans for experiments with exotic materials and beamed energy propulsion systems. Each effort will be approached using the scientific method to ensure results are substantiated and provide indisputable proof of all claims.

-Steve JusticeAerospace Division Director

Farfetched? Inc. reporter Jeff Haden says "I realized it's not" Wednesday October 25th, 2017

[EXCERPT] Many people assume the path to success lies in focusing on just one thing. If you're great at one thing (or just doing one thing) you can't be an "and," even though Venus Williams is a tennis player and an entrepreneur . Even though Jessica Alba is an actor and an entrepreneur . Even though most successful people achieve success in a variety of pursuits, professional and personal. We should never be just one thing. We should all be "ands." As I describe in my new book that comes out in January (pre-order it and you'll not only make Penguin Random House happy, you'll also be my new best friend) while we don't all have to be serial entrepreneurs... we should all be serial achievers.We should all try to be more than one thing -- regardless of what other people might think.

Case in point: Tom DeLonge. If you don't know Tom, he's a multi-platinum selling rock musician (Blink-182, Angels and Airwaves) who turned down a considerable payday from re-uniting with his old band to self-finance a science fiction-related book/music/film project.

Somehow that project led him to have meetings with individuals at the Department of Defense and NASA -- people who don't have sit-downs with anyone, much less rock stars.

And somehow those meetings lead to partnering with a 25-year veteran of the CIA's Director of Operations, a Lockheed Martin Program Director for Advanced Systems at Skunk Works, and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to start a company to explore "exotic science and technologies" and turn innovative ideas into world-changing products and services.

The result is To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, a Public Benefit Corporation that seeks to "collaborate with global citizens to advance science and build a powerful community of interest" that is made up of three divisions: Entertainment, Science, and Aerospace.

Sound like a pretty farfetched "and" for a rock star to pull off?

After talking with Tom and Steve Justice, the Director of the Aerospace Division, I realized it's not.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE AT INC.

Huffington Post Exclusive Report Wednesday October 11th, 2017

By: Leslie Kean, ContributorInvestigative Journalist and Author[Excerpt] Something extraordinary is about to be revealed. Former high-level officials and scientists with deep black experience who have always remained in the shadows are now stepping into the light. These insiders have long-standing connections to government agencies, which may have programs investigating unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). They intend to move into the private sector and to make all declassified information, and any future knowledge, available for all to see.

READ More at http://huffp.st/QSgCuRZ

FAQ HOW IS TTS ACADEMY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER COMPANIES OF ITS KIND?There are no other companies like TTS Academy. There are other smaller independent research companies investigating similar technologies. However, TTS Academy is the first and only public benefit corporation (PBC) to have a focused effort for data collection and study of exotic technologies, the ability to apply those technologies to create products with revolutionary capabilities and to share the story of that journey through an entertainment division. What also sets us apart is the collection of top leadership talent from the government, aerospace and entertainment industries which brings unprecedented credibility to each of the operating divisions.WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS THAT OTHERS MAY NOT GET?

As with any revolutionary concept '' be it a business or technology '' there is a large population that believes it cannot be done. Realizing that the impossible is only something that hasn't been seen before is the first step. The TTS Academy team believes that, despite the rapid advance of technology in our world today, there are undiscovered breakthroughs in physics which can fundamentally advance humanity. TTS Academy has been specifically structured to find clues to those technologies and transition them to products that improve our world.WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST RISK?

Funding. A quote from the film The Right Stuff is truly relevant: ''No bucks, no Buck Rogers.'' Funding is one of the enablers of innovation. TTS Academy has assembled the other critical enablers: innovation-driven leadership and a company structured to allow that innovation spirit to flourish.WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR BIGGEST OBSTACLE SO FAR? HOW DID YOU OVERCOME IT?

Our largest obstacle to date has been presenting the concept of TTS Academy in a way that separates it from the doubters and ''profiling'' that arises when one speaks of non-mainstream subjects such as the study of UAP technologies. Until now, proof of official government interest has been only speculation. Through years of groundwork, discussions, and presentations, we have been successful in drawing interest from unexpected organizations. The reveals at the live event and the launch of the Community of Interest are proof of the effective credibility we have established.WHAT DO YOU TELL PEOPLE WHO ARE SKEPTICAL OF YOUR CHANCES OF SUCCESS?

For those that are skeptical, we ask that you allow us to share our journey. TTS Academy is structured to educate, inform, and entertain. Watch us. Do your own investigation. Challenge us with what you find. If you do that, we are certain that you will begin to understand our mission and our purpose to bring #profoundpossiblities to reality.

WHAT IS EQUITY CROWDFUNDING? In March 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released final Regulation A+ rules under Title IV of the JOBS Act, paving the way for companies like TTS Academy to raise capital from both accredited and unaccredited investors. Click here for more FAQs about equity crowdfunding and investing in TTS Academy.WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF EARLY-STAGE INVESTING?

Because Reg A+ allows early stage investing by non-accredited investors, the SEC put limits in place to protect the general public from investing more than they can afford to lose in early-stage companies. However, investing in start-up and early-stage companies is risky due to the nature of these types of entities and the long horizon of the investment type. Please review the Offering Circular for a complete discussion of the risks before investing.

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN INVESTING?To make an investment, click the 'Invest Now' button and have the following information readily available:' Personal information such as your current address and phone number' Net worth and income information' Social Security Number or government-issued identification' Your credit card or ABA bank routing number and checking account number if you want to pay via ACH (typically found on a personal check or bank statement)NOTE: Our partner PrimeTrust verifies investor details and conducts background checks as required by US law. You may be asked to provide documentation supporting your investor details. If this is the case, we will notify you via email.After you complete the 'Invest Now' process and send funds, your funds will be held in escrow (meaning we can't access it) until we conduct a ''closing''. A Closing will occur once a month. Once your investment funds are part of a Closing, you will receive a letter from our transfer agent, Computershare, including an account statement documenting your securities. The letter will provide instructions on how to set up your profile on ComputerShare. All of your contracts will be hosted on Computershare at your portfolio screen.

CAN I INVEST NO MATTER WHERE I LIVE?

US: Unfortunately we cannot accept investment from residents in Florida, Nebraska or North Dakota at this time. Please see 'Plan of Distribution' in our Offering Circular for information about the states where the company is/is not offering securities.Canada: Unfortunately, we are not permitted to accept investment from Canadian citizens or residents.

Elsewhere outside the US: With the exception of Canada, you may invest from outside the US. However, we make no representation that this site is operated in accordance with the laws or regulations of, or governed by, nations other than those of the United States. If you are located outside of the United States, you use this Site at your own risk and initiative and you, not us, are responsible for compliance with any applicable local and national laws.

International bank fees: Please be aware when investing from outside the US, your bank as well as intermediary banks will may charge fees for transferring funds. Be sure to inquire about these fees before sending payment to make sure you send the correct amount.

PAYMENT METHODS AND TERMS.

METHODS: Through our payment partner PrimeTrust, we currently accept the following payment methods: ACH, Wire, Check and Credit Cards (Visa, MasterCard and Discover). Please note: the credit card payment option not available from Australia. You can pay by PayPal Cheque if you meet their requirements: https://www.paypal.com/au/selfhelp/article/what-is-an-echeque-faq1082. Select the ACH option and enter in your routing and account number.TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS:

If you choose to use a credit card as your payment method, you accept and agree to these terms and conditions:' You can use Visa, MasterCard or Discover. Credit card must have a valid security code' Payments cannot be split between multiple credit cards' Until an escrow closing, you can cancel your investment for any reason by notifying us at investorrelations@tothestarsacademy.com within 3 business days of sending your funds. Refunds will be initiated in 7-10 days, subject to applicable laws/government regulation' Please refer terms and conditions available on Offering Circular for detailed information about the investment' If your credit card payment cannot be processed for any reason, then your investment transaction will be cancelled' AUSTRALIANS EXCLUDED. Australia prohibits the sale of securities by credit card.REFUND POLICY: Until an escrow closing, you can cancel your investment for any reason by notifying us at investorrelations@tothestarsacademy.com within 3 business days of sending your funds. Refunds will be initiated in 7-10 days after notification.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER INVESTING?

SHARES: Once your investment funds are part of a Closing, you will receive a letter from our transfer agent, ComputerShare, including an account statement documenting your securities. The letter will provide instruction on how to set up your profile on ComputerShare. All of your contracts will be hosted on ComputerShare at your portfolio screen.UPDATES: Visit tothestarsacademy.com for the latest developments. We will issue an annual report once a year with financial statements and a discussion of our business, no later than 3 months after the end of our fiscal year.

SELLING/TRADING SHARES: We are a privately held company, and our shares are not traded on a public stock exchange. As a result, the shares cannot be easily traded or sold. As an investor in a private company, you typically receive a return on your investment under the following two scenarios:

' The company gets acquired by another company.' The company goes public (undergoes an initial public offering on the NASDAQ, NYSE, or another exchange).In those instances, you receive your pro-rata share of the distributions that occur. You should read about the risks of the investment in the Offering Circular.

ARE YOU HIRING/CAN I VOLUNTEER?Thank you for your email - we appreciate your interest in TTS Academy. We're not currently engaging volunteers nor are we hiring/offering internships at this time. Please check back with us for future opportunities with TTS Academy.PROJECT PITCHES:

Thank you for your interest in TTS Academy. Unfortunately, we don't accept any unsolicited submissions.

Please direct all press inquiries to: Michael.Moses@bwr-pr.com.

Contact Us The TTS Academy is here to answer your questions. Please fill out the form and one of our representatives will get back to you promptly.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 14:45

Luis Elizondo is a former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI).[1] He currently serves as Director of Global Security and Special Programs at To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science.[2] Elizondo claims to have held several key positions within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff and Director of Programs to investigate Unidentified Aerial Threats.[3] Also known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), the latter was a secretive $22 million program initiated by the Defense Intelligence Agency in order to study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), formerly known as UFOs. [4] According to the Pentagon, it was cancelled in 2012.[5]

Elizondo grew frustrated that scores of unexplained UAP sightings having been recorded and reported by numerous United States Navy pilots over the years were not being taken sufficiently seriously by Pentagon leadership, and resigned from the OUSDI in October 2017 in order to publicly promote UAP research for scientific and entertainment purposes.[6] In April 2019, the Navy acknowledged that it was drafting new guidelines for pilots and other personnel to report encounters with "unidentified aircraft."[7] Elizondo called this policy decision ''the single greatest decision the Navy has made in decades.''[8] A six-part History Channel series titled Unidentified: Inside America's U.F.O. Investigation features Elizondo and others affiliated with AATIP.[9][10][11]

References [ edit ] ^ Warrick, Joby. "Head of Pentagon's secret 'UFO' office sought to make evidence public". Washington Post . Retrieved 2019-05-23 . ^ "To The Stars Academy". To the Stars. 2017-10-10 . Retrieved 2019-05-23 . ^ Kean, Leslie; Journalist, ContributorInvestigative; Author (2017-10-11). "Fmr. Manager of DOD Aerospace Threat Program: "UFOs are Real " ". HuffPost . Retrieved 2019-05-23 . ^ Cooper, Helene; Blumenthal, Ralph; Kean, Leslie (2017-12-16). "Glowing Auras and 'Black Money': The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2019-05-23 . ^ Blumenthal, Ralph (2017-12-18). "On the Trail of a Secret Pentagon U.F.O. Program". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2019-05-23 . ^ Bender, Bryan. "The Pentagon's Secret Search for UFOs". POLITICO Magazine . Retrieved 2019-05-29 . ^ Bender, Bryan. "U.S. Navy drafting new guidelines for reporting UFOs". POLITICO . Retrieved 2019-05-29 . ^ Paul, Deanna (2019-04-25). "How angry pilots got the Navy to stop dismissing UFO sightings". Washington Post. ^ "Watch Preview: Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation: Aware Clip - Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation". HISTORY . Retrieved 2019-05-29 . ^ Cooper, Helene; Blumenthal, Ralph; Kean, Leslie (2019-05-26). " ' Wow, What Is That?' Navy Pilots Report Unexplained Flying Objects". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2019-05-29 . ^ "Interview with 'Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation' with former Special Agent Luis Elizondo". We Are The Mighty. 2019-05-28 . Retrieved 2019-05-29 .

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:57

CommentsYour feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 13:11

Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski writes in an article posted at Lew Rockwell's website that Julian Assange is receiving the same treatment as suspected terrorists while in captivity at ''Her Majesty's Prison Service'' at Belmarsh.

The FBI, Pentagon, and CIA are ''interviewing'' Assange. Kwiatkowski writes:

Interviewing is the wrong word. I'd like to say doctoring him, because it would be more accurate, except that word implies some care for a positive outcome. Chemical Gina has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being ''treated'' with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ.

BZ is a powerful drug that produces hallucinations.

''Soldiers on BZ could remember only fragments of the experience afterward. As the drug wore off, and the subjects had trouble discerning what was real, many experienced anxiety, aggression, even terror,'' the New Yorker reported. '''...The drug's effect lasted for days. At its peak, volunteers were totally cut off in their own minds, jolting from one fragmented existence to the next. They saw visions: Lilliputian baseball players competing on a tabletop diamond; animals or people or objects that materialized and vanished.''

Assange is being chemically lobotomized prior to being extradited to the United States to stand trial on bogus computer hacking charges that'--and the corporate media won't tell you this'--passed the statute of limitations three years ago (see 18 U.S. Code §'¯371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States).

Forget about the statute of limitations. The US government has long violated both domestic and international law. It is a rogue nation led by an ignorant clown who opened the back door and ushered in neocon psychopaths notorious for killing millions. In normal times, these criminals would be in the dock at The Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity. But we don't live in normal times.

The message is clear: if you expose the massive criminal enterprise at the heart of the US government, you will be renditioned, chemically tortured (a favorite of Chemical Gina, now CIA director), chewed up and spit out until you're a babbling mental case like David Shayler (who believes he is the Second Coming of Christ). Shayler, a former MI5 agent, made the mistake of exposing the UK's support of terror operations in Libya. Shayler spent three weeks at Belmarsh after a conviction for breaching the Official Secrets Act. He emerged from prison broken and delusional.

I seriously doubt most Americans care about the chemical torture of Julian Assange. On social media, liberals and so-called progressives, along with their ''conservative'' counterparts, celebrate Assange's arrest, confinement, and torture. Members of Congress have called for his execution, while one media talking head (teleprompter script reader) demanded the CIA send a hit team to London and assassinate Assange.

Americans are similar to the propagandized and brainwashed citizens of Nazi Germany. Most went along with Hitler right up until the end when their cities lay in smoldering ruins and their once proud country was carved up, half of it given over to the communists. They set up the Stasi to deal with East Germans who were not following the totalitarian program.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author's blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wired

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 23:53

A survey found ''significant gaps'' in knowledge about Auschwitz and the Holocaust, particularly among millennial-age respondents, according to a statement and survey results released on Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, 2019.

According to the survey, conducted in February 2018 by interviewing 1,350 American adults aged 18 and older, two-thirds of millennials '-- 66 percent '-- cannot identify what Auschwitz was. Auschwitz opened in 1940 in southern Poland and was the largest of the Nazi concentration camps.

''Auschwitz, Poland '' January 1, 2011: The Auschwitz concentration camp is located about 30 miles (50 km) from Krakow. The picture shows two rows of electrical barbed wire surrounding the camp on winter day.''

The Holocaust Knowledge and Awareness Study found that seven-out-of-ten Americans say fewer people seem to care about the Holocaust than they used to and a majority '-- 58 percent '-- believe something like the Holocaust could happen again, according to the Conference on Material Claims Against Germany, which commissioned the study.

''The survey found there are critical gaps both in awareness of basic facts as well as detailed knowledge of the Holocaust, and there is a broad-based consensus that schools must be responsible for providing comprehensive Holocaust education,'' according to a statement released by the Claims Conference.

Still photograph from the Soviet Film of the liberation of Auschwitz

In the survey, 11 percent of U.S. adults and over one-fifth of millennials haven't heard of, or are not sure if they have heard of, the Holocaust.

The ignorance gap widens when it comes to identifying what Auschwitz was. When that question was posed, 41 percent of Americans did not know what the camp was, and 66 percent of the millennials did not know, the survey says.

Other troubling findings were that 52 percent of Americans wrongly think Hitler came to power through force, when he was elected to office by the German voters.

While 84 percent of U.S. adults know that the Holocaust occurred in Germany, just 37 percent identified Poland as a country where the Holocaust also occurred.

Auschwitz-Birkenau main track. Photo by C.Puisney CC BY-SA 3.0

The study has attracted some criticism. The website Truth or Fiction said that the study ''stated that two-thirds of millennials 'don't know what Auschwitz was,' but the article said two-thirds were 'unable to explain what Auschwitz was.' ''

''Not knowing a thing and being unable to explain a thing are vastly different descriptors '-- without further details in either the post or the article, readers were not necessarily equipped to determine just what purported level of ignorance 'millennials' maintained about the events of the Holocaust.''

However, the growth in unawareness about the Holocaust is a widely shared concern, and underscores the need for education.

''Selection'' of Hungarian Jews on the ramp at Auschwitz-II (Birkenau), May/June 1944

A recent CNN poll in Europe revealed that about a third of the 7,000 European respondents across seven countries knew ''just a little or nothing at all'' about the Holocaust. ''In France, nearly 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 said they had never heard of the Holocaust,'' according to CNN.

Related Video:

''This study underscores the importance of Holocaust education in our schools,'' Greg Schneider, executive vice president of the Claims Conference said in a statement. ''There remain troubling gaps in Holocaust awareness while survivors are still with us; imagine when there are no longer survivors here to tell their stories.''

One of the trains that left Bergen-Belsen for Theresienstadt in early April, liberated by American forces

Virtually all of the recently surveyed U.S. adults, or 93 percent, believe all students should learn about the Holocaust in school and 80 percent say it is important to keep teaching about it so it does not happen again, according to the statement accompanying the survey.

Read another story from us: Separated at Birth '' How Identical Twin Nazi and Jewish Brothers Found Each Other

''As we get farther away from the actual events, 70-plus years now, it becomes less forefront of what people are talking about or thinking about or discussing or learning,'' said Matthew Bronfman, a board member of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which commissioned the study, said in an interview with The New York Times.

''If we wait another generation before you start trying to take remedial action, I think we're really going to be behind the eight ball.''

We hope you are enjoying The Vintage News. Please consider helping us with our journey to bring popular historical content to everyone by becoming a supporter today. Thanks.

Become a Supporter

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 00:02

Meryl Streep, the actress often referred to as the 'Queen of Hollywood', suffered an unusually sharp backlash from the otherwise adoring mainstream media over her defense of men and criticism of the term 'toxic masculinity'.

Streep was promoting her debut appearance in the upcoming second series of the HBO hit 'Big Little Lies' during a Q&A hosted by Vanity Fair. During the talk Streep interjected after co-star Nicole Kidman said a male viewer told her he was a fan of the show.

BREAKING: Meryl Streep slams term 'toxic masculinity', says it's damaging to boys/men & adds that 'women can be pretty f*cking toxic' too. I've had my issues with Ms Streep, but on this, I applaud her. 👏👏 https://t.co/uChqSaiCLj

'-- Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) May 30, 2019Meryl Streep suggests we stop using term ''toxic masculinity.'' It's harmful to boys. Plus, she says ''women can be pretty f***ing toxic.'' She's right. https://t.co/DfeyzCGE9K

'-- Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) May 30, 2019''Sometimes I think we're hurt. We hurt our boys by calling something 'toxic masculinity'. I do,'' Streep said. ''And I don't find [that] putting those two words together ... because women can be pretty f***ing toxic.''

READ MORE: Anne Hathaway denounces 'white privilege' at star-studded gala dinner

''It's toxic people,'' she continued, saying that she finds labels unhelpful. ''We're all on the boat together. We've got to make it work.''

The actress was quickly kicked under the proverbial table for straying from Hollywood's left leaning party-line, with the HuffPost lambasting her for having ''zero idea'' what the term means. The criticism was echoed by both Jezebel and the Guardian who claimed the 'Suffragette' actress ''clearly has no idea what 'toxic masculinity' means.''

Meryl streep is an old rich white boomer who stars in boring movies which she gets nominated for anyways. Toxic masculinity is more specific than this and it's VERY REAL https://t.co/EDwMg0OrUH

'-- biggie cheese (@bertoligy) May 30, 2019The collective furor is a result of the media's ''echo chamber of conformity,'' according to the Hill's Joe Concha. Appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Concha noted that the world of Hollywood is much like the MSM: stay in line, or you'll be cut from the crew.

''It's an echo chamber of conformity. If you step outside that lane... then you probably will be ostracized,'' said the journalist.

Also on rt.com Rose McGowan blasts 'lily-livered liberals' for 'bullsh*t' and 'fake' #MeToo movement Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 08:51

Until now, infertility - the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex - was not considered a disability.

But now in dramatic move the World Health Organisation will change the standard to suggest that a person who is unable to find a suitable sexual partner or is lacking a sexual relationship to have children - will now be equally classified as disabled.

WHO says the change will give every individual ''the right to reproduce''.

Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems.

But critics branded the new laws as ''absurd nonsense'' arguing that the organisation has overstepped the mark by moving into social matters rather than health.

Gareth Johnson MP, former chair of the All Parliamentary Group on Infertility, whose own children were born thanks to fertility treatment, said: ''I'm in general a supporter of IVF. But I've never regarded infertility as a disability or a disease but rather a medical matter.

''I'm the first to say you should have more availability of IVF to infertile couples but we need to ensure this whole subject retains credibility.

''This definition runs the risk of undermining the work Nice and others have done to ensure IVF treatment is made available for infertile couples when you get definitions off the mark like this. I think it's trying to put IVF into a box that it doesn't fit into frankly.''

Josephine Quintavalle,from Comment on Reproductive Ethics added: ''This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman.

''How long before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?''

But Dr David Adamson, an author of the new standards, argued it is a ''big chance'' for single and gay people.

He said: ''The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.

"It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual's got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It's a big change.

"It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard. Countries are bound by it."

A spokesman for the Department of Health said the NHS was under no obligation to follow World Health Organisation's final advice.

Under the Equality Act 2010 a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative effect on their ability to do normal daily activities.

But Libby Purves, presenter of Radio 4's Midweek, was scathing about the new recommendation.

She said: ''When a flaky new human right is suddenly tossed out by a serious UN agency it is not just silly but dangerous.

''The World Health Organisation, which has plenty else on its plate, has long defined infertility as a disability.

''It is sad but not disabled compared to someone who is blind, deaf, mentally impaired, or seriously crippled.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 10:12

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 03:37

Asia & Pacific19:56 30.05.2019Get short URL

Earlier, Microsoft halted the sale of top-of-the-line Huawei MateBook X Pro laptops made by the Chinese tech giant in its online store, bowing to Washington's decision to ban the company from US soil.

As the trade war between the US and China continues, Beijing plans to ditch Microsoft's Windows OS, currently used by the county's military, and replace it with a home-made analogue, Forbes reported. China reportedly fears that the US might use Windows' vulnerabilities to hack into its military network.

The People's Liberation Army's Internet Security Information Leadership Group (ISILG) will reportedly take on the task of creating a replacement for the Microsoft OS and UNIX system, also used by the Chinese military. China has previously already mulled such an option, regarding the Linux-based "Red Flag" OS as a possible replacement for Microsoft's system. However, these ideas have not seen much development so far.

This time, the notion was brought up amid the ongoing trade war between China and the US, which recently took a new turn after Washington banned Huawei equipment from its domestic market and tried to pressure its European allies to do the same, citing alleged cybersecurity issues. The US claims that Huawei is working with the Chinese government and installing backdoors in its equipment on behalf of Beijing.

READ MORE: Microsoft Joins Google's Crackdown on Huawei Amid US Blacklisting

The Chinese tech firm was designated as a "national security threat" and banned from obtaining any US-made technologies by Washington. The move reportedly left the company without future Android support and American-made chips for its devices. What is more, Microsoft has stopped selling Huawei's MateBook X Pro in its stores in the US.

Both Beijing and Huawei have repeatedly denounced the American accusations as being false. The Chinese tech giant filed a suit against the US government over the bans.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 08:51

Wild boar can be immunized against African Swine Fever by a new vaccine delivered to the animals in their food, says new research. Published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, it is the first report of a promising inoculation against this deadly disease, which is a worldwide threat to the swine industry. The study also provides evidence that this immunity can be passed on via contact with immunized individuals, but further studies are needed to examine exactly how this occurs, as well as the safety of repeated administration.

"African swine fever is of enormous concern to the pig industry," says Dr. Jose Angel Barasona, a researcher at the VISAVET Health Surveillance Centre and co-author of this research. "Our study demonstrates the effectiveness of the first oral vaccine against this disease on Eurasian wild boar. Overall, we demonstrate that oral immunization of wild boar conferred 92% protection against a highly pathogenic strain of African Swine Fever, which is currently circulating in Asia and Europe."

High fever, loss of appetite and death

Infected animals can suffer terribly. Symptoms include high fever, depression, loss of appetite, vomiting, diarrhea, abortion in pregnant sows, as well as redness of skin on the ears, abdomen and legs. The most virulent, or dangerous, forms of this virus can lead to the death of all those infected.

African swine fever affects more than 55 countries on 3 continents, including China, which contains nearly half of the world's pig population. It is highly contagious and can be spread via contaminated feed and pork products, as well as shoes, clothes, vehicles, knives and equipment. Transmission can also occur by the movement of infected livestock and across wild boar populations. It is this latter form of infection that Barasona and his colleagues hope to prevent.

"Wild boar is the most severely affected by this virus in Europe and to date, none of the control measures have been effective. The importance of vaccinating wild boar was demonstrated during the 2000's when Classical Swine Fever affected different European countries, and an oral vaccine was used to reduce the incidence of infection in the wild populations in Germany."

The complex nature of the African Swine Fever virus, gaps in knowledge concerning infection and immunity, as well as technical difficulties, have hindered vaccine development. But in 2017, a wild boar in Latvia provided a breakthrough.

"Serum from a wild boar hunted in Rietumpieriga, Latvia, was confirmed as African Swine Fever Virus positive at the EU reference laboratory in Madrid, Spain," Barasona reports. "This was a weakly virulent strain of the disease, which enabled us to produce a live vaccine. When we inoculated wild boar in our laboratories with this live strain, they showed no symptoms of this disease but produced antibodies against the virus, ultimately giving them protection against the more dangerous form."

Immunity can be passed on via contact

When tested, as well as proving its effectiveness against one of the most dangerous strains of African swine fever, it revealed an additional capability to immunize other wild boar through contact with orally vaccinated animals.

"The 'shedding' of this vaccine might help amplify vaccination coverage, reducing the need for expensive production and large-scale administration of vaccine in the field," explains Barasona.

This vaccine, which would be administered in bait to the wild animals, represents considerable progress in the control of African Swine Fever in the wild and, subsequently, at the domestic/wildlife interface. However, Barasona cautions more research is needed before it can be used widely.

"If the safety of the vaccine can be established, then it may help mitigate the uncontrolled spread of African Swine Fever across Europe and Asia, like the success so far in halting the spread of Classical Swine Fever. Future studies should examine the vaccine's safety following repeated administration, the process of 'shedding', and its genetic stability during passage from one animal to another."

Story Source:

Materials provided by Frontiers. Original written by Tania Fitzgeorge-Balfour. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 13:26

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Staff at Baltimore City Hall have been unable to send or receive emails Politicians representing a US city struck by a ransomware attack are asking questions of the National Security Agency after claims it helped make the breach possible.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that a hacking vulnerability known as EternalBlue has been exploited to blackmail Baltimore's local government.

The NSA discovered the flaw, but the paper claims that its cyber-spies kept the discovery secret for years.

The NSA declined to comment.

But the report has particular resonance as the organisation is headquartered at Fort Meade, Maryland, which is a short drive from Baltimore.

"We don't have anything for you on this," an NSA spokesman told the BBC.

The EternalBlue flaw has been implicated in a range of cyber-attacks over the past three years, including the WannaCry assault that disrupted the UK's NHS.

It involves a bug in old versions of Microsoft's Windows operating system that allows other malicious code to be run on infected computers.

The NSA reportedly created a tool to do this, which it also called EternalBlue.

The New York Times said the agency did not disclose the problem to Microsoft for more than five years until a breach forced its hand.

Microsoft released a fix for EternalBlue flaw in March 2017.

Weeks later, a group calling itself the Shadow Brokers leaked the NSA's related hacking tool online.

The NSA has never confirmed how it came to lose control of its code nor officially commented on the affair.

But the suggestion is that if it had shared its findings with Microsoft at an earlier stage, fewer PCs would have been exposed to subsequent attacks that made use of the vulnerability.

Email lock-outThousands of Baltimore's city government computers were frozen on 7 May after their files became digitally scrambled.

The criminals responsible demanded 13 Bitcoin ($114,440; £90,200) to unlock them all, or three Bitcoin to release specific systems ahead of a deadline, which has now passed.

The authorities refused.

Image copyright City of Baltimore Image caption The city's website informs vistors that it cannot currently process online payments Local residents have been unable to pay utility bills, parking tickets and some taxes online as a consequence.

In addition, staff have been unable to send or receive emails from their normal accounts.

Senator Chris Van Hollen and Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger have told the Baltimore Sun newspaper that they are now seeking "a full briefing" directly from the NSA.

"We must ensure that the tools developed by our agencies do not make their way into the hands of bad actors," the senator told the paper.

Some security experts say if EternalBlue is truly involved, then IT managers should have installed a patch long ago.

But one consultant noted that this may have been easier said than done.

"For some organisations, patching can be a non-trivial exercise, even with a couple of years of lead time," said Troy Hunt.

"Specialised systems such as medical devices, for example, often go unpatched for long periods of time.

"Offsetting that risk are factors such as the devices not being internet-connected. although given we're still seeing infections due to EternalBlue two years after it was patched, evidently there are still systems out there both unpatched and exposed."

On the ground in Baltimore: It's not exactly the talk of the town here - after all, it's not like Facebook has gone down, merely crucial public services.

For those who have been affected, it's very frustrating - a delayed house sale here, a new business that can't open on schedule there. One person told me about how they have been unable to pay for their wedding venue at a place part-owned by the city.

Another told me they couldn't go online to pay a parking ticket - that's not as fortunate as it sounds, trust me.

A further kick in the teeth for this city is the suggestion that this attack used an exploit discovered not by the Russians or Chinese, but by an organisation based just 20 miles away - the US National Security Agency.

City officials want answers on that, but locals don't want it to be a scapegoat. There have been repeated warnings here about severe underinvestment in government IT infrastructure.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 15:28

There's trouble in paradise, as the Intellectual Dark Web is openly splitting up online, in what could be termed as a show for the times. For those who don't know, the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is a term that got popular after an essay by Bari Weiss for The New York Times last year, which featured a group of public intellectuals.

It was widely mocked even then, not just for its tortured sophomoric prose, or bizarre accompanying photo shoot seemingly straight out of a Simon Pegg comedy, but the fundamentally ironic premise of a glossy multi-pager in the most influential paper of the world about a bunch of people claiming viewpoint oppression. But that's beside the point.

It did highlight that, amid all the partisan rancor, especially post-Trump, there are still some people who strive to move past petty bickering and try to have a conversation. Put simply, one can ridicule the end product, but the intention was honorable. Unfortunately, the IDW was not immune to the inherent contradictions that every big-tent arbitrary grouping inevitably faces. They are arbitrary, with no fixed rules, and there's hefty ideological discontent within.

The IDW Splits ApartSome are trying to avoid that fate: feminist Christina Hoff Sommers for example, recently invited Helen Andrews to her podcast, although they are ideologically opposed. Sommers and Andrews had an amicable chat, the way it should ideally be.

Likewise, Claire Lehmann's online magazine Quillette has so far avoided Conquest's Second Law, which dictates ''any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.'' But things are ripping apart at the seams, as writers Cathy Young and Uri Harris wrote a series of articles accusing podcast host Dave Rubin of being ''too lenient'' with his guests, which led Rubin to rant.

I am not sure what the point of it all was, as there's no compulsion to be hostile to any guest. In fact, old-school journalism theories dictate letting the guest speak mostly uninterrupted. This might be a subtle push to tar Rubin on the basis of guilt by association, especially with people like Lauren Southern (which would tar Young as well). Regardless, this resulted in a massive online flare-up.

Likewise, Heather Heying recently understood the limitations of utopian liberalism after a hit piece about her by a self-declared Marxist in Los Angeles Review of Books. When she aimed to engage the person, she was promptly blocked on Twitter. Elsewhere, Jordan Peterson and the IDW remain a source of contention in, well, other IDW platforms.

Perhaps the IDW Should've Never ExistedThe Weiss article tried to tie together a bunch of people who are methodologically similar and have a few ideological outliers. The one thing that ties this disparate group together is support for free speech. Besides a few outliers, their political stances are largely otherwise leftist.

Sam Harris and Sommers, for example, fall within the classical neo-liberal/neo-conservative spectrum, broadly free market and socially liberal (pro-LGBT and pro-choice, for example). Bret Weinstein and Heying, the pro-free speech academics hounded out of Evergreen State College, also fall within traditional liberal social policy margins, but could be economically further to the left.

Lehmann, the editor of Quillette, the mothership of IDW ideas, falls in the pro-free speech camp while supporting a more controlled capitalism and social welfare policies for the poorer segments of society. Eric Weinstein, another IDW stalwart considers himself a pro-free speech liberal (as do Rubin and Joe Rogan).

The only two outliers in this group are Ben Shapiro and Peterson. Shapiro, who is Jewish, faced intense far-right attacks during the early days of the 2016 campaign. But he and often Peterson fall on a pretty standard social conservative platform, with more focus on personal responsibility, choices, and consequences.

But clashes were inevitable. The IDW may appear to be largely a group of centrists. But there's quite some distance between the values of Heying and Peterson, for example, on abortion. The only centrism possible, therefore, in this context, is one of methodology, and not of epistemology or ontology.

To put it simply, methodological centrism would entail everyone deciding on the method: free speech, open debate, giving anyone, regardless of his political position, a platform. Instead, there was a push from certain quarters for ontological centrism'--finding a median position, which, centered around a neo-liberal/neo-con consensus.

Take for example, social conservatism. In an ideal IDW world, there shouldn't be any problem with what Peterson believes about social hierarchy, what Shapiro believes about abortion or LGBT politics, or who Rubin invites in his show. But look through the articles or tweet threads bashing Peterson or Rubin, and the unsustainability of the project seems evident. Interestingly, Peterson, a conservative, was the only one to foreshadow this end game, when he said the result of this fame would be catastrophic.

The Enforcement ParadoxHere is what we call the enforcement or implementation paradox. Imagine a bunch of people coming and sitting at a table to discuss something. You often hear self-proclaimed liberals suffering from an intense Dunning-Kruger effect, saying that everything should be determined by ''facts and science,'' as if the determination of what those facts and science are doesn't matter in the long run.

But what happens when there is a disagreement? Who decides, who arbitrates, and who brings down the hammer? What happens when two people who are fundamentally opposed on the question of abortion disagree on a philosophical and ideological level? What if one is a liberal and the other is a reactionary '-- do they co-exist, or does one dub the other his enemy and a barrier to progress (and therefore evil)?

The point being, there can only be methodological centrism, which simply allows free speech and agrees on the rules without any enforcement, and there cannot be median-level ideological centrism without excluding ideological opponents. The moment one excludes ideological opponents, this whole fa§ade of centrism fails. Centrism then turns to a dogma itself, where beliefs range from A all the way to B.

The same reason Germany cannot be a leader of the liberal order is philosophically the same reason that IDW is doomed'--someone needs to bring down the hammer in times of need, and that would mean deciding what are the boundaries of acceptable thoughts and company, which would bring down this '‹farce'‹'‹ of centrism on its face. After all, who would decide that'‹,'‹ and by what power'‹ and on what authority'‹?

Since we live in an ideological time, simply agreeing on the norms of free speech and open debate should be enough, and centrism should be relegated to its methodological roots, instead of being worn as a badge.

Sumantra Maitra is a doctoral researcher at the University of Nottingham, UK, and a writer for The Federalist. His research is in great power-politics and neorealism. You can find him on Twitter @MrMaitra.

Copyright (C) 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 08:55

Andrea Nahles, the leader of Germany's SPD, has announced her resignation following poor results for her party at the European elections. It remains unclear who will succeed her.

Andrea Nahles on Sunday announced her resignation as leader of the Social Democratic Party and its parliamentary group, saying she wanted to give the party the chance to organize her successor in an orderly procedure.

"The discussions within the parliamentary group and the large amount of feedback from the party have shown me that there is no longer support for me in holding these offices," she wrote in a statement to SPD members.

She said she would step down as party leader on Monday and as parliamentary leader on Tuesday.

The announcement follows her party's poor showing at European parliamentary elections in May, which reduced the SPD to Germany's third-biggest party behind its senior coalition partner the CDU and the environmental Greens.

Nahles' announcement is a surprise, coming as it does before a vote on her leadership she had called for Tuesday.

She became leader of the SPD in April 2018 having led the parliamentary party since September 2017. Nahles is the first woman to have headed the party, which has roots going back to 1863, making it the oldest extant party in the German Parliament, the Bundestag.

Since 2013, the SPD has governed in "grand coalitions" with the conservative bloc formed by Merkel's CDU and the Bavarian Christian Social Union.

More to follow.

tj/jm (Reuters, dpa, AFP)

Every evening at 1830 UTC, DW's editors send out a selection of the day's hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:40

Uber Technologies Inc. is going nationwide with a program that helps those without a car '-- or the financial means to get one '-- drive for the ride-hailing giant.

Since January, Uber has partnered in California with flexible car-leasing startup Fair to supply vehicles to drivers for a $185 refundable security deposit. Drivers can then earn that much in credits from Uber if they complete 70 trips a week, which can effectively offset payments owed to Fair.

Bloomberg News''Uber wants to really find a way to lower the barrier or the hurdle to getting into a car,'' Scott Painter, Fair's founder and chief executive officer, said in a phone interview about the program, which is expanding to 10 major markets across the U.S. ''This is designed specifically to attract drivers who may not even have enough credit to get a traditional car loan of any kind.''

Uber agreed to sell its subprime-lending unit to Fair in January 2018, which gave the startup access to a pool of drivers that now make up roughly half of the company's more than 30,000 active users. Initially conceived as a way to help new drivers get started, Uber's unit formerly known as Xchange Leasing racked up losses and drew criticism for saddling drivers with financial commitments they struggled to meet.

Painter said Fair's model will be less risky because the company is more flexible about allowing drivers to return a car when they want and isn't requiring them to make a significant financial commitment over a years-long lease.

Fair also maintains a digital link to a user's bank account or credit card. While the company runs a credit check off an applicant's driver's license, there's no traditional financing process needed because Fair maintains ownership of the vehicle.

Uber is expected to report a net loss of about $1 billion when it reports first-quarter earnings Thursday afternoon. Shares of the San Francisco-based company were little changed as of 10:30 a.m. in New York.

Ahead of its $8.1 billion initial public offering this month, drivers staged protests and strikes in major cities across the U.S. and U.K. over low wages and unstable working conditions. The company warned in its IPO prospectus that driver dissatisfaction could increase as it tries to reduce incentives and improve financial performance.

Bloomberg News

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:25

A t least 17 councils no longer accept coins and notes in town halls, it can be revealed, as the UK is quietly becoming a cashless society.

A Daily Telegraph investigation into the decline of cash has found local authorities, football stadiums, national bus service providers and shops are all phasing out coins and notes.

It suggests the digital payment revolution is now in full force, prompting warnings from experts that millions of elderly and disabled people who rely on cash are now at risk of being excluded from society.

However the full extent of the UK's cashless transformation is not known as the Government is not tracking the number of businesses and public services which either refuse...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 23:37

CLOSE

Donald Trump should be removed from the office of the president because he is psychologically unfit to uphold his constitutional duties.

Is being unfit grounds to impeach a president? James Madison appears to have thought so when he said, during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that a president could be removed for ''incapacity, negligence or perfidy.'' Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, has put forward articles of impeachment on those very grounds, saying, ''An unfit president can be impeached for those misdeeds that corrupt and harm society.''

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in essence, publicly implied that Trump is too mentally impaired to function as president. If that's true, doesn't she have a constitutional duty to act?

Trump arrived late to his meeting on infrastructure with Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. He did not shake anyone's hand, he did not sit down, but instead, according to Pelosi, he pounded the table and launched into a diatribe about her comments accusing him of having engaged "in a cover-up" before he stormed out of the room. The entire ''meeting'' lasted maybe more than three minutes.

A supporter of President Donald Trump at a town hall in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on May 28, 2019. (Photo: Cory Morse/The Grand Rapids Press via AP)

Read more commentary:

Trump's cognitive deficits seem worse. We need to know if he has dementia: Psychologist

On Trump's mental fitness, the experts are silenced and the public's in the dark

What's going on with Donald Trump? Psychologist explains the president's lies, reversals

''I walked into the room and I told Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, 'I want to do infrastructure. '... But, you know what? You can't do it under these circumstances,'' Trump said in the Rose Garden minutes later, announcing that he will refuse to carry out his legislative duties as president, unless Congress agrees to stop carrying out their duties of oversight. ''You probably can't go down two tracks. You can go down the investigation track and you can go down the investment track.'' (''You can't investigate and legislate simultaneously '-- it just doesn't work that way,'' he later tweeted.)

Presumably, by definition, Trump is ''unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office'' '-- the 25th Amendment standard '-- if he simply refuses to do his job. Presidents aren't allowed to go on strike.

Mental stability of Trump in questionThe next day, Pelosi was still visibly shaken: ''The president again stormed out.'' She said ''again'' because Trump previously did the same thing during a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer aimed at ending the government shutdown. Pelosi then slapped the dais with her hand and said, ''Pound the table. Walk out the door. What? '... Another temper tantrum." Pelosi made it clear that this was far more serious than just bad behavior. ''Again, I pray for the president of the United States. I wish that his family, or his administration or his staff would have an intervention. '... Maybe he wants to take a leave of absence.''

''Your prayer comments almost suggest you're concerned about his well being,'' said a reporter.

''I am.''

Thank you! You're almost signed up for

Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration.

News reports described Pelosi as ''joking'' about the 25th Amendment when reporters asked her whether she was suggesting a ''statutory intervention.''

''I thought you saidstatutory intervention. That would be good. Article 25. ... That's a good idea. ... I'll take it up with my caucus, not that they haven't been thinking about it," she said.

Indeed, members of the Democratic caucus have been thinking about it. After Pelosi's remarks, Rep. Jackie Speier of California said, "I have felt for some time that the mental stability of the president of the United States is in question '... and I suggested invoking the 25th Amendment,'' citing mental health professionals who have diagnosed him as a "malignant narcissist," showing symptoms of anti-social behavior, paranoia and sadism.

This is not the first time Pelosi has confronted the issue of whether Trump is psychologically fit for office. In March, she told The Washington Post that Trump was ''ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don't think he's fit to be president of the United States.'' On April 10, she told The Associated Press that ''in every way he is unfit to be the president of the United States.''

Trump's diagnosis: mentally unfit for officeMany of us in the mental health community have been arguing for years that Trump should be removed because he is psychologically unfit. We posted a professional petition online stating that ''in our professional judgment '... Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of president of the United States.'' It garnered over 70,000 signatures, formed a professional organization, Duty To Warn, dedicated solely to this issue and has held rallies across the country, and published a best-selling book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump."

Most recently, "Dangerous Case" editor Bandy Lee and a group of colleagues issued a mental health analysis of the Mueller report in which they concluded ''there is compelling medical evidence'' that Trump ''lacks the capacity to serve as president.'' He manifests ''impaired capacity to make responsible decisions free of impulsivity,'' as well as an "inability to consider consequences before taking action, detachment from reality, paranoid reactions, creation of dangerous conditions, and cognitive and memory difficulties."

While some have tried to dismiss these professional assessments as partisan, that charge is belied by the members of Trump's own administration, who have privately mused about the 25th Amendment. "Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment,'' wrote the anonymous author of a famed New York Times op-ed. White House staff frequently texted ''#TFA'' among themselves whenever Trump ''did something that was just so insane, and so crazy, and unhinged,'' Omarosa Manigault Newman told MSNBC. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, according to reports, admitted that he proposed invoking the 25th Amendment, though he later claimed (unconvincingly it seems to us) to have been joking.

However, the Republican Cabinet will never invoke the 25th, so where does that leave Democrats?

After Trump's temper tantrum in the White House last week, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said, ''Most of us on the Judiciary Committee have just thrown up our hands'' and said ''let's go ahead and launch an impeachment inquiry.''

Impeach Trump to protect office of presidentIn the same interview on NBC News, he said, ''Today the 25th Amendment has come resurging back into focus because of these extraordinary events that took place in the White House. ... Speaker Pelosi showed her compassionate side when she said there should be a family intervention. Unfortunately, some conditions are way beyond the capacity of a family intervention to address. This might be far more serious."

Citing Lee's mental health analysis of the Mueller report, Raskin said, ''The president is failing at every level of basic mental and cognitive health. He cannot take in information successfully. He cannot process information successfully. He cannot engage in decision-making without bias, distortion, impulsivity, impetuosity, and he cannot keep himself and others free from danger.''

Though Raskin did not directly cite Trump's lack of mental fitness as the constitutional ground for opening an impeachment inquiry, the context suggests that it was certainly on his mind, and adds to the urgency to the need for such an inquiry, if nothing else. Clearly Congress has an obligation, as James Madison said, to protect the nation against a chief executive who has demonstrated ''incapacity.''

Pelosi has thus far resisted calls for impeachment on the grounds that it would arouse the ire of Trump's base going into the 2020 election. But she seems to ignore the opposite risk: Underreacting desensitizes us to the dangerous severity of Trump's dysfunction, normalizing the abnormal.

John Gartner is a psychologist and former assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Dr. David Reiss has been a practicing psychiatrist for more than 30 years, specializing in fitness evaluations. Dr. Steven Buser is a clinical psychiatrist practicing in Asheville, North Carolina, and a former Air Force psychiatrist. Gartner and Buser are editors of "Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Last SlideNext SlideRead or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/31/donald-trump-should-impeached-because-his-bad-mental-health-column/1260781001/

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 23:57

With prosecutors in the trial of cult leader Keith Raniere planning to introduce evidence on the NXIVM sex cult's deep oppposition research files on its political enemies including Roger Stone, documents from the archives are shedding light on how the sex cult stored data on top politicians including Chuck Schumer '-- whom the cult viewed as a ''friendly'' ally according to ex-employee Frank Parlato '-- and Hillary Clinton.

The Albany Times-Union noted in 2015: ''A former close confidant of Keith Raniere, founder of the NXIVM corporation, claims top officials in the secretive organization used a Canadian investigative firm or other means to sift the financial records of six federal judges and U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., according to court records. The former NXIVM insider, Kristin M. Keeffe, said that Seagrams heiress Clare W. Bronfman, who oversees NXIVM's operations, ordered the financial probes at the direction of Raniere, 55. The six judges whose financial records Keeffe alleges were analyzed have all presided over cases involving NXIVM or its perceived adversaries and critics'...The allegations by Keeffe, 45, are outlined in emails attributed to her that were filed recently in Albany County Court'...Keeffe broke away from NXIVM in February 2014 and is in hiding, according to correspondence and conversations attributed to her in court records filed in Albany County'...''

So the NXIVM cult had information on Schumer.

The Times-Union reported in 2015:

Trending: Game of Thrones Star Won't Work in Georgia After Abortion Ban, Despite Working Northern Ireland Where Abortion is Illegal

Clare W. Bronfman, an heiress of the Seagram Company business empire, allegedly implanted a ''key logger'' virus on the computer of her late father, Edgar M. Bronfman Sr., so officials with the NXIVM corporation could secretly monitor his emails, including his exchanges with world leaders and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, according to court records.

The extraordinary allegations are attributed to Kristen M. Keeffe, who was part of the inner circle that ran NXIVM, a ''human development'' organization that has been described by one expert as an ''extreme cult.'' The accusations by Keeffe are contained in a transcript of a telephone conversation that took place last March between Keeffe and Barbara J. Bouchey, a former NXIVM executive board member who is facing computer trespassing charges in Albany that accuse her and three others of improperly accessing the corporation's website.'''

Times-Union passage ends

A former NXIVM member testified Monday in the trial of cult leader Keith Raniere that the sex cult illegally raised money for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Big League Politics first reported this bombshell information, which is now confirmed by a witness under oath.

This story will be buried so fast'... https://t.co/nnr3H1Dydv

'-- James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) April 18, 2019

The New York Post reports: ''Bronfman funneled thousands of dollars into Clinton's campaign coffers '-- far in excess of legal limits to contributions '-- to ''curry favor'' with the powerhouse political family, according to Mark Vicente, a documentary filmmaker and former member of the Nxivm group that is accused of keeping women as sex slaves.

''Clare Bronfman approached other people and said she would like to make a campaign contribution but she couldn't make it above a certain amount,'' Vicente testified in Brooklyn federal court Monday.

''I wrote a check. She paid me back.''

New York Post passage ends

I reported:

NXIVM whistleblower Frank Parlato appeared exclusively on The Campaign Show with Patrick Howley on Patriots Soapbox (Sunday nights, 6-PM Eastern) to discuss Keith Raniere's trial, which begins Tuesday.

Raniere's sex slaves are poised to testify against him, as prosecutors prepare to submit evidence that NXIVM illegally bundled money for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Parlato made it clear that Clinton was happy to accept the money. (COURT DOCS Confirm Prosecutors Attempting To Introduce Clinton Evidence).

Parlato described how NXIVM imported teenage girls from Mexico, how the cult viewed Chuck Schumer as a ''friendly'' Democrat ally, and many other bombshells. WATCH.

I reported:

Democrat senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand's family ties to the NXIVM sex cult are coming to light, raising serious questions about her relationship with the cult that she once denied knowing about.

Gillibrand's father and stepmother, who are second cousins, were both heavily involved in the cult in the period shortly before they got married, according to eyewitness accounts from ex-NXIVM employees who spoke on the record to Big League Politics, and according to court documents proving that Gillibrand's father Doug Rutnik was employed by NXIVM.

Gillibrand's father served as a broker between NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere '-- whose initials were branded on his female sex slaves '-- and the then-New York attorney general to resolve Raniere's financial problems with the state, according to ex-employee whistleblower Joseph O'Hara, whose revelations are printed below.

Gillibrand's stepmother Gwenn Belcourt got ''hooked'' on the cult as did Bill Clinton's close friend Richard Mays, according to the whistleblower. Nancy Salzman, the NXIVM president, acted as a personal ''guru'' for Gillibrand's stepmother.

Ex-cult employee Frank Parlato '-- who exposed the fact that Raniere was branding women '-- is working with Big League Politics to uncover the deep longstanding links between Gillibrand, the Clintons, and NXIVM.

''The very first time I ever met Gillibrand she was at an event for Hillary Clinton in the Hall of Springs in the State Park. This was in 2006. I was at a table with a Russian friend and Mike Roohan and his wife. I was on the Democratic committee at the time and was given two comp tickets. Gillibrand came up to me introduced herself and said she was running against John Sweeney. This was before all the stories of his drunken behavior came out. He was still congressman kickass at that time. I promised my support and wished her well. i than commented to Mike that with her baby voice and demeanor that she was a lightweight. Boy was I wrong. But the kicker was when the mixing was over and Clinton went to speak. Gillibrand sat with one of the front tables. Yeah the three front VIP tables were all brought by NXIVM and she was sitting with Nancy Salzman. You can quote me on that,'' said witness John Tighe in a statement provided to Big League Politics.

Nancy Salzman has pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy while her daughter Lauren Salzman admitted to enslaving a woman, stating in court, ''I knowingly and intentionally harbored Jane Doe 4, a woman whose identity is known to me, in a room in the home in the Northern District of New York'' and ''threatened to deport Jane Doe 4 back to Mexico if she did not complete labor requested by myself and others.''

JOSEPH O'HARA TELLS BIG LEAGUE POLITICS HIS NXIVM STORY

Joseph O'Hara was living in Saratoga Springs at the time, and a woman he met socially called him up out of the blue and asked for him to meet with the leaders of NXIVM.

''I agreed to meet with them. We met the very next day. We had coffee and that's when I was introduced to Nancy Salzman, the president of NXIVM, and she described to me the various problems they were having,'' O'Hara said, referring to lawsuits, public relations issues, and governmental issues stemming from trying to get a building permit for a NXIVM center.

''I said give me a day or two,'' O'Hara said. ''After I thought about it, I wrote back to them and said I don't think there's anything I can do personally but I can play centerfielder and pull in people you need. I think you need a bigger law firm on this. Yes I can get you a PR firm that can come in and help you. That's what I proposed to them, that I would be a middle man.''

''They hired me in October of 2003 and I worked for them for 15 months. At the end of 2004 a variety of issues had come up and I resigned.''

O'Hara, whose official title was ''consultant,'' said he ''met primarily with Keith'' Raniere and with bookeeper Cathy Russell and legal liaison Kristin Keefe. O'Hara remembers Raniere vividly.

''I thought he was a little strange. He was an odd fellow. Before I met him I had been told a lot about him. I guess when I met him I was a little underwhelmed,'' O'Hara said, referring to a tall tale about how Raniere supposedly tied a record in the hundred-yard dash. Raniere held volleyball games with the women in his cult, but O'Hara did not attend.

Kirsten Gillibrand's Father Doug Rutnik Acted As A Broker Between NXIVM and the then-New York Attorney General

''I had known Doug Rutnik for a number of years. He was one of the people I thought of immediately for a couple of the problems that he (Raniere) had,'' O'Hara said, including the fact that Raniere agreed to pay a certain amount of money to New York State stemming from the bankruptcy of his previous venture Consumer's Buyline. ''Keith never made the payments. I think it was around 45 or 50 thousand dollars.''

''I contacted Doug, and explained to him the situation. Doug could be the broker between Keith and the attorney general'' O'Hara said.

''Doug and I, Nancy and Keith had lunch at a little club. Keith came in and looked like a young middle-aged business exec. Doug said let's check this out a little further,'' O'Hara remembers. NXIVM was trying to get a license for a school.

The meeting occurred at the Fort Orange Club in Albany in 2004, according to O'Hara.

O'Hara hired a third party attorney in Albany to take a 5-day executive course at NXIVM, and the attorney expressed concerns about the group potentially not paying taxes and ''living off the grid.''

Doug Rutnik's Second Cousin, Gillibrand's Future Stepmother, Got Very Involved

''Doug said I know somebody else I could send in. It's his cousin Gwenn Belcourt. She comes back with rave reviews and Doug gets hired. Keith comes up with the money and pays off the attorney general.''

Thus, Gillibrand's father acted as the broker between NXIVM and the then-New York attorney general after Gillibrand's future stepmother Gwenn Belcourt gave NXIVM her full seal of approval.

''Doug was the one, I don't know who he talked to, but he was the one who got the okay for'...NXIVM sent Doug the check, and it was expressly to resolve the issue over Consumers Buyline. And then the issue went away.''

''Gwenn and I met. Doug said let's have Gwenn go in and take a week-long course. She went in and she wrote up a report and was extremely positive. No issues with the schooling. No issues with the curriculum'' at the NXIVM Center, O'Hara recalled.

''He told me this is my second cousin Gwenn. She was engaged at the time. She was a lawyer, someone Doug trusted.''

''Things were happening, one right after the other. Gwenn comes in, she writes the report, and Doug is doing work for them.''

''Meanwhile Gwenn does her thing and she starts taking more classes on her own. We paid for the one class she took'...at some point Doug says, this is getting a little weird with Gwenn. He said she broke off her engagement because Nancy told her she needed to re-think her life. Nancy Salzman became Gwenn's personal guru. She wanted to bring Gwenn in as full-time in-house counsel.''

''I know that she was taking a lot of classes at NXIVM,'' O'Hara said of Gwenn Belcourt.

''NXIVM initiates a lawsuit against me and Doug, and Gwenn is still involved in NXIVM at that point. Doug goes in like a rescue mission. He finally convinces her what's going on there and she leaves NXIVM. The next thing I know all of a sudden he said Gwenn and I are dating now. Shortly after that they're engaged.''

''For several years, I saw them after they were married,'' O'Hara said, noting that the couple was no longer in the cult.

Clinton Friend Richard Mays and Gillibrand's Stepmother Gwenn Belcourt Both Got ''Hooked'' on the Cult

''I had done work down in Arkansas, I had met Richard (Mays) down there. He had great connections with Governor Clinton. His lieutenant governor Tucker became governor. I was trying to get in to make a presentation to the governor. Richard got me the meeting. He got me the meeting with Jim Guy Tucker,'' O'Hara said.

''One of the other problems Keith had, he had an unpaid bill in Arkansas and he wanted to get an exoneration in Arkansas so he brought Richard Mays in and he got involved. Richard Mays started taking classes and got his daughter taking classes'' at NXIVM.

''There were people who got hooked on it. Richard Mays was one. Gwenn Belcourt was another,'' O'Hara said.

''I Had Created This Monster''

O'Hara said that he uncovered Raniere evading taxes and illegally obtaining private investigator information on his enemies, which led him to quit. NXIVM then waged lawfare against him.

''They destroyed me. I had created this monster. They didn't know how to get political consultants. They didn't know how to hire former senator D'Amato, they didn't know how to hire Richard Mays out of Arkansas, best friends with the Clintons. They had all these people now in their arsenal and they destroyed me in short order,'' O'Hara said.

Raniere once admitted in a videotape pulled from the Internet, ''I am just a demon.''

PROOF RUTNIK WORKED FOR NXIVM

Former NXIVM employee Frank Parlato provided Big League Politics with copies of the court documents in NXIM's suit against Rutnik, which prove Rutnik's employment by the group. (READ THE FULL DOCUMENTS HERE).

''I worked as the publicist,'' Frank Parlato told Big League Politics. ''We ran into a major disagreement and we split. At the time I worked for them I thought they were a little peculiar but it wasn't until the end that I realized they were a downright evil group.''

''There are women on the record who are now adults who have accused Raniere of statutory rape and there are some very suspicious incidents where Mexican girls came under the perimeters of Raniere's control and left under suspicious circumstances. They came from Chihuahua Mexico. I reported this to the authorities,'' Parlato said.

''Her father Doug Rutnik came to work as a consultant for NXIVM'...he was fired, they sued him, and he had to pay them $100,000,'' Parlato said, referring Gillibrand's father.

Parlato is the NXIVM whistleblower who blew the lid off the case, including the revelation that NXIVM leader Keith Raniere's cult was branding women with his initials.

''Her father's wife, her stepmother, was also a member of NXIVM'...Doug got her into the cult, Gillibrand's father got Gillibrand's future stepmother into the cult. Doug left the cult because he was sued. Clare Bronfman after her father was sued donated money to Gillibrand. Gillibrand accepted it.''

''One is inclined to call her a liar,'' Parlato says of Gillibrand.

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Bypass Tech Censorship!Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:42

The police watchdog is examining almost 200 Rotherham officers after corrupt individuals, one related to the convicted groomers, allegedly conspired to protect the Muslim child sex gang.One officer and local politician, who is a family relative of the brothers convicted yesterday, is alleged to have brokered a deal whereby one brother was given assurance that he ''wouldn't get done'' if he returned one his young victims to a police station.

Another is accused of having sex with an under-age girls, passing drugs to the grooming gang and tipping them off when colleagues were searching for missing children, a court was told.

During the trial, one woman who spent three days describing how she was repeatedly abused and assaulted from the age of 11, told the jury how she told a detective called Kenneth Dawes about what happened but no action was taken.

''He used to have sex with girls and he used to take drugs from people and pass them on to Ash'', the girl said.

Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of Rotherham council and deputy chairman of South Yorkshire police, is one of several alleged to have taken part in the handover. He is also a relative of Arshid, Basharat and Bannaras Hussain.

The three brothers were found guilty yesterday of multiple sexual offences against underage girls over a twenty years period in Rotherham, a town they were said to ''own'' thanks to their criminal and police connections.

As their trial ended yesterday, it was revealed that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) had begun 55 investigations into alleged police misconduct linked to Rotherham child sex crimes. It has received complaints against 92 named officers, the Yorkshire Post reports.

Several other horric accounts of abuse were heard during the trail, with some of the women citing a lack of trust in the police as why they went to the media to tell their stories, before the the authorities.

''The only reason the police started this investigation was because The Times printed my story'', said one.

IPCC deputy chair Rachel Cerfontyne said: ''Our investigative work examining allegations about how South Yorkshire Police responded to reported child sexual exploitation in Rotherham continues to expand.

''This is complex work dealing with non-recent allegations and involving vulnerable and traumatised victims. We are committed to ensuring the allegations are investigated sensitively and thoroughly.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 23:52

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bashed US foreign policy during a private meeting with Bronx community leaders, prompting two military veterans to storm out.

''She knocks the country, she knocks the president. And that's not what America is about,'' said Silvio Mazzella, a Vietnam War vet and treasurer of Community Board 11.

Anthony Vitaliano '-- an Army veteran who worked in the NYPD for 38 years, and commanded the Bronx's homicide detectives '-- was sitting between Ocasio-Cortez and a staffer for the freshman Dem.

''I just couldn't hear her BS anymore,'' the former CB11 chairman said. ''I just got up, got my umbrella in my hand and walked right out.''

AOC held the closed-door meeting with about a dozen members of the board on Wednesday night, marking a rare visit to the Bronx part of her district.

One Middle Eastern board member raised the issue of the conflict in Yemen.

The progressive firebrand slammed the US policy of providing bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has supported Yemen's government in a brutal civil war, according to attendees. Some blamed her for not including the roles of other nations in explaining the volatile region's violence.

''Talking about America, that really turned me off completely,'' said Mazzella, 74, who said he fought in Vietnam from 1966 to 1968.

When Israel came up later in the meeting, Ocasio-Cortez suggested President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are autocrats, according to a person at the meeting.

''I was revolted,'' said the attendee, who didn't want his name published.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez GC ImagesHe, Mazzella and Vitaliano said they all walked out in disgust before the end of the session.

Earlier, board members complained about problems with the US Postal Service, which regularly misses mail deliveries, and a local Amtrak property that is a magnet for graffiti vandals. CB 11 is a working-class neighborhood on the eastern side of the Bronx covering Allerton, Morris Park, Pelham Gardens and Van Nest. In addition to parts of the Bronx, Ocasio-Cortez's district includes north-central Queens.

''Did she care about the issues? She wrote them down,'' said Vitaliano, 78. ''The jury will be out on the local issues.''

She ''danced around the whole'' question of Columbus Day, for which the neighborhood holds a parade every year, said Vitaliano, who supports creating a day for indigenous people but wants to preserve the treasured Italian-American tradition.

The room wasn't entirely hostile to AOC, though. One attendee said, ''There were a lot of people that really adored what she was saying.''

AOC's office denied that anyone stormed out of the meeting.

''The only person that left the meeting while it was underway was someone who had to go pick up their children,'' said AOC spokesman Corbin Trent.

Asked about Trent's comment, Vitaliano said, ''That's bulls''t. Everybody that was there knows I walked out.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 15:04

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 12:57

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 12:54

SoundCloud Your current browser isn't compatible with SoundCloud. Please download one of our supported browsers. Need help?

Chrome |

Firefox |

Safari |

Internet ExplorerSorry! Something went wrong

Is your network connection unstable or browser outdated?

I need help Popular searches

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 12:46

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:23

Andrew AnglinDaily StormerJune 1, 2019

After seventy-five years of blaming Germany for the Holocaust, the Jews have decided that Poland also did a Holocaust against them while they were occupied by Germany during WWII.

In fact, the Holocaust did not actually happen. It is war propaganda, no different than the incubator babies of the first Iraq war, the weapons of mass destruction of the second Iraq war, or the gas attacks of the still ongoing Syrian war.

During the first World War, they claimed that Canadian soldiers were being crucified by the Germans.

In actual fact, the Jews also claimed that exactly six million Jews were scheduled to die in that war as well.

When you are a government and you want to go to war, you make things up about your enemy in order to make your people want to go die fighting them. This is just standard government policy.

The hilarious thing in this situation is that Poland is the country responsible for creating the Holocaust lie. After the war, the Jews initially claimed that basically all the work camps in Europe '' including ones in Germany '' were actually secret Jewish death camps. Then, they had to admit that there weren't any in Germany. So they claimed that all of the allegedly gassed Jews were gassed in camps in Poland '' a country which very conveniently was behind the iron curtain, where no one could go take a look.

Poland's communist government '' which the Jews brag about having run '' actually built fake gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz, which the Jews now claim are ''reconstructions.''

Even the brutal communist Jew government of Poland never blamed the Polish for the Holocaust.

Then, about ten years ago, Jews all a sudden started talking about how the Polish '' who were occupied by a foreign power '' were actually themselves responsible for the Holocaust.

The first heavily-promoted book making this claim that I'm aware of was ''Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland,'' by the Polish-American half-Jew Jan T. Gross.

Then came many others, including ''Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947,'' by the Polish-American Jew Tadeusz Piotrowski.

Things really got heated up in 2017, when an English translation of yet another one of these books was published.

CBS News, March 15, 2017:

A prominent Polish historian presented evidence Wednesday about Polish villagers' widespread killing of Jews fleeing Nazis during World War II, touching a raw nerve in a country still grappling with its role during the Holocaust.

The research is likely to irk the nationalist Polish government, which has taken aim at those seeking to undermine its official stance that Poles were only heroes in the war, not collaborators who committed heinous crimes.

In launching the English-language version of her 2011 book, ''Such a Beautiful Sunny Day,'' Barbara Engelking details dozens of cases of everyday Poles raping Jewish women and bludgeoning Jews to death with axes, shovels and rocks. The book, which came out in Polish under the previous government, takes its title from the last words of a Jew pleading with peasants to spare his life before he was beaten and shot to death. It offers a searing indictment of Polish complicity that will now reach a far wider audience.

''The responsibility for the extermination of Jews in Europe is borne by Nazi Germany,'' she writes. ''Polish peasants were volunteers in the sphere of murdering Jews.''

At this point, the Poles were being harassed all through the international media for having committed a Holocaust of Jews.

So they passed a law making it illegal in Poland to accuse Poland of doing the Holocaust.

In response to that law, the Jews went absolutely berserk.

Look at this advertisement they released demanding that America cut ties with Poland:

That was apparently shown on American television!

Now, a year later, the Jews are demanding that Poland give them more than $300,000,000,000 as reparations for the Holocaust they claim that Poland committed against them.

Poland's entire GDP is just over $500 billion on a good year.

So the Jews are saying ''give us a cash payment of 60% of your GDP as recompense for this thing that happened 75 years ago, which a few years ago we decided you did.''

This would cripple their economy.

To put this in perspective: this would be like if the Jews were demanding that America give them $12 trillion.

And you know what: eventually, they will demand that.

This is a racket that never ends.

The Jews have already been blaming us for not joining the war fast enough and not allowing in enough Jewish refugees, saying that we're responsible for the Holocaust because of that. So how long will it be before they come knocking on our door, demanding the $12 trillion?

The joke is that Poland is responsible for the Holocaust, because it is only with the consent of the Poles that they were able to fake it. Especially after the collapse of communism.

The Jews still claim that there are the ashes of millions of Jews buried at Auschwitz and the other camps, even though no one has ever investigated that claim.

The best move for the Poles to make would be to repeal their laws outlawing research of the Holocaust, and allow scientists to go to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec and all the rest, and see if these ashes are actually there.

Because they're not there.

And then: what exactly can the Jews say after that? If there are no bodies, then what? Will they say the ashes were moved? I can't imagine they'd not try that. But how many people would believe it?

Right now, the US government '' run by the Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Leader Donald Trump '' is already beginning to threaten Poland, to try and bully them into giving up the cash.

And I'll tell you what: if Poland goes ahead and proves that the entire Holocaust was a hoax, they're not going to be paying any money.

But they should be strategic about it. If the Jews catch wind of a plan to do this, I wouldn't be surprised if NATO started bombing the country.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 10:14

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 10:03

The Black Plague. The Black Death. The all-time global pandemic was so devastating, and so frightening, that hundred of years later, even the name still conjures fear and anxiety.

The bubonic plague is a metaphor for any global health horror. It is an idiom, a warning, it's a cautionary tale and the story of nature wrath, or God's. And, unfortunately, more important than all those other things, it's back.

And worse, it's here. Along with typhus, typhoid and more, because the city is covered in trash, rats, and feces.

This week, Dr. Drew Pinsky talked to Fox News Channel's Laura Ingraham about the appalling conditions in the city of Los Angeles, where public health risks are myriad, deadly serious, and unbelievably, getting worse.

"We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now," said Dr Drew. He listed what he called the "three prongs" of the problem.

The first prong is "airborne disease," he said, pointing out that "tuberculosis is exploding."

The second prong is the one that brings the black death: "Rodent-borne."

"We're one of the only major cities in the country that doesn't have a rodent control program, and sanitation has broken down, we had a typhus last summer, we will have a typhus outbreak this summer," he explained. "I'm hearing from experts that bubonic plague is likely, it's already here. It'll get onto the rat fleas."

The third prong is "this oral-fecal" contamination, he said. "Which is typhoid fever, three cases. One confirmed, probably three."

"This is unbelievable. I can't believe I live in a city--this is not third-world, Laura. This is medieval." he said. "Third-world countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this. No city on earth tolerates this. The entire population is at risk."

Making matters worse, if you can believe it, the population in L.A. is what Dr. Drew delicately phrased as "sub-optimally immunized," and therefore at huge risk for additional diseases making their comeback, like measles.

"I just have this vision of myself on my knees in the gutter tending to people," he said. "This summer is likely to be a very profound problem."

And then to make maters even worse than worse, if you can believe that, the city and state will be taking in thousands of refugees, who they won't be able to handle with city services that are already failing the existing population.

"We can't handle our situation such as it is," he said. "And there's a very bizarre thing going on where the government is somehow somehow insisting that housing is the problem, when in fact we have chronic mental illness, we have addiction, we have people who don't want to leave the streets," Pinsky said. "They literally won't take the housing if we give it to them. And that's the population that's vulnerable, and is going to get so ill this summer. It scares me for their well-being."

"This is disgusting, it is reckless negligence," said Dr. Drew. "We have to have a solution to this."

Watch:

(Video may take a second to load from Fox.)

At the Daily Wire, Joseph Curl points out that the contributing factors to this health crisis were not unknown in the city, or even elsewhere in that bluest of states. For example, with regard to feces:

The piles and piles of garbage, and the subsequent rat problem, have been a problem literally growing before the city's eyes for months.

In the Fox clip, Ingraham says this is not a political issue, but a public health crisis. But the question of whether political positions lead to this health crisis should be examined. And soon. Before a quarter of the world's population is wiped out, maybe?

It took 200 years for the earth's population to recover from the devastation of the black plague. Let's hope it doesn't take that long for Los Angeles officials to wake up.

Hey maybe if celebrities could take some time out from telling Georgia how to law, they could spare some time for the city that's home to their entire industry. You think?

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 10:00

MoveOn had their "Big Ideas" forum this weekend during the California Democratic Party convention, and things got really weird when a member of the audience decided to come take the mic and say his piece. That is, took it right out of the hands of 2020 Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris.

NBC News tweeted about it shortly after it happened, characterizing the man as a "protester" for some reason. Later, after the incident, a Boston Globe reporter tweeted that he called himself an "animal rights activist' when speaking with reporters.

Watch as the liberal white male stomps across the stage past two women of color and steals the mic from a third to say he has a "much bigger idea", man-bun and Gandalf-beard bouncing the whole way.

A reporter from the Guardian later interviewed man-bun, who is actually named Aidan Cook, about the "optics" of his action. She also, for better or worse, included a close-up photo.

""I tried to show my profound respect for each of the people onstage," he said, after which actual physical question marks floated in the sky around him.

The question that Sen. Harris was answering at the time? It was about the so-called "gender gap" in pay in the United States. The Senator, for her part, handled the whole thing very well.

In the social justice hierarchy wars, it's hard to predict which aggrieved class will come out ahead. But considering the relative lack of bloodthirsty Twitter outrage, it's safe to say in this case, it appears being white and male is offset by being a disheveled weirdo with a frightening man-bun. Who knew?

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:53

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:43

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:27

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:18

The US government has a tendency to hijack and weaponize revolutionary innovations, Edward Snowden said, noting that the natural human desire to communicate with others is now being exploited on an unprecedented scale.

''Our utopian vision for the future is never guaranteed to be realized,'' Snowden told the audience in Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada via live stream from Moscow this week, stressing that the US government ''corrupted our knowledge... towards a military purpose.''

They took our nuclear capability and transformed it into the most horrible weapon that the world had ever witnessed. And we're seeing an atomic moment of computer science... Its reach is unlimited... but its safeguards are not!

Also on rt.com You've been warned: Widespread US face surveillance is 'imminent reality', says tech privacy report The whistleblower, who in 2013 leaked a trove of highly classified information about global spying operations by the National Security Agency, argued that, armed with modern technology and with the help of social media and tech giants, governments are becoming ''all-powerful'' in their ability to monitor, analyze, and influence behavior.

It's through the use of new platforms and algorithms that are built on and around these capabilities that they are able to shift our behavior. In some cases, they are able to predict our decisions and also nudge them to different outcomes.

Also on rt.com Privacy? What's that? Facebook lawyer argues users have none The natural human need for ''belonging'' is being exploited and users voluntarily consent to surrender virtually all of their data by signing carefully drafted user agreements that no one bothers to read. ''Everything has hundreds and hundreds of pages of legal jargon that we're not qualified to read and assess and yet they are considered binding upon us,'' Snowden said.

And now these institutions, which are both commercial and governmental... have structuralized and entrenched it to where it has become now the most effective means of social control in the history of our species.

WATCH Edward Snowden's full speech:

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 04:57

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:33

Protesters in Belgrade have demonstrated against President Aleksandar Vucic every weekend since November last year.

They claim Mr Vucic is using the dictator's playbook to consolidate power around himself and his Serbian Progressive Party.

BBC Serbian's Petra Zivic joined protesters to find out what is going on.

Video journalist: Paul Harris

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:57

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:36

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:47

The singer says Brexit has made him ashamed to be British, while performing in Verona during his final world tour

Elton John has said he is ashamed of the UK over its voting for and handling of Brexit.

While performing on Wednesday in Verona on his last ever world tour, Farewell Yellow Brick Road, he said: ''I'm ashamed of my country for what it has done. It's torn people apart '... I am sick to death of politicians, especially British politicians. I am sick to death of Brexit. I am a European. I am not a stupid, colonial, imperialist English idiot.''

John has previously expressed his dismay over Brexit. In July 2018, he said: ''I don't think people in Britain were told the truth to start with '... They were promised something that was completely ridiculous and wasn't economically viable.'' He said the Brexit process was confusing, like ''walking through Hampton Court maze blindfolded, being turned around 16 times and trying to find your way out''.

The singer's profile is currently as high as it has been in years. As well as the world tour, he is preparing to publish his first autobiography in the autumn. Rocketman, a biopic about his rise to fame and struggles with substance misuse, is currently in cinemas.

He will perform two UK dates this month, in Hove and Cardiff, before returning in November 2020 for 18 further UK dates. He was forced to cancel Thursday's concert in Verona under doctor's orders, after his vocal cords were inflamed due to a cold, but his management expect him to be well enough to perform in Wiesbaden, Germany, on Saturday.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:43

Obama blatantly lies to a crowd in Brazil: "Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don't make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time, without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns"

pic.twitter.com/6pqUkbUtc7

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:31

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 08:57

The Men in Black movie franchise reboots this summer with a new cast and a new all-black ride.Lexus's 2020 RC F coupe is customized for galaxy-defending duties in MIB: International, which opens on June 14.The luxury sports coupe can be seen tearing it up around London in the movie's official trailer.Here come the Men in Black, back after a seven-year hiatus, and the (new) cast gets a slick new ride from Lexus to help defend Earth from extraterrestrial violence. The latest installment of the Men in Black franchise''MIB: International''cruises into theaters on June 14 on the crackling exhaust note of the main characters' Lexus RC F coupe.

The new movie is gearing up to be one of this summer's biggest blockbusters as it follows eager Agent M (Tessa Thompson) and her partner, Agent H (Chris Hemsworth), as they investigate a suspected mole in the Men in Black organization. The case takes them to London, where they are seen tearing around town in the right-hand-drive RC F. Emma Thompson reprises her role as Agent O, and other supporting cast members include Liam Neeson and Kumail Nanjiani.

In the first released trailer (above), Agent M is seen using the touchpad infotainment controller to initiate some sort of flight sequence, which is better than using it to control the infotainment system, in our opinion. We've found it clumsy for its intended purpose, but then again, our press cars haven't ever come equipped with the flying-car feature, so perhaps our perspective is off.

The RC F is a serious upgrade to the agents' wheels in past installments of the franchise, which included a 1987 Ford LTD Crown Victoria, a 2003 Mercedes-Benz E500 sedan, and a 2012 Ford Taurus SHO''all black, of course. With a 472-hp V-8 under its hood and a sport-tuned suspension, we think the RC F is an ideal car for MIB agents, especially in the menacing all-black livery shown here.

The last time we tested an RC F was back in 2015. The revised 2020 model that's used in the film has undergone a refresh that sees weight reductions, a slight boost in engine output, and tweaks to its suspension to improve handling. At our test track, the 2015 model was certainly quick, however, with a 4.3-second rip to 60 mph, a 9.9-second zero-to-100-mph time, and a recorded top speed of 171 mph.

Now that it's modernized for MIB duty, we can only imagine what kind of performance the RC F will offer, but we'll be among the throngs of fans waiting to see the new movie on opening night. In the meantime, take a trip down memory lane by rewatching the original films starring the O.G. Agents K and J, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 08:50

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 08:43

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 01 Jun 2019 00:02

How Russia used memes to sow discord

Russian Twitter trolls have attempted to fuel the anti-vaccination debate in the U.S., posting about the issue far more than the average Twitter user last year, a study out of George Washington University has found. The "sophisticated" bots shared opinions from both sides of the anti-vaxxer debate, which took the U.S. by storm and prompted tech companies to crack down on the spread of misinformation surrounding vaccinations.

In the study, professor David Broniatowski and his colleagues say the Russian trolls' efforts mimic those used in the past. Such trolls ramp up controversial issues in the U.S. by inflating different viewpoints, the study says.

The U.S. is in the midst of the worst measles outbreak in the country in 25 years . Health officials say misinformation and anti-vax messages have led more people to avoid vaccination, allowing the disease to spread.

"These outbreaks are due to the anti-vaccine movement," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, told CBSN AM in January, when the outbreaks were beginning to gain steam.

Anti-vaccination movement helps measles outbreak spreadHe stressed that the vaccine has been scientifically proven over many years to be safe and effective in preventing measles. However, some parents still refuse to vaccinate their kids.

One of the main reasons anti-vaxxers refuse vaccinations is that they incorrectly believe they cause autism . As part of an effort by several large tech companies to cut out the spread of vaccine misinformation, Amazon began removing books that promote supposed "cures" for autism.

Facebook also said it would crack down on the spread of vaccine misinformation by de-prioritizing medical myths across the platform, taking action against verifiable vaccine hoaxes, the company said. Misinformation will now appear less frequently in News Feeds, both public and private pages and groups, search predictions and recommendations, according to Facebook.

According to Axios, however, misinformation about vaccines is not the only threat, as Russia is focusing on spreading misinformation around health care issues ahead of the 2020 election.

Not only did Russia fuel the anti-vaccination debate, they have also spewed unverified information about 5G wireless technology . RT, a U.S.-based Russia-backed TV network, reported that new 5G technology was linked to cancer, autism, Alzheimer's and other health issues, The New York Times reports. This had a real-world effect, with smaller blogs and websites picking up RT's false stories and sharing them as fact, the Times said.

In February 2018, special counsel Robert Mueller charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities with crimes related to a campaign to sow disinformation and division in the U.S. in the run-up to the 2016 election. A so-called "troll factory" in St. Petersburg set up to influence U.S. voters was to blame, according to the indictment.

The trolls were paid to ridicule Hillary Clinton online and fan the flames of divisive issues in the U.S. While evidence suggested the troll factory's American operations slowed down between 2016 and 2018, Broniatowski's study suggests trolls are alive and well in Russia '-- and now they're pitting Americans against each other over issues of health.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 22:00

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 21:15

TM + (C) 2019 Vimeo, Inc. All rights reserved.

Terms Privacy Copyright Cookies Made with in NYC.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 21:14

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 20:22

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was interviewed by a fawning late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on Thursday night, in an interview where he called her a "warrior," asked her if she can start sending people like Attorney General William Barr to jail, and seemed to think no one knows what's in the Robert Mueller report.

Pelosi, for her part, said that President Donald Trump "wants" them to bring impeachment charges, because he thinks the Senate will clear him and that will get him off the hook for any potential criminal prosecution after he leaves office. She said that the only person who knows better than she does what he should be "held accountable for" is Trump himself.

Oh, and she worried that disadvantaged youths might find the Trump administration and its responses and actions with regard to the Mueller probe into collusion with Russia to be unfair or unjust compared to their own experiences.

Or, as she put it: "How do you explain that to kids in the hood?"

No really. She said that. And Kimmel responded by saying "that's why we need you to get in there and to take care of this, and do something to these guys!"

The audience ate that up.

Watch:

In a strange assertion, Pelosi claimed that she had the opportunity to see the unredacted Mueller report, but that she declined because she doesn't want to see it if everyone else can't.

Kimmel, in a stranger assertion, said, "I hope the President didn't do anything."

"I hope that when they look through the Mueller report, you know, it is what he says it is," he continued. "But we haven't had a chance to see the Mueller report."

He prefaced it with "this may seem disingenuous" which was definitely true. It seems very like he wants to find out something terrible and put Trump and all who work with him in jail. He even said that a few seconds later, so...

Watch the entire interview below.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 20:08

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 19:53

FREMONT (CBS SF) '-- The occupants of five to six ramshackle tree houses built in a private industrial park near Stevenson Boulevard and I-880 in Fremont are facing eviction.

Crews equipped with chainsaws and handsaws have begun clearing out the structures and cutting off limbs in order to make it harder to reoccupy and easier to spot the homeless who are taking refuge in the trees. They are about halfway through the long line of more than 60 eucalyptus trees.

Neighboring business owners say the first tree house went up in February and started multiplying over the next three months.

ALSO READ: Homeless Population Surges Across San Francisco Bay Area

The structures vary in size, complexity and height above the ground. One is at ground level, while another is more than 30 feet up, accessible only by a ladder with sparsely-placed rungs. Each treehouse displays a fair amount of carpentry know-how, utilizing joists to support the floor below and straps to support the structure from above. It also appears the builders have access to power tools.

Marc, who identified himself as a transient but declined to give his last name, said he has been storing his belongings in one of the tree houses for about a month.

ALSO READ: IPO Wealth Begins Showing Up in Rising Bay Area Home Prices

Despite being attacked and bitten by rodents and other insects that infest the tree and inhaling fumes from a nearby wood roofing factory, he prefers the trees over the street.

''I think it's a good idea actually, I think it's actually something that people would benefit from if we had the right knowledge of trees,'' said Marc.

While the new residents are comfortable with this roof over their heads some neighbors are not so happy. A woman named Jane who didn't want to be identified said she works next door to one of the tree houses. She said several of the company cars have been broken into recently and she worries about her safety.

ALSO READ: Gov. Newsom Announces Homelessness Task Force In Oakland Visit

''There's a lot of us women who work here late '... so I'm worried that I could be in danger,'' she said.

Fremont police say they responded to at least one call recently at the site. The resulting action taken after that visit was not immediately clear.

Andrea Nakano contributed to this report

Kiet Do Comments (4)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 16:46

In an exclusive interview with "CBS This Morning," Attorney General William Barr said he believes special counsel Robert Mueller could have reached a decision on whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice, regardless of long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. During a nearly hour-long interview in Anchorage, Alaska, CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford pressed the attorney general on a number of issues from obstruction to his new review of the Russia investigation.

Barr interview full transcript JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn't make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel's office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could've reached a decision but--

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would've stopped him in the regulations or in those...that opinion itself, he could've -- in your view he could've reached a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could've reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress's investigative powers.

JAN CRAWFORD: Now you have testified that when you met with Mueller at the Justice Department, you had that meeting, that you were surprised that he told you then that he was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, Rod and I were both surprised by that.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did you ask him, look, we need you to make a conclusion on this? You should make a conclusion.

WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn't say I really pressed him on it. I was interested in his thinking on it and he explained his position, said he was still thinking it through and- and- but I didn't really press him nor did Rod.

JAN CRAWFORD: So, but you left that meeting thinking that he wasn't going to have a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: That's right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you feel because he didn't do that, did he fulfill his responsibility as special counsel? If you look at regulations, it seems to anticipate that you would get a confidential report explaining why he made a decision to either prosecute or decline to prosecute. He didn't do that, seems to me.

WILLIAM BARR: Right but on the other hand he did provide us a report and what he viewed to be the relevant facts. And that allowed us as the, as the leaders of the department to make that decision.

Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on obstructionJAN CRAWFORD: What is the fundamental difference? Why...I mean, he said he couldn't exonerate the president. That he had looked at the evil there - these 11 instances of possible obstruction. He couldn't exonerate the president, if he could he would've stated so. You looked at that evidence and you did. I mean, what is the fundamental difference between your view and his?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was, he was not going to make a determination one way or the other. And he also said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction.

JAN CRAWFORD: As a matter of law?

WILLIAM BARR: As a matter of law. In other words, we didn't agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn't rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.

JAN CRAWFORD: Before you became attorney general you wrote a memo to the justice department looking at the -- the question and the legal standards for obstruction and suggesting that the president has the authority to say back off of the Flynn investigation and could have fired James Comey under his executive authority, how much - I mean when you're talking about, can you explain that a little more. When you're talking about your judgment that no obstruction occurred based on the evidence that Mueller produced and your understanding of the law, can you explain a little more why wasn't that obstruction?

WILLIAM BARR: Well let's take the firing of Comey for example I think we would have said as a matter of law, and I'm not relying on my - my legal memo that I wrote as a private citizen but really on the views within the department of the people who think about these things and are responsible for framing the views of the department, and I think we would have said that as a matter of law the obstruction statutes do not reach facially valid exercise of core presidential authority or official authority even, decisions by the attorney general in administering the executive branch or litigation. But we didn't rely on that, we then looked at that issue let's take the again the firing of Comey. One of the elements is that you have to show that the act objectively speaking will have the probable effect of obstructing a proceeding and we don't believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding. There was also we would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president's frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn't feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases

JAN CRAWFORD: When you see some of the criticism and you've gotten quite a bit of it that you're protecting the president that you're enabling the president, what's your response to that?

Barr says Obama officials did not commit treason "as a legal matter"WILLIAM BARR: Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what's said but as to who says it and what side they're on and what it's political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.

JAN CRAWFORD: The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that's going on it's not lawful for me to just make that public.

JAN CRAWFORD: Not even to Congress?

WILLIAM BARR: Not even--

JAN CRAWFORD: So you could even give Congress, which of course is demanding that and threatening to hold you in contempt because you're not giving them the full report

WILLIAM BARR: That's right, and so--

JAN CRAWFORD: But by law you can't?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, and so because we were not involved in the investigation we would have no way looking at the report of determining what was grand jury material and what wasn't, so we had for a period of weeks been asking the special counsel's office to highlight the stuff so we could quickly process it for release and I guess--

JAN CRAWFORD: For a period of weeks you had asked for this material?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah even before the March 5 meeting we had asked or raised the subject--

JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?

WILLIAM BARR: And then at the March 5 meeting I made it explicit and then after the March 5th meeting we asked..

JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?

WILLIAM BARR: We thought it was being-- we thought it was being done and I do believe they were putting in more footnotes in that would be necessary ultimately in identifying the material but whether the wires were crossed or whatever it didn't come in a form that identified the 6E material.

JAN CRAWFORD: And that was a surprise to you when you got the report?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: It was.

WILLIAM BARR: And it immediately meant that you know it was going to be a period of weeks before we could get the report out if I had my druthers I would have liked to get the report out as quickly as possible.

JAN CRAWFORD: So instead, you turned this four page summary?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, because I didn't think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every- there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth--

JAN CRAWFORD: And saying that publicly?

WILLIAM BARR: Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and--

JAN CRAWFORD: And you knew that to be false?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very--

JAN CRAWFORD: Wild and irresponsible. The former intelligence officials' speculation--

WILLIAM BARR: Right, and talking heads and things like that, and these things affect the United States' ability to function in the world. We have an economy. It could affect the economy. It can affect - it can affect our foreign relations during very delicate period of time with, you know, serious adversaries in the world. So I felt- that in order to buy time, in order to get the report out, I had to state the bottom line just like you're announcing a verdict in a case. My purpose there was not to summarize every jot and tittle of the report and every, you know, angle that - that Mueller looked into. But, just state the bottom line which I did in the four page memo.

JAN CRAWFORD: You didn't say in that four-page memo that the report would not exonerate the president on obstruction. That line--

WILLIAM BARR: I said that, yes. In the- in the- in my four-page memo, I said that Mueller did not reach a decision. He gave both sides and that- and then I quoted that sentence which is, while we didn't find a crime, we didn't exonerate the president. That was in the four-page letter.

JAN CRAWFORD: The- did not- we would so clearly state the preface to that.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.

JAN CRAWFORD: That, that was not in there, and there was some criticism that in the summary, and the attorney- I mean, the special counsel himself wrote the letter saying, People are misunderstanding. There's been some confusion, that the summary had caused some confusion--

WILLIAM BARR: Right, right.

JAN CRAWFORD: That perhaps, and he didn't say this, but the- the response was that you were too soft on the president, that actually the special counsel was a little sharper on obstruction.

WILLIAM BARR: Well again, I wasn't trying to provide all the flavor and nooks and crannies of the report. I was just trying to state the bottom line, and the bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes. He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and he- his conclusion was he wasn't exonerating the president, but he wasn't finding a crime either. And, for the purposes of the point, I think that that was what was required for the body politic because actually most of the letter then goes on to explain how Rod Rosenstein and I reached a decision and the criteria we applied in finding no obstruction.

JAN CRAWFORD: He wrote the letter taking issue, saying there caused- you had caused confusion. Did that catch you off guard?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, sure. I was surprised he just didn't pick up the phone and call me given our 30 year relationship, but--

JAN CRAWFORD: Why didn't he?

WILLIAM BARR: I don't, I don't know, but, as I said it in the hearing, I thought it was- the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven--

JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt, but we had a good conversation--

JAN CRAWFORD: Because otherwise you would have picked up the phone?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, well, which I did, and we had a good conversation. And I think, I think the matter is now been fully vetted, and I think he was concerned that there should be more context and texture to his work given, and that in the absence of that, the vacuum had been filled with media reports that were then causing confusion, and he wanted it clarified by putting more of an explanation of his reasoning out. And I said that I didn't want to put out dribs and drabs, I wanted the whole report out. And then I wrote a letter again to Congress saying, look, I didn't- this is not intended to be a full summary. Bob's thinking is reflected in the report. Everyone's going to have access to it. They should look at that to determine, you know, what Bob's reasoning was. So that's where we let it sit till the report was released.

JAN CRAWFORD: You said that you had wanted to release the report in full, and you largely have with the grand jury material being, of course, the exception.

WILLIAM BARR: Right. And in the second volume that's one tenth of one percent of the report has been taken.

JAN CRAWFORD: You, I just want to be clear on this. How long and how many, you expected the special counsel's office to redact that material, so to point out what should be redacted --

WILLIAM BARR: Right. Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: So the four-page summary would have been unnecessary?

WILLIAM BARR: Correct.

Barr responds to criticism he's protecting TrumpJAN CRAWFORD: You expected, could you just tell us again, you expected to get the report with the grand jury material identified and then what was your plan?

WILLIAM BARR: My plan was to figure out how long it would take us to redact what had to be redacted.

JAN CRAWFORD: And what did you anticipate that would be?

WILLIAM BARR: And if we could readily, if we could readily identify the 6E material, I thought we could do it in a you know less than a week. And if I had been looking at a matter of days like that, then I probably would have just told people what the timeline is do people knew when it would be coming out when they would see it, but once I realized it was going to take 3 or 4 weeks, I felt I had to say something in the interim.

JAN CRAWFORD: But if you had had that material pointed out this would have all been different, you wouldn't have written the four-page summary?

WILLIAM BARR: Probably not no.

JAN CRAWFORD: I guess just to finish up on this topic then, when we saw the special counsel yesterday, you put out the statement that there wasn't really any kind of discrepancy in some of things that you had been saying.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, we both put out the statement.

JAN CRAWFORD: Was that the first time there had been a joint statement?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: And why --

WILLIAM BARR: I believe so.

JAN CRAWFORD: -- And why was that necessary?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, because I think there was some people who let the facts interfere with their narrative and were trying to suggest that there was a difference of opinion about the role played by the OLC opinion, which simply wasn't true.

JAN CRAWFORD: The difference is your views on obstruction and--

WILLIAM BARR: -- Well the difference was this so --

JAN CRAWFORD: I understand what you're saying and I guess, I guess you focused on the role the OLC memo, opinion played--

WILLIAM BARR: --Right--

JAN CRAWFORD: --In the statement?

WILLIAM BARR: The so-called discrepancy was that I had, I had testified earlier that Bob had assured me that he had not reached a decision that there was a crime committed but was not willing to pursue it simply because of the OLC opinion and that remains the fact. That's what his position is. That's consistent with what he said yesterday. And it certainly is consistent with the joint release we put out. The confusion arose because what Bob Mueller's position was was that the OLC opinion coupled with other things as a prudential matter made him feel that he shouldn't even get into the analysis of whether something was a crime or not and that's a different question than --

JAN CRAWFORD: Right, because you...just because there's evidence of obstruction or crime was committed doesn't mean the person is going to be charged or indicted or found to have committed that crime.

WILLIAM BARR: Right and he didn't' even get into that analysis. In other words, what I was discussing earlier was, was Bob, did Bob make a decision there was a crime and the only reason he wasn't saying that was because of the OLC opinion. The fact is Bob did not make a decision that there was a crime. He didn't get into the analysis at all. Part of the reason for that was his judgment about the OLC opinion coupled with other things he just didn't think it was proper exercise of his authority. So it's a totally different issue and that's why, that's why both us feel that this idea that there's been a discrepancy over the OLC opinion is simply wrong.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did you watch him give the statement yesterday?

WILLIAM BARR: I watched a re-run of it, yeah.

JAN CRAWFORD: Anything new or different?

WILLIAM BARR: No I mean to me it was a reiteration of some of the key elements of his report. I think he wanted to stress a number of things that were in the report. There had been a lot of commentary about his work. I had made some critical remarks about it. So I think it's quite understandable he wanted to hammer home a few of the key points that were in the report and I thought that that was fine.

JAN CRAWFORD: He said he's not going to be testifying.

WILLIAM BARR: That's right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think he should?

WILLIAM BARR: You know, I think as I said, you know, it's up to Bob, but I think the line he's drawing which is that he's going to stick what he said in the report is the proper line for any Department official.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you've testified under oath, answered questions under oath. He took no questions yesterday. Is that sufficient?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think it's sufficient because, you know, he was handling a specific investigation and normally we don't, we allowed our prosecutors and have them interrogated about how they handled a particular case. I think --

JAN CRAWFORD: But you wouldn't have objected if he wanted to testify?

WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn't have objected if he wanted to testify. I do think that his view that he should stick to what is in the report is consistent with the department's views of these things.

JAN CRAWFORD: So the last thing that he said yesterday was to remind us that Russia tried to sway our election. He said there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere and that deserves the attention of every American. How's the Justice Department working now to ensure this doesn't happen again in 2020?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, we do have. I think an increasingly robust program that is focusing on foreign influence in our election process. The FBI obviously has the lead in that and I've been briefed on it on a regular basis and I think it's a very impressive effort but, we are ramping up. I talked recently to the director of the FBI about putting together a special high-level group to make sure we're totally prepared for the upcoming elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: And the high level group would be? Who would that include?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, it would include the FBI, the Department of Justice, DHS and intelligence agencies.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.

JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it's just hard to understand why it wasn't taken more seriously.

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?

WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That's one of the things I'm interested in looking at you know--

JAN CRAWFORD: --As part of the review?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April--

JAN CRAWFORD: --of 2016--

WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don't have any reason to doubt that, but I'm wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.

JAN CRAWFORD: I want to talk to you about the investigation. Um, because your, that's suggesting that was obviously inadequate, but when you talk to Director Wray about appointing this high level group and efforts to ensure that this doesn't happen again in 2020, has he expressed any concern to you that the kind of review that you are now going to undertake, or this investigation of the investigation, that that could hamper these efforts in 2020?

WILLIAM BARR: We've discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that and--

JAN CRAWFORD: ---You have discussed that with him?

WILLIAM BARR: Oh yes, and I think he is being very supportive and we're working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.

JAN CRAWFORD: So when we are talking about the kind of the-- well you have used the word spy. You have testified that you believe spying occurred.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: Into the Trump campaign.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: You've gotten some criticism for using that word.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I mean, I guess it's become a dirty word somehow. It hasn't ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it's an important tool the United States has to protect the country.

JAN CRAWFORD: On using the word, I mean, do you understand, and I know that some of the, some former intelligence chiefs have said that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that there is spying, this is a witch hunt, this is a hoax, and so your use of that word makes it seem that you are being a loyalist.

WILLIAM BARR: You know, it's part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It's a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.

JAN CRAWFORD: You're saying that spying occurred. There's not anything necessarily wrong with that.

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: As long as there's a reason for it.

WILLIAM BARR: Whether it's adequately predicated. And look, I think if we -- we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that's bad for the republic. But by the same token, it's just as, it's just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: So it's just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling?

WILLIAM BARR: Well they're both, they're both troubling.

JAN CRAWFORD: Equally?

WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they're there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did that happen?

WILLIAM BARR: There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I'm not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.

JAN CRAWFORD: So--

WILLIAM BARR: That's one of the, you know, one of the key responsibilities of the Attorney General, core responsibilities of the Attorney General is to make sure that government power is not abused and that the right of Americans are not transgressed by abusive government power. That's the responsibility of the Attorney General.

JAN CRAWFORD: You know the- I guess- we've spent the last two years or more talking about and hearing about Russian interference into the elections and what occurred there. And so now we're shifting to talking about actually investigating, reviewing that investigation and the people who did that. So I guess in making this turn can you help us understand, I mean what's- what is the concern? What have you seen, what's the basis for that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well I don't want to get you know, too much into the facts because it's still under review. But I think it's important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I'm sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I've selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who's been there over thirty years, he's now the U.S. attorney.

WILLIAM BARR: But he has, over the years, been used by both Republican and Democratic attorney generals to investigate these kinds of activities. And he's always gotten the most laudatory feedback from his work. So there's no doubt in my mind that he's going- he's going to conduct a thorough and fair review of this. And we're working closely with the intelligence agencies, the bureau and the agency and others to help us reconstruct what happened. And I want to see, what were the standards that were applied. What was the evidence? What were the techniques used? Who approved them? Was there a legitimate basis for it?

JAN CRAWFORD: The Inspector General is looking at only, it is my understanding, a small part of this? Is that correct? the FISA warrant?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I wouldn't say small but he's looking at a discrete area that is- that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page.

JAN CRAWFORD: And could he have'... could you have just said I want to expand this investigation? Why did you feel it was necessary to turn to John Durham?

WILLIAM BARR: Well the inspector general at the department, Mike Horowitz, who you know is a superb government official he has limited powers. He doesn't have the power to compel testimony, he doesn't have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited

JAN CRAWFORD: So he wouldn't have been able to go and try to speak with some of the former officials who are making these decisions, necessarily?

WILLIAM BARR: Right

JAN CRAWFORD: If they are not in the department anymore.

WILLIAM BARR: Right

JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what's the status of Huber's investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.

WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would've been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he's been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we'll be in a position to bring those to fruition.

JAN CRAWFORD: So he won't be involved in this really at all then?

WILLIAM BARR: No.

JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it's done?

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up--

WILL BARR: Yes, right.

JAN CRAWFORD: --this. So again, just to go, just so that I think so people can more fully understand this, I mean have you, and I know it's early in the investigation, but when we are talking about the basis for this and why you think it is important and obviously any kind of government abuse of power, I mean, you were in the CIA in the '70s. You can see how that can have....

WILLIAM BARR: Right, when I, when I joined the CIA almost 50 years ago as an intern and this was during the Vietnam, civil rights era and there had been a lot...there were a lot of pending investigations of the CIA and there the issues were what was- when was it appropriate for intelligence agencies, the FBI too was under investigation. You know, the penetration of civil rights groups because at the time there was concerns about contacts with, you know, communist funded front groups and things like that and you know how deeply could you get into civil rights groups or anti-Vietnam war groups. A lot of these groups were in contact with foreign adversaries, they had some contact with front organizations and so forth and there were a lot of rules put in place and those rules are under the attorney general. The attorney general's responsibility is to make sure that these powers are not used to tread upon first amendment activity and that certainly was a big part of my formative years of dealing with those issues. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn't seem to think that it's worth looking into. They're supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.

JAN CRAWFORD: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I'll say at this point is that it, you know, I- like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I'd get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I've learned don't hang together with the official explanations of what happened.

JAN CRAWFORD: What do you mean by that?

WILLIAM BARR: That's all I really will say. Things are just not jiving, and I'm not saying at this stage that--

JAN CRAWFORD: Was it a timeline?

WILLIAM BARR: There was a timeline, there's some timeline--

JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, there's a concern that this may have happened before we realized that the investigation was initiated in July. I mean, what...

WILLIAM BARR: I don't want to get into those details at this point. I would just say that, you know...

JAN CRAWFORD: But you said there's a timeline concern.

WILLIAM BARR: Well I won't, I won't confirm that, but I'll just say that, you know, there's some questions that I think have to be answered, and I have a basis for feeling there has to be a review of this.

JAN CRAWFORD: You've said, you've said the time frame between the election and the inauguration, you've said this publicly, was kind of strange. Some strange things may have happened. What concerns you there? Specifically, the meeting at Trump Tower.

WILLIAM BARR: I don't want to- I don't want to get into that.

JAN CRAWFORD: Okay. Yes. So kind of going back to what we were talking about with Director Wray, I mean obviously you've seen this like the people are raising concerns that this is going to undermine FBI morale. The rank and file- what are we saying here- but you said in recent Senate testimony, "this is not launching an investigation of the FBI frankly to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that's endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon."

WILLIAM BARR: That's right.

JAN CRAWFORD: So there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon?

WILLIAM BARR: Correct. In other words, I don't believe this is a problem you know, rife through the bureau.

JAN CRAWFORD: What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?

WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters--

JAN CRAWFORD: And you're talking about James Comey, McCabe?

WILLIAM BARR: I'm just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don't view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies. And they're being very cooperative in helping us.

JAN CRAWFORD: They're being cooperative?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: You're working with the DNI, the head of CIA. I want to ask you about something- just declassification. But the president has tweeted and said publicly that some in the upper echelon, Comey, McCabe, etc., committed treason. I mean do you agree with that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I- as a lawyer I always interpret the word treason not colloquially but legally. And you know the very specific criteria for treason- so I don't think it's actually implicated in the situation that we have now. But I think what he--

JAN CRAWFORD: Legally.

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: You don't think that they've committed treason?

WILLIAM BARR: Not as a legal matter, no.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes but you know, when you're dealing with official government contact, intent is frequently a murky issue. I'm not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don't realize.

WILLIAM BARR: That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really you know, shouldn't be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don't see that. So that's why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn't necessarily mean that there are people- you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that.

JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation?

WILLIAM BARR: Well it's hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they're appalling. And if the shoe were on the other--

JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling.

WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that "Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that." You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don't think we would be hearing a lot more about it?

JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it's not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what's your response to that? Is that legit?

WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus

JAN CRAWFORD: So did you ask the president for authority to declassify?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: You asked the president?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes and also you know, the direction of the intelligence agencies to support our efforts.

JAN CRAWFORD: So did you discuss this with the DNI and head of the CIA?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: And what's their response?

WILLIAM BARR: That they're going to be supportive.

JAN CRAWFORD: And so you won't will you declassify things without reviewing it with them it seems like you have the authority to do that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in an exceptional circumstance I have that authority but obviously I intend to consult with them. I'm amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I'm going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods. I've been in the business as I've said for over 50 years long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I'm in the best decision to make that decision

JAN CRAWFORD: I know you've seen some of the criticism and the push back on- on this. Do you have any concerns that doing this investigation, talking about de-classifying certain materials- that that's undermining your credibility or the credibility of the department?

WILLIAM BARR: No I- I don't. I think it's- actually the reaction is somewhat strange. I mean normally--

JAN CRAWFORD: Strange?

WILLIAM BARR: Sure.

JAN CRAWFORD: Their reaction?

WILLIAM BARR: Well the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn't care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are only the second Attorney General in history who's served twice. I think the first one was back in 1850.

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you are working for a man who is- I mean you are an establishment figure in a way. You've had a long career in Washington but you are working for a man who is not establishment. And some of his tweets about officials and the rule of law, how do you react when you see those? Are you on Twitter? Do you read his tweets?

WILLIAM BARR: No, I am not on Twitter and every once in a while a tweet is brought to my attention but my experience with the president is, we have- we have a good working, professional working relationship. We, you know, we talk to each other and if he has something to say to me I figure he'll tell me directly. I don't look to tweets for, you know, I don't look at them as directives or as official communications with the department.

JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it's like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What's your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.

JAN CRAWFORD: You did?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don't care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that's antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn't make any difference.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?

WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I've you know--

JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it's the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don't believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?

JAN CRAWFORD: So you don't regret taking the job?

WILLIAM BARR: No.

JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today?

WILLIAM BARR: I'd rather, in many ways, I'd rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it's important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it's President Trump that's shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven't seen bill of particulars as to how that's being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?

WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.

More excerpts from CTM's exclusive interview with William Barr:

Barr says Justice Department and Mueller sparred over "legal analysis" in Russia reportBarr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice Attorney General William Barr on caring about his reputation: "Everyone dies"

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 16:18

Bejamin "Mako" Hill (previously) is a free software developer, activist and academic with a long history of shrewd critical insights into the ways that free software, free culture and the wider world interact with each other.

In his keynote address to the annual Libreplanet conference, Mako traces the history of software freedom and how it changed when it met the forces of relentless commercialization and extraction.

Early free software advocates assumed that working on free software would be centralized and would be a kind of voluntary ideological project that would result in pay-cuts to programmers who wanted to ensure that users of programs got as much freedom as possible, and were willing to sacrifice to achieve this.

But markets discovered free software and turned it into "open source," figuring out how to create developer communities around software ("digital sharecropping") that lowered their costs and increased their quality. Then the companies used patents and DRM and restrictive terms of service to prevent users from having any freedom.

Mako says that this is usually termed "strategic openness," in which companies take a process that would, by default, be closed, and open the parts of it that make strategic sense for the firm. But really, this is "strategic closedness" -- projects that are born open are strategically enclosed by companies to allow them to harvest the bulk of the value created by these once-free systems.

So Android (GNU/Linux) is everywhere and Apple was forced by its users insistence on jailbreaking their Iphones to create the App Store and allow programmers to participate in its ecosystem. But both mobile platforms have figured out how to use strategic closedness to lock up users and developers and capture the value and assert control over the system.

Mako suggests that the time in which free software and open source could be uneasy bedfellows is over. Companies' perfection of digital sharecropping means that when they contribute to "free" projects, all the freedom will go to them, not the public.

This comes at the exact moment when the world is being devoured by software, and when software freedom is, more than ever, ineluctably bound up with human freedom -- in other words, it's a crisis of global and historic proportions.

Mako is calling on people to choose sides: to understand the moral dimension of software freedom, rather than its mere utilitarian benefits, and to commit themselves to human freedom.

(via Four Short Links)

Nobel-winning economist Joe Stiglitz calls neoliberalism "a failed ideology" and sketches out a "progressive capitalism" to replace itJoe Stiglitz (previously) holds a Nobel Prize in Economics (not an actual Nobel Prize), and has been an outspoken critic of the rigged economy and austerity.

READ THE RESTGabriel Zucman: the Piketty-trained "wealth detective" who catalogued the secret fortunes of the super-rich and figured out how to tax themBloomberg's Ben Steverman offers a long and exciting profile of Gabriel Zucman (previously), a protege of Thomas Piketty (Zucman was one of the researchers on Piketty's blockbuster Capital in the 21st Century) who has gone on to a career at UC Berkeley, where he's done incredibly innovative blockbuster work of his own, particularly on estimating ['...]

READ THE RESTAT&T's dystopian advertising vision perfectly illustrates the relationship between surveillance and monopolyAT&T has come a long way from the supernormative, feel-good messages of its You Will ads; now CEO Randall Stephenson predicts a future where his company will dynamically alter your TV ads based on what it thinks you will buy; and chase you with that ad from your TV to your computer to your phone, ['...]

READ THE RESTNever lose a password again with this encrypted appPasswords are necessary. Passwords are also a pain '' especially when you've got multiple ones to remember for your email, subscriptions, bills and work sites. The problem is keeping all those passwords stored and ready, yet still secure from hackers and malware. The solution? A subscription to the RememBear Password Manager. Brought to you by ['...]

READ THE RESTGet 50+ hours of Microsoft Excel training for a price you pickMicrosoft Excel know-how is a plus in nearly any business. More than just a spreadsheet program, this popular software suite has applications for data analytics, accounting, security and more. It can take months of tutelage under an expert to master all the features in Excel '' or a couple of weeks with the Epic Excel ['...]

READ THE REST10 auto accessories that will help you drive safer and easierAfter too many trips to the mechanic, we're conditioned to think anything you add to our car is going to be expensive. In a word: Nope. Turns out there's plenty of tech you can add on to your car for a steal, both inside and outside. Here are ten of our favorite auto accessories, from ['...]

READ THE REST

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 14:23

Welcome to the Truman show where we try to teach fellow humans about the real world in which we live in the hope we can crack the code as to what we are and where we came from.

The following is a video on how powerful the human body and mind can ...

Welcome to the Truman show where we try to teach fellow humans about the real world in which we live in the hope we can crack the code as to what we are and where we came from.

The following is a video on how powerful the human body and mind can be and it's all controlled by your own perception.

Have you ever noticed how quick someone deteriorates after visiting the doctor and being told they have a certain time limit left?

Dr.Bruce Lipton reveals about this new science that will blow your mind and open your eyes.

''¸ Check out Dr. Bruce Lipton's Latest Books''¸ðŸ‘‰ The Biology of Belief: https://amzn.to/2XEcHmk 👉The Honeymoon Effect: The Science of Creating Heaven on Earth : https://amzn.to/2Pv80Z3👍 RECOMMENDED VIDEOS FOR YOU 👍 If you liked this video, you'll love these ones: ðŸ' Dr. Bruce Lipton | 4 Simple Strategies to Reprogram Your Mind : https://youtu.be/wNAN1XT2kQo ðŸ' When You Understand This Your Whole Life Will Change | Dr Bruce Lipton(2019!) : https://youtu.be/_zjIBTDtPt4

🏠SOURCE 🏠- https://youtu.be/82ShSNuru6c vekmehel ofkirr

Video Credits:* Truman Show News may not agree with everything from the content producers we share. Apply critical thinking and use discernment to come to your own conclusions regarding the content in the videos.

'–ºThis video was mirrored from Clarity Coaching - Transforming Lives and the original creator is vekmehel ofkirr.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 13:12

F ormer FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe no longer believes that President Trump may be a Russian asset.

As recently as February, McCabe said that ''it's possible'' that Trump could be coordinating with the Kremlin. But after hearing special counsel Robert Mueller's public address on Wednesday, McCabe acknowledged on MSNBC that he changed his mind on the matter.

''Well, I think that the report makes clear that they did not uncover evidence of that sort of a relationship. So, based on what Director Mueller's team revealed in their report, I'd have to say no, we still have not seen clear evidence of that," he said on Thursday.

Mueller's final report was released in late April and he gave his first public comments on his team's findings on Wednesday. In both his report and his speech, Mueller described how the Russian government had systematically attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election through the hacking of Democratic emails, the distribution of those emails through WikiLeaks, and social media disinformation campaigns.

Mueller was not able establish any coordination or conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign or any other Americans, but some critics of Trump insist there was coordination. For instance, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has reignited his panel's Russia investigation, claims there is "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight."

At a time when Trump has given his attorney general sweeping powers to "investigate the investigators," McCabe defended the actions of the Justice Department and FBI during the Trump-Russia investigation.

He also contended that Mueller's press conference '-- in which Mueller reiterated the broad points already outlined in his 448-page report '-- was meant to push back against Trump. ''What has been billed as 'no collusion' and 'no obstruction' should probably be recast as 'no witch hunt' and 'no exoneration','' McCabe insisted. ''I think that was the message that Bob Mueller was telling us yesterday.''

A February 2018 report from DOJ Inspector General Horowitz found McCabe had improperly disclosed information to the Wall Street Journal confirming the existence of a Clinton Foundation investigation. That report determined McCabe ''lacked candor'' when speaking with former FBI Director James Comey, with the FBI's Internal Investigations Section, and with the Office of the Inspector General. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018 just a few days before he was set to retire.

McCabe's actions at the FBI during the Trump-Russia investigation, including helping approve the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act filings targeting former Trump campaign associate Carter Page, have likely come under scrutiny during Horowitz's investigation into FISA abuse.

The Page FISA application was filed by the Justice Department and FBI with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in October 2016. A surveillance warrant was granted and three renewals were subsequently approved. The FISA application relied heavily on unverified research in British ex-spy Christopher Steele's dossier on President Trump's ties to Russia, which was compiled through his employment with opposition research firm Fusion GPS with funding from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm.

McCabe's broader actions at the bureau are also likely to be looked at by Attorney General William Barr, who was recently given wide declassification authority by Trump to help get answers about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and the way the DOJ and FBI conducted themselves.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 12:58

Mint Press News '' by Tom Secker

Nearly 200 pages of Drug Enforcement Administration contracts with producers were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. They show for the first time how the agency interacts with television and film productions.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is quite active in the entertainment industry. It exercises stringent control over how the agency is represented in documentaries, reality shows, and dramas.

With several projects, the DEA carefully reviews their own files to pick out select cases that made them look good, which then form the basis for either fictional or factual productions.

The contracts [PDF] cover 2011 to 2017. Over that time period, DEA supported dozens of projects, including ''Cops and Coyotes'' and multiple episodes of ''Drugs Inc.'' and ''Gangsters: America's Most Evil.'' They support the fictional drugs drama ''Pure,'' too.

Other supported projects were ''Lethal Cargo,'' ''The Notorious Mr. Bout,'' and ''Declassified: Untold Stories of American Spies.'' They even worked with the U.S. government-funded Middle East Broadcasting Network for a program that featured the DEA museum..

Strangely absent from the contracts are ''Narcos'' and ''Breaking Bad,'' despite various reports that both shows employed DEA employees as consultants.

In response to a separate FOIA request asking about their input on ''Breaking Bad,'' the DEA claimed they couldn't find any records whatsoever. The released documents also do not include ''Finding Escobar's Millions'' and ''Battle Zone: The Origins of Sicario,'' even though the DEA was credited on both documentaries.

The contracts show the near-total control the DEA wields over productions they assist.

Some producers are given permission to embed film crews within DEA Enforcement Groups but only under the provision that ''DEA supervisors on the scene shall have the final say in approving any filming during real-time law enforcement operations.''

The production support offered by the DEA is completely free. It costs the producers nothing and ranges from granting permission to use the DEA name and logo to filming at DEA installations and interviewing their agents.

Some of the DEA's restrictions apply to certain projects. The producers of ''Canada: Drug Kingpin'' were told they weren't allowed to ''accompany DEA employees to Canadian-U.S. border 'hot spots' known for the transit of illicit substances.''

The makers of ''Lethal Cargo'' were only permitted to interview one DEA employee, and the contract specifies several topics that he was not allowed to talk about. The forbidden topics included, ''Information relating to the production and consumption status of a country and that country's law enforcement approach to drug trafficking,'' ''the port of Valencia as an ingress point for cocaine,'' and ''the Nigerian mafia as couriers.''

In more recent years, with marijuana legalization a growing issue and reality, the DEA began including a clause saying that any interviews with ''DEA personnel regarding marijuana operations or related issues'' had to be approved in advance by the agency's chief of congressional and public affairs.

On all supported projects, the producers must grant a ''senior DEA official'' control over the final edit, to ensure a project doesn't compromise an ''ongoing investigation or prosecution, investigative practices or techniques, or the identities of confidential sources or DEA special agent or task force officers.''

The official ''may make that determination at any time during the editing and production process,'' and the ''producer agrees to abide by DEA requests to modify, delete or otherwise change'' anything that is deemed objectionable.

While some of these restrictions are reasonable and protect the rights of those accused of crimes, the DEA-imposed limits also ensure they are depicted in a positive light.

Shadowproof spoke with author Doug Valentine, who has written extensively on the DEA's culture and corruption. ''Positive P.R. is more important [to the DEA] than accurate portrayal,'' he said.

The contracts list several specific scenarios that cannot be shown under any circumstances. They include, ''Recording of any shooting incident, regardless of who fires,'' ''filming of suspect interrogations,'' ''filming where an individual's communications are being monitored in any fashion,'' and ''footage that exposes DEA's confidential or sensitive investigative techniques.''

As a consequence of these restrictions, the productions all maintain the same basic message'--that the DEA are heroes, who are fighting evil people who threaten American society.

''It's propaganda B.S. pure and simple,'' Valentine said. ''I talk a lot about the myth of the hero. They want to portray themselves as heroes on a noble cause. They demand total control over the narrative.''

Asked whether these shows were inaccurate representations of the real relationships between DEA agents and drug dealers, Valentine replied, ''Depends on the agent and the trafficker, but the trafficker can never arrest the agent. So agents have the power of the law. Where it gets sticky is with informants and special hires and undercover ops. CIA stuff.''

In addition to asserting control over the final edit of a production, the documents have clauses saying the DEA ''reserves the right to perform background checks and, if necessary, deny access to those individuals who DEA believes may compromise DEA operations. DEA also reserves the right to limit the number of representatives who may have access to DEA.''

Like the FBI, the DEA is not just concerned with the content of the productions they support but also with the backgrounds of the people producing them.

''It's another way of assuring control. DEA is obsessed with control and being the superior force,'' Valentine added.

Further demonstrating the DEA's obsession with control, the contracts require the producers to destroy any materials provided by the DEA (photos, documents, statistics, b-roll footage and so on) as soon as the production is released or broadcast.

The producers must provide the DEA with a DVD copy and a non-exclusive license to use the resulting film or TV show for the purposes of ''recruiting, training, professional development, community relations, or demand reduction efforts.''

Mint Press News

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 11:36

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 11:17

Media player Media playback is unsupported on your device

VideoThe BBC's Clive Myrie was attempting to talk to a reporter about the launch of 5G whilst using the technology to broadcast live from central London, but the network cut out. The presenter apologised to viewers saying, 'I'll have to interrupt you because bizarrely the 5G line isn't working properly'.

30 May 2019

Go to next video: How much faster is 5G?

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 03:32

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 31 May 2019 03:25

Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.

Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 30 May 2019 23:53

Enter a topic, @name, or fullname

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 30 May 2019 23:33

Explore & LearnA political consipiracy thriller follows a freelance reporter investigating high-level corruption in the Reagan/Bush Justice Department.

Historical moments related to Danny Casolaro Died for You Videos Excerpts and behind-the-scenes interviews with the production team of Danny Casolaro Died for You.

View Videos Photo Gallery Gallery Overview

View Photos Discussions & Events Join us for post-show discussions and other events featuring special guests close to the story and themes explored in Danny Casolaro Died for You.

View Discussions Related Articles 9 questions for Jamie Vann

Today we conclude our interviews with the six-actor cast of Danny Casolaro ... Read More

View All Articles Videos Danny Casolaro Died For You Excerpt #1

Journalist Danny Casolaro (Kyle Hatley) tells his cousin Thomas Vacarro (Demetrios Troy) about his dealings with the mysterious Robert Nichols (Philip Earl Johnson) in TimeLine's Chicago premiere of Danny Casolaro Died For You. Video by The Stage Channel.

Danny Casolaro Died For You Excerpt #2

Journalist Danny Casolaro (Kyle Hatley) is suspicious of what his source Michael Riconosciuto (Mark Richard) is trying to tell him during a late night phone call in TimeLine's Chicago premiere of Danny Casolaro Died For You. Video by The Stage Channel.

Discussions & Events

Danny Casolaro Sunday Scholars PanelNovember 9, 2014, 4:00 pm Read More