End of Show Mixes: - UKPMX - Gx2 -Oh My Bosh - Danny Loos-Secret Agent Paul-Stepford Wives-PlaceBoing- Dave Courbanou - Able Kirby - Jungle Jones - Chris Wilson - Tom Starkweather - Conan Salada - Future Trash - Phantomville Billy Bon3s - Sir Seat Sitter
AD en Krant.nl maken onderdeel uit van DPG Media. Onze sites gebruiken cookies en vergelijkbare technologien ('cookies') onder andere om je een optimale gebruikerservaring te bieden. Ook kunnen we hierdoor het gedrag van bezoekers vastleggen en analyseren en deze informatie toevoegen aan bezoekersprofielen. Cookies kunnen worden gebruikt om advertenties te tonen en artikelen aan te bevelen op de websites en apps van DPG Media die aansluiten op jouw interesses. Ook derden kunnen jouw internetgedrag volgen. Cookies kunnen gebruikt worden om op sites van derden relevante advertenties te tonen. Cookies van derde partijen maken daarnaast mogelijk dat je informatie kunt delen via social media zoals Twitter en Facebook.
AD deelt de informatie die zij verkrijgt middels het gebruik van cookies en vergelijkbare technieken, waaronder ook persoonsgegevens, in een samenwerkingsverband genaamd NLProfiel met Sanoma, DPG Media, Telegraaf Media Groep en RTL Nederland, om gezamenlijke groepsprofielen op te stellen. Door op 'Ja, ik accepteer cookies' te klikken, ga je akkoord met de verstrekking van jouw (persoons)gegevens aan deze Nederlandse uitgevers voor de totstandkoming van gezamenlijke groepsprofielen, welke dit zijn kan je lezen op www.nlprofiel.nl.
Meer informatie hierover vind je in ons cookie-statement.
Om artikelen op AD te kunnen lezen, dien je de cookies te accepteren door op 'Ja, ik accepteer cookies' te klikken.
De serviceafdeling is te bereiken op telefoonnummer 088 - 0505 050. De servicepagina kun je hier vinden. Klik hier om direct de Krant.ad.nl te lezen.
Stikstofadvies krijgt gevolgen: maximumsnelheid omlaag en minder vee | Politiek | AD.nl
AD en Krant.nl maken onderdeel uit van DPG Media. Onze sites gebruiken cookies en vergelijkbare technologien ('cookies') onder andere om je een optimale gebruikerservaring te bieden. Ook kunnen we hierdoor het gedrag van bezoekers vastleggen en analyseren en deze informatie toevoegen aan bezoekersprofielen. Cookies kunnen worden gebruikt om advertenties te tonen en artikelen aan te bevelen op de websites en apps van DPG Media die aansluiten op jouw interesses. Ook derden kunnen jouw internetgedrag volgen. Cookies kunnen gebruikt worden om op sites van derden relevante advertenties te tonen. Cookies van derde partijen maken daarnaast mogelijk dat je informatie kunt delen via social media zoals Twitter en Facebook.
AD deelt de informatie die zij verkrijgt middels het gebruik van cookies en vergelijkbare technieken, waaronder ook persoonsgegevens, in een samenwerkingsverband genaamd NLProfiel met Sanoma, DPG Media, Telegraaf Media Groep en RTL Nederland, om gezamenlijke groepsprofielen op te stellen. Door op 'Ja, ik accepteer cookies' te klikken, ga je akkoord met de verstrekking van jouw (persoons)gegevens aan deze Nederlandse uitgevers voor de totstandkoming van gezamenlijke groepsprofielen, welke dit zijn kan je lezen op www.nlprofiel.nl.
Meer informatie hierover vind je in ons cookie-statement.
Om artikelen op AD te kunnen lezen, dien je de cookies te accepteren door op 'Ja, ik accepteer cookies' te klikken.
De serviceafdeling is te bereiken op telefoonnummer 088 - 0505 050. De servicepagina kun je hier vinden. Klik hier om direct de Krant.ad.nl te lezen.
Kabinet volgt stikstofadvies op: minder vee en maximumsnelheid omlaag | NU - Het laatste nieuws het eerst op NU.nl
Het kabinet neemt de adviezen van de stikstofcommissie onder leiding van oud-minister Johan Remkes over. Daardoor gaat in de buurt van beschermde natuurgebieden de maximumsnelheid omlaag en wordt de veestapel verkleind. Dat schrijft minister Carola Schouten (Landbouw) vrijdag aan de Tweede Kamer.
Het kabinet gaat kijken waar de maatregelen het meeste effect hebben. Er is voor boerenbedrijven geen sprake van dwang om te stoppen. "Vrijwillige sanering is het uitgangspunt", schrijft Schouten. Er wordt ook gekeken of boeren geholpen kunnen worden met investeringen in innovaties.
De maximumsnelheid op wegen gaat "daar waar het stikstofeffect heeft" omlaag. Om welke wegen het precies gaat en hoe hard er maximaal gereden mag worden, is nog niet bekend.
Ook over de kosten was nog geen helderheid. "Indien nodig, gaan we extra geld ter beschikking stellen", zei Schouten in een toelichting. Volgend voorjaar volgt nog een advies van Remkes, waarin specifieker wordt gekeken welke maatregelen kunnen worden genomen.
Zowel de snelheidsverlaging als een kleinere veestapel ligt politiek zeer gevoelig bij de twee grootste regeringspartijen. De VVD wil eigenlijk niets weten van langzamer rijden en het CDA wil niet zomaar tornen aan de boerenbedrijven.
Agractie noemt kabinetsbesluit 'niet positief' voor boerenBelangengroep Agractie reageert vrijdag op de brief van Schouten en vindt dat de minister te weinig heeft gekeken naar bijvoorbeeld de zware industrie, lucht- en scheepvaart, die "niet genoemd worden in de plannen".
Agractie zegt ook dat boeren rondom Natura 2000-gebieden "ten dode zijn opgeschreven". Volgens de organisatie wordt hen de kans op uitbreiding ontzegd, waardoor zij binnen tien jaar "verdwijnen".
Kabinet wil bouwprojecten weer snel opstartenHet kabinet wil dat bouwprojecten zo snel mogelijk weer worden hervat. Er werd al eerder aangekondigd dat sommige stilgelegde projecten met een nieuwe rekenmethode alsnog door kunnen gaan.
Voor volgend jaar kijkt het kabinet naar een zogenoemde drempelwaarde van stikstofneerslag. Stikstof die vrijkomt bij projecten moet dan worden gecompenseerd.
Dat was juist het probleem met de oude regeling, die inmiddels is verboden door de rechter. "Die drempelwaarde vergt een goede onderbouwing die je goed juridisch moet toetsen", zei Schouten daarover. Verder wordt er ge¯nvesteerd in het natuurherstel.
De maatregelen zijn nodig omdat er te veel stikstof wordt uitgestoten in de buurt van beschermde natuurgebieden. Vrijwel bij iedere economische activiteit komt stikstof vrij. De vergunningen waarmee die projecten werden goedgekeurd, zijn eind mei door de Raad van State verworpen. Daardoor liggen nu achttienduizend bouwprojecten stil.
In Nederland lijden 118 van de 160 Natura 2000-gebieden (Europese beschermde natuurgebieden) onder de uitstoot van stikstof. Binnen de landbouwsector komt stikstof vrij via ammoniak. Dit gebeurt bij de verdamping van mest. Verkeer en de industrie stoten stikstofoxide uit, dat ook schadelijk is voor de natuur.
LaRouche PAC Exposed As Ocasio-Cortez Troller Behind "We Must Eat The Babies" Viral Video | Zero Hedge
Update 2: Just as we anticipated, the woman who confronted AOC at her town hall in Corona was, in fact, a plant sent by a pro-Trump group.
According to Gizmodo, the 'let's eat the babies' woman has ties to LaRouche PAC, a right-wing group that supports President Trump. The group was founded by former Communist Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche, who died earlier this year at the age of 96, was one of the original American political provocateurs.
LaRouche's followers took credit for the prank in a Tweet Thursday night, claiming that "sometimes, only satire works."
It was us. Malthusianism isn't new, Jonathan Swift knew that. Sometimes, only satire works. https://t.co/vR8oXdx39i
'-- Lyndon LaRouche PAC (@larouchepac) October 4, 2019* * *
Update: and there you go.
* * *
In a clip that has gone viral across social media platforms, a woman who was, in all likelihood, an opposition plant, confronted AOC during a town hall in Corona, Queens last night and insisted that her 'Green New Deal' wasn't enough and that instead "we must eat the babies" to stop climate change from destroying the world.
During the confrontation, the woman, who had an unusual and vaguely European accent, insisted that while she was a great fan of AOC, she felt that her proposals to combat climate change simply didn't go far enough.
One of Ocasio-Cortez's constituents loses her mind over climate change during AOC's townhall, claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! ... We have to get rid of the babies! ... We need to eat the babies!" pic.twitter.com/uVmOnboluI
'-- Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 3, 2019The only measure drastic enough to make a difference, the woman insisted, would be to stop all of humanity from breeding, and "eat" babies instead of raising them.
"I love that you support the Green New Deal but it's not going to solve the problem fast enough. I think your next slogan must be this: 'we have to eat the babies'...there's too much CO2!"
"Even if we were to bomb Russia, it's not enough," she continued. "There's too many people, too much pollution."
At one point, the woman took off her coat to reveal a T-shirt bearing the phrase: "Save the planet, eat the children."
Members of AOC's staff approached the woman toward the end of her remarks, as everybody else in the room became increasingly uncomfortable.
By the time she got around to responding, a furor had gripped the room. AOC responded that we have "more than a few months" to solve the climate crisis ("though we do need to hit net-zero in a few years") and that "we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions that we have."
Many criticized AOC for not rushing to admonish the woman. Even Tucker Carlson couldn't resist taking a shot at AOC during last night's show.
Tucker Carlson blasts AOC over how she handled her supporter saying people must ''start eating babies!'':''If someone said to you, 'we need to eat the babies' wouldn't your first response be, 'what? No! Of course not!' That's the one thing [AOC] didn't say '... pretty revealing'' pic.twitter.com/PSb0iXhiZz
'-- Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 4, 2019The Congresswoman addressed the outburst on Twitter, explaining that she was "concerned" that the woman might be "in crisis". She also took a swing at Carlson and others who have been "mocking" the woman, who might have a serious mental health condition.
This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it's not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse. Be a decent human being and knock it off.
'-- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 4, 2019
OCEANIX and BIG unveil a floating city of the future at the United Nations - Archpaper.com
Or, at least a framework for how floating cities will be built.
Throughout the 2010s, a certain set of statistics found their way into every article about urbanism. You know them. They said that a certain percent of people would live in cities by a certain year; ''68% of the world's population projected to live in urban areas by 2050,'' according to a recent UN statistic.
However, it's barely the 2010s anymore! The new hot stat for the 2020s was used today by the UN to switch gears and justify exploring the possibility of building floating cities:
By 2030, approximately 60 percent of the world's population will live in cities that are exposed to grave economic, social, and environmental pressures. Further, approximately 90 percent of the largest global cities are vulnerable to rising sea levels. Out of the world's 22 megacities with a population of more than 10 million, 15 are located along the ocean's coasts.
Serious stuff, all discussed at today's high-level round table in New York hosted by UN-Habitat, the UN's coalition on affordable and sustainable housing, along with the MIT Center for Ocean Engineering, the Explorers Club, and OCEANIX, a group investing in floating cities on this new marine frontier.
Bjarke Ingels of BIG'--architects of the ''Dryline'' around lower Manhattan'--unveiled his design for a prototypical floating city today, which would be made out of mass timber and bamboo. This proposal would be '' flood proof, earthquake-proof, and tsunami-proof,'' according to Marc Collins Chen, co-Founder and CEO of OCEANIX . The renderings show a series of modular hexagonal islands with a productive landscape, where bamboo grown on the ''islands'' could be used to make glulam beams.
BIG envisions the cities as zero-waste, energy-positive and self-sustaining. The necessary food to feed the population would be grown on the islands. BIG has put toether a kit of parts for each part of the man-made ecosystem: a food kit of parts, a waste kit of parts. Each island would be prefabricated onshore and towed to its location in the archipelago.
What would living on one of these islands be like? ''All of the aspects of human life would be accommodated,'' according to Ingels. They would dedicate seven islands to public life, including a spiritual center, a cultural center, and a recreation center. ''It won't be like Waterworld. Its another form of human habitat that can grow with its success.''
Greenhouses will be scattered across the floating islands. (Courtesy Oceanix)
Oceanix City, as it is called, features mid-rise housing around a shared, green public space where agriculture and recreation co-exist. Underground greenhouses are embedded in the ''hull'' of the floating city, while in the sky, drones would buzz by with abandon. The systems on each city would be connected, where waste, food, water, and mobility are connected. Because the cities are towable, they can be moved in the event of a weather event.
Land reclamation (creating new land by pouring sand in the ocean) is no longer seen as sustainable, as it uses precious sand resources and causes coastal areas to lose protective wetlands and mangroves . Could floating cities be the way forward for expanding our cities as we deal with the consequences of climate change and sea-level rise?
According to the coalition, ''Sustainable Floating Cities offer a clean slate to rethink how we build, live, work, and play'...They are about building a thriving community of people who care about the planet and every life form on it.'' Doesn't this sound a lot like the Seasteading Institute, the infamous group of libertarian utopianists who want to break away from land and society altogether? For Collins, his floating infrastructure is less ideological, and more about infrastructure technology. These floating cities would be positioned near protected coastal areas, less ocean-faring pirate states and more extensions of areas threatened by rising sea levels.
''These cities have to be accessible to everyone. We can't build broad support for this without populist thinking,'' said Richard Wiese, the president of the Explorers Club. The first prototypes will start small, even though they are thinking big. The 4.5-acre pods will house 300 people, while the goal is to scale the system by repeating the unit until the city can hold 10,000 people.
Can floating cities be more sustainable and affordable than building on land? Would they only be for the rich? Would they be self-sufficient? Would they prevent climate gentrification and curb climate migration? Or, as has been the case in the past, will the idea prove too expensive to actually build?
It Costs $532,000 to Decommission A Single Wind Turbine - American Experiment
It looks like Minnesota will have a very expensive mess to clean up when the wind turbines currently operating in the state reach the end of their 20 year useful lifetimes.
According to utility documents filed by Xcel Energy for it's Nobles Wind facility, it will cost approximately $445,000 (in 2009 dollars) per turbine to decommission the wind facility. This means it would cost $532,000 per turbine (in 2019 dollars) for each of the 134 turbines in operation at this facility, bringing the total cost of decommissioning the Nobles project to $71 million. Xcel also states that these cost estimates are conservative.
Other wind turbines have six-figure decommissioning costs, as well. According to utility documents for the Palmer's Creek Wind facility in Chippewa County, Minnesota, it would cost $7,385,822 to decommission the 18 wind turbines operating at that site, a cost of $410,000 per turbine.
One would think such a price tag would at least result in a thorough decommissioning job, but one would be wrong.
According to the Nobles Wind document, ''Restoration activities will include and not be limited to removal of all physical material and equipment related to the project to a dept of 48 inches.''
This means Xcel will only remediate the site to a depth of four feet, leaving most of the massive concrete foundations, which go as deep as 15 feet, used to anchor the wind turbines , in the ground indefinitely.
Furthermore, according to the website Renewable Technology, Nobles Wind facility has an extensive underground collector cable system, laid at a depth of four feet, connecting the turbines to a central substation. Xcel's documents were not specific enough to determine if they would be removing these cables, but the Palmer's Wind Farm project explicitly states that cables deeper than 4 feet would not be removed:
Wind turbines and solar panels are often given a free pass when it comes to their impact on the environment even though they can cause substantial environmental degradation. In contrast, liberal politicians and special interest groups have continued to delay the replacement of an aging oil pipeline with a newer, and safer replacement.
This double standard is a disservice to Minnesotans who must pay more for their energy, and also the environment.
Nitrogen pollution: the forgotten element of climate change
While carbon pollution gets all the headlines for its role in climate change, nitrogen pollution is arguably a more challenging problem. Somehow we need to grow more food to feed an expanding population while minimising the problems associated with nitrogen fertiliser use.
In Europe alone, the environmental and human health costs of nitrogen pollution are estimated to be '¬70-320 billion per year.
Nitrogen emissions such as ammonia, nitrogen oxide and nitrous oxides contribute to particulate matter and acid rain. These cause respiratory problems and cancers for people and damage to forests and buildings.
Nitrogenous gases also play an important role in global climate change. Nitrous oxide is a particularly potent greenhouse gas as it is over 300 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
Nitrogen from fertiliser, effluent from livestock and human sewage boost the growth of algae and cause water pollution. The estimated A$8.2 billion damage bill to the Great Barrier Reef is a reminder that our choices on land have big impacts on land, water and the air downstream.
Lost nitrogen harms farmers too, as it represents reduced potential crop growth or wasted fertiliser. This impact is most acute for smallholder farmers in developing countries, for whom nitrogen fertiliser is often the biggest cost of farming. The reduced production from the lost nitrogen can represent as much as 25% of the household income.
The solution to the nitrogen challenge will need to come from a combination of technological innovation, policy and consumer action.
The essential ingredientNitrogen is an essential building block for amino acids, proteins and DNA. Plant growth depends on it; animals and people get it from eating plants or other animals.
Nitrogen gas (N') makes up 78% of the air, but it cannot be used by plants. Fertilisers are usually made from ammonia, a form of nitrogen that the plants prefer.
A century after the development of the Haber-Bosch process gave us a way to manufacture nitrogen fertiliser, our demand for it has yet to level off.
The use of nitrogen fertiliser has risen from 11 million tonnes in 1961 to 108 million tonnes in 2014. As carbon dioxide levels continue to rise in the atmosphere, some plants such as grains will also likely demand more nitrogen.
Wheat with and without nitrogen fertiliser. Deli Chen/ The University of Melbourne In fact, nitrogen from fertiliser now accounts for more than half the protein in the human diet. Yet some 50% of applied nitrogen is lost to the environment in water run-off from fields, animal waste and gas emissions from soil microbe metabolism.
These losses have been increasing over the decades as nitrogen fertiliser use increases. Reactive nitrogen causes wide-ranging damage, and will cause more damage if nitrogen losses are not reined in.
Faced with a growing population and changing climate, we need more than ever to optimise the use of nitrogen and minimise the losses.
From farm to forkOne way to understand our nitrogen use is to look at our nitrogen footprint '' the amount of nitrogen pollution released to the environment from food, housing, transportation and goods and services.
Research by University of Melbourne PhD candidate Emma Liang shows Australia has a large nitrogen footprint. At 47kg of nitrogen per person each year, Australia is far ahead of the US, which came in with 28kg of nitrogen per person.
A high-animal-protein diet appears to be driving Australia's big nitrogen footprint. The consumption of animal products accounts for 82% of the Australian food nitrogen footprint.
Animal products carry high nitrogen costs compared to vegetable products. Both products start with the same cost in nitrogen as a result of growing a crop, but significant further losses occur as the animal consumes food throughout its life cycle.
The N-Footprint project aims to help individuals and institutions calculate their nitrogen footprints. It shows how we can each have an impact on nitrogen pollution through our everyday choices.
We can choose to eat lower nitrogen footprint protein diets, such as vegetables, chicken and seafood instead of beef and lamb. We can choose to reduce food waste by buying smaller quantities (and more frequently if necessary) and composting food waste. The good news is, if we reduce our nitrogen footprint, we also reduce our carbon footprint.
Back to the farmIn the meantime, efforts to use nitrogen more efficiently on farms must continue. We are getting better at understanding nitrogen losses from soil through micrometerological techniques.
From sitting in the sun with plastic bucket chambers, glass vials and syringes, scientists now use tall towers and lasers to detect small changes in gas concentrations over large areas and send the results directly to our computers.
Eddy covariance tower. Mei Bai/ The University of Melbourne We now know nitrification (when ammonia is converted to nitrate) is an important contributor to nitrogen losses and therefore climate change and damage to ecosystems. It is a process researchers '' and farmers '' are targeting to reduce nitrogen losses.
Nitrification inhibitors are now used commercially to keep nitrogen in the ammonium form, which plants prefer, and to prevent the accumulation of nitrate, which is more easily lost to the environment.
As this technology advances, we are starting to answer the question of how these inhibitors affect the microbial communities that maintain the health of our soil and form the foundation of ecosystems.
For example, our research shows that 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (better known as DMPP) inhibits nitrification without affecting soil microbial community diversity.
There have also been exciting observations that the root systems of some tropical grasses inhibit nitrification. This opens up a management option to slow nitrification rates in the environment using genetic approaches.
Solving the challenge of nitrogen use will require research into more efficient ways for primary producers to use nitrogen, but it will also need government leadership and consumer choices to waste less or eat more plant protein. These tools will make the case for change clearer, and the task of feeding the world greener.
On December 4-8, leading international researchers are meeting in Melbourne for the 7th International Nitrogen Initiative Conference to discuss the best new solutions to problems in nitrogen use. For a more in-depth look at these issues, visit the INI2016 website or join a range of food and production experts at the Good Food for 9 Billion: Community Forum.
Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog: The University of Washington Should Not Censor Faculty Social Media
This blog will describe a series of seriousviolations of freedom of speech and academic freedom atthe University of Washington. It will describe how a highly partisan Deanand her senior staff at UW’s College of the Environment (COENV) have suppresseddiversity of viewpoints and censored the social media of faculty and staff, includingthis blog. I will review apparent violationsboth of the faculty code and constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. WhatI will describe should concern you, no matter where you are on the politicalspectrum. Progressive or Conservative,Democrat, Republican or Independent, you should care deeply about thesuppression of viewpoint diversity and the restriction of freedomof speech in favor of the partisan agenda of a group of universityadministrators.
Theiractions are a direct threat to the very nature of the University of Washingtonand our democracy. And I need your help to rectify the situation.
“Whoeverwould overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness ofspeech.” Benjamin Franklin
_________________________________________________________________________________Initiative 1631 and the Leadership of UW’s College of theEnvironment
A stunning example of inappropriate behavior by COENV leadershipdeals with Washington State Initiative 1631. This initiative, on the Washington State ballot in November 2018, was anattempt to pass a carbon fee, with the proceeds distributed by a boarddominated by politically connected groups. It was highly partisan and lost decisively (by 13%).
Leadership of the College of the Environment was strongly in favorof this measure and expressed their support publicly in many ways:
(1) Dale Durran, the Chair of the AtmosphericSciences Department and a member of the College’s Executive Committee, askedthe faculty to sign a letter supporting 1631, which was later published in the SeattleTimes , signed by 21 faculty members . Is this appropriate for the Department Chair, who has substantial influence over salaries, sabbaticals and advancementin the department?
(2) The CollegeDean, Lisa Graumlich, and several associate Deans publicly supported themeasure, signing widelycirculated public letters citingtheir university affiliation , and tweetingtheir support (such as one by Associate Dean of Research Robert Wood).
(3) The COENV PCC program website featured ChairmanDurran’s letter in support of 1631, which was potentially an illegal use ofuniversity resources to support a measure (see below).
But if you were a faculty member in the College of the Environmentand you had a different viewpoint than College leadership regarding thisinitiative, they were prepared to make your life very difficult. And by doing so, they may have violatedFederal law and university regulations.
Let me tell you a story. Mystory.
Although I am a strong supporter of carbon taxes and was a very publicproponent of I-732, the previous carbon tax initiative, I opposed 1631 for severalreasons. I felt I-1631 was highlyregressive, disproportionately taxing low-income individuals and families. Itlacked specific guidelines on how the money would be spent. A partisan group of organizations washardwired to control and direct the funding, and the public goals of theproposal were highly deceptive (“clean air”). In addition, 1631’s carbon fee started out too low to be effective (halfthat of 732). And the highly partisan nature of 1631 would undermine bipartisanefforts on climate change, which I believe are crucial.
I agreed to be a signatory for the statement against I-1631 in theofficial voter’s pamphlet and did a few blog posts on the subject. These blogs were in social mediacompletely outside of and had no connection to the University of Washington.
My stance was not popular among the college’s activist students,my department chair (Dale Durran) and the COENV Dean’s office. The pro-1631students used social media to call me all kinds of names, as did one vocalpost-doctoral researcher in oceanography. They stated that I was in bed with oil companies, was on the payroll ofthe Koch brothers, was racist, misogynistic, a climate denier, and other namesI would not repeat in a family friendly blog (see picture below for a tameexample). It is all documented on twitter. The Seattle Stranger called meTrump’s Weatherman and repeated the student’s accusations and pictures. Although unpleasant, I tolerated the student name calling and thenonsense in the Stranger in the spirit of freedom of speech, diversity ofideas, and acknowledging the self-righteousness/idealistic nature oftenassociated with youth. Tolerance for differingopinions should be in the DNA of all university faculty.
A few of the activist students went to the department chair(Dale Durran) and the Dean’s office to complain about my blogs on 1631. They particularly didn’t like my blog “ IfYou Worry About Climate Change and Care About the Environment, Vote No onI-1631 “ In that blog, I discussed the issue ofpolitically well-connected groups securing funds at the public trough and usedthe century-old politicalmetaphor of “pigsat a trough”, not in the text, but in asingle picture (see below).
This metaphor is frequently used in the media and books,such as Arianna Huffington’s hard hitting book on political corruption inAmerica, which described the greed of the politically connected (see below).
The activist students claimed that such a metaphor was racist because some members of the 1631consortium were from minority groups. They ignored the fact that the 1631 coalitionwas overwhelmingly white and well-to-do. The fact I was expressing politicalopinions outside the UW did not seem important to them, nor did they care aboutthe concept of freedom of speech. They wanted the department and collegeadministration to do something about me and my blog .
Will the College ofEnvironment Deans Accuse Arianna Huffington of Racism? Or Australian Adam Schwab? Andshamefully and potentially illegally, the Atmospheric Sciences chair and COENVDeans, ignoring First Amendment protections and the essential principles of anacademic institution, did exactly what the students wanted . Between the end of October and early November 2018, DepartmentChairman Dale Durran, COENV Associate Dean of Research Robert Wood, COENVAssociate Dean of Administration Stephanie Harrington, and COENV Assistant Deanof Diversity Terryl Ross wrote a letter attacking my blog that was formallyapproved by Dean Lisa Graumlich. (all of this is documented in their internal emails).
Their letter, “Message on Departmental Civility”, was sent to MYENTIRE DEPARTMENT (including staff, faculty, and students—over 120 people) onNovember 22, stating that my blog “included imagery and text that was raciallyinsensitive and caused offense.” Theletter accused me of racism through the statement “Racism is in direct contradictionto our shared values and has no place in our college” as well as suggesting that I harmed thecommunity through my blog.
This letter was not only inappropriate and arguably unethical but a violation of University of Washington faculty code, including theprotection of academic freedom. UW administratorswere sanctioning and shaming a faculty member inside the university for expressingpolitical free speech outside of the UW: also an apparent violation of constitutionallyprotected freedom of speech at a public university . Importantly, freedom of speech is protectedBOTH inside and outside a public university by the U.S. and WashingtonState constitutions.
The actions of the COENV Deans appeared to be a direct violation ofUW Faculty code 24.33:
Faculty members have the right to academic freedom and theright to examine and communicate ideas by any lawful means even should suchactivities generate hostility or pressure against the faculty member or theUniversity. Their exercise of constitutionally protected freedom ofassociation, assembly, and expression, including participation in politicalactivities, does not constitute a violation of duties to the University, totheir profession, or to students and may not result in disciplinary actionor adverse merit evaluation.
Furthermore, COENV leadership apparently violated several other sections of the faculty code, which required the atmospheric sciences chair to meet with me before making any accusation (Faculty code section 25.71 B), that I be notified of any charges before taking disciplinary steps, and by the Dean’s refusal to meet me in person when I requested it. But the situation was about to get far more serious. After the letter was released, I protestedthat it was both illegal and unfair, which led Atmospheric Sciences Chair (and publiclydeclared 1631 proponent) Dale Durran, with the knowledge of the Dean’s office,to call a DEPARTMENT WIDE meeting on December 5 to discuss my blog. Everyone in the department was invited andrefreshments were offered (including chicken wings). With the promise of both controversy andcatered food, there was a large crowd—including students, staff, and faculty. Department Chair Durran dictated that nooutsiders could come to document the gathering. It was a gathering that ended up morelike a spectacle at the Roman Coliseum than an academic proceeding at a leadingresearch university.
UW 2018?
The University Ombud, Chuck Sloan, was supposedly going to run themeeting. He did not. The meeting beganwith Chuck Sloan saying a few words, but rapidly it was taken over byAtmospheric Sciences Chair Dale Durran. Andthe gathering turned dark quickly. Durran called on the activist students, who made a range of comments criticalof my blog. As I tried to talk about theconcept of freedom of speech, Dale Durran started screaming at me, tellingme to stop. When I protested Iwasn’t finished speaking, he screamed even louder. This went on for a while, with both of ustalking at the same time, before the Ombud Sloan said I should be allowed continue.
But a minute later Dale Durran started screaming at me again to stop,preventing me from finishing. Then hecalled upon several more “offended” students and one staff member, who went onthe attack, accusing me of racism and worst. One of the students stated that I would be “held accountable” formy blog and opposing 1631. It was adirect threat. And no one said aword about it.
Afterward, several faculty who had attended the gathering told me theywere afraid to speak in my defense. One,a full professor and past chair, told me that what had happened was very wrongbut he was scared to talk.
Another faculty member, who was originally from China and lived throughthe Cultural Revolution told me it was exactly like the shaming sessions ofMaoist China, with young Red Guards criticizing and shaming elders they wantedto embarrass and remove.
One of my graduate students was in tears.
UW 2018?
To have such a scene occur at a public university was a violation ofboth faculty code and the basic principles of the university. But Department chair Dale Durran and the COENVDean’s office saw nothing wrong with it.
Some local and national media , and nation-wide blogs , found out about the situation from others and described what happened.
Considering the grievous nature of what occurred, I went to theSecretary of the Faculty for guidance. He acknowledged what had happened was veryserious and arranged for mediation. The faculty secretary also noted that the UW lackeda policy to deal with the issue of social media and faculty freedom of speech.
Over the past 6 months, a number of media outlets have contacted meregarding doing major stories on what occurred. I have put them off, feeling that the situation was so serious for theUW that it would be better to resolve the situation quietly and internally. I expected that UW leadership (President andProvost), once aware of the situation, would quickly take steps to ensure thatsuch serious violations of academic freedom and first amendment protections didnot happen again.
The COENV Dean’s office and Dean Graumlich have refused to acknowledgethe inappropriateness and illegality of the letter and shaming meeting, and sofar neither the UW President nor Provost have acted to address the situation.
The mediation ended a few weeks ago; that is why I am writing this blognow.
Hypocrisy
Stephanie Harrington, the Associate Dean of Administration for theCOENV, told me that is was appropriate for them to send me the racism-accusationletter and hold the shaming meeting. Sheexplained that since my blog (the CLIFF MASS WEATHER AND CLIMATE BLOG) had novisible disclaimer that it was not speaking for the UW, some people mightconfuse my blog for an official UW statement. Furthermore, she noted that my blog had aninvisible metatag in the html code that indicated I was a UW professor. Therefore, the College had the right to sendme a letter calling me a racist. Thismakes no sense.
The claims of Dean Harrington, a staff member of the College, werebaseless and apparent attempts to avoid responsibility for serious violations. Freedom of speech does not require adisclaimer in one’s outside social media. Nor does UW faculty code. Sothere was no legal basis for her claim. And I should note that after writing over a thousand blogs and receivedtens of thousands of comments, NO ONE has ever suggested that I am speaking for theUW. My name is on the blog, not the UW.
But now we get to the hypocrisy part . Members ofthe UW Dean’s office are making partisan and political comments all the time inthe media and social media WITHOUT any disclaimers. So Dean Harrington’s“rules” don’t seem to apply to them.
Take Dean Lisa Graumlich. Sheattended the January 2019 State of the Union speech as a climate scientistprotestor as guest of Congresswoman Jayapal (D. WA). Dean Graumlich was quotedwidely in the media as the UW COENV Dean, with no attempt toclarify that she was not speaking for the UW when she provided politicallyladen comments. And her politicalactivities werespotlighted in the College’s official newsletter .
Associate Dean Rob Wood, one of the main authors of the shaming letter,was busy tweeting his support of 1631—done without a disclaimer (see below).
I could give you more examples, but clearly the actions of Collegeleadership do not suggest concurrence with Stephanie Harrington’s novel theoryon why the Dean’s office can invade academic freedom.
And talking about partisan activities within the College, in theweeks after Trump’s victory, the chair of my department held a departmentalmeeting to discuss student fears of the impacts of the newPresident. This was totallyinappropriate in a public university. Can you imagine an official universitygathering on campus to talk about the negative implications of BarackObama’s election? It would have beencorrectly deemed racist, inappropriate, and offensive. But apparently such activities areperfectly fine when a Republican wins. This meeting sent a clear messageregarding the “approved” politics in my department. Some moderate andconservative students told me how uncomfortable they were. They felt excluded and minimized, and afraid to discuss their different viewpoints.
The bottom line is that a highly partisan group leading the College ofthe Environment are willing to dispense with basic academic freedom and constitutionallyguaranteed rights to suppress views they don’t like.
Although the 1631 example above shows an apparent breach of valuesand faculty code in the UW College of the Environment, perhaps even worse hasbeen the suppression of science that does not support the partisanagenda of COENV and departmental leadership. Let me provide two examples.
Oysterdeaths and ocean acidification
In September 2013, the Seattle Times ran a glossy series called“Sea Change”, which claimed that ocean acidification caused the deaths ofuntold numbers of local oysters in factory nurseries. There were serious technical problems withthe article, including the fact that the oyster deaths were of a non-nativespecies in industrial nurseries and that the problem was not really the smallamount of acidification by increasing CO2, but rather the mistaken ingestion ofless basic upwelled water (as noted by many sources, including leading NOAAscientists). Furthermore, several of theoyster farms were spraying herbicides and pesticides over state waters andgreatly disturbing fragile coastal areas (issues that came out in 2015 in storyby the Seattle Times Danny Westneat).
Anyway, I did severalblogs about the subject because I felt that the public should know thatthere were important errors in the Seattle Times article. A week or two after my second blog on thetopic I got a call from my chair. DeanLisa Graumlich was “concerned” about my blog and wanted the department chair to talk to me about it. It was also pointed out that the College wasreceiving a large amount of State funds for a UW acidification center and thatthe Governor had been hailing the dying oysters as evidence of the grave impactof increasing CO2. In short, a falsenarrative was supporting the Governor’s claims and providing millions ofdollars to the college. The clearmessage: I should lay off.
So I was being called on to the carpet by the UW Dean for materialin my non-UW blog.
Northwest Snowpack
The history of politicized suppression of science goes back to theroots of my college. Back in 2005-2006, a few local politicians (such as thenMayor Greg Nickels) and some UW climate impacts folks were claiming that theCascade snowpack was rapidly disappearing (50% loss!) and the anthropogenicglobal warming was the cause. A UWresearcher and previous Washington State Climatologist Mark Albright analyzedthe snowpack information and found little decline, and he mentioned this facton a few local electronic mailing lists.
The State Climatologist at that time (Phil Mote) and member of theClimate Impacts Group (now a part of the College) was an author of a paperclaiming draconian snowpack loss and warned Mark Albright to refrain fromcommunicating his analysis to others. When Mark rightfully refused, Mote fired Mark Albright as AssociateClimatologist. This action hit themedia, went viral, reachinglocal newspapers and even got covered by CNN. A very serious breach of the academicfreedom.
When I objected to Mr. Albright’s firing and the exaggeration ofthe snowpack loss, I was told that although I might be scientifically correct,I would be helping “climate deniers” if I gave the correct information. I needed to stand with those pushingexcessive numbers, to get people to do the “right thing.” Even for the wrong reason. According to some of my colleagues, the endsjustify unethical and untruthful means. I just couldn’t go there.
During the past ten years, there has been calls by some facultyand even a COENV administrator to have Mr. Albright “retired” or to have hisability to communicate on electronic email lists restrained. Some called him all kinds ofunfortunate names ("denier", skeptic, etc.). I should note thathe, I and Dr. Mark Stoelinga wrote a paper describing only modest loss inNorthwest snowpack, a paper that was accepted in a leading peer-reviewedjournal. The snowpack loss today? Check the figure showing the Northwestsnowpack since the early 1980s; nearly unchanged. Mark Albright was right.
The COENV Dean’s Office Returns to Restraining Free Speech
Recently, UW Research Scientist Mark Albright has been actively contributing to a department email listservon climate (this is an email distribution list for those interested in thetopic). One student recipient was sounhappy about his comments she threatened to quit the list (she was one theprime complainers about my 1631 blog).
A few days later, the Dean’s office contacted my department chairwith “concerns” about department's climate listserv, saying that Mr. Albright’s commentswere an inappropriate use of state resources. With pressure from the Dean’s office, the chair suspended the climatelistserv. Just chilling.
This week, I got an email from COENV Associate Dean Harrington,telling me that Mark Albright’s contribution to the email listserv was aviolation of state ethics laws, and that I should deal with it as hissupervisor. Why a violation? Because he criticized the climateviewpoint of a candidate for the Democratic nomination. I pointed out that Dean Harrington wasmisinterpreting the relevant state law, that Mark’s comments were perfectlylegal, and what she was doing was a potential violation of freedom ofspeech. Dean Harrington has yet torespond to me.
The Return of the McCarthy Era at the University of Washington?
One of the most shameful incidents in the distinguished history ofthe UW was the red scare of the 1950s, when several UW faculty were fired orshamed because they were accused of having communist sympathies. Some saved themselves by signing a loyaltyoath. Today, UW College of theEnvironment leadership appears to be following the 1950s playbook, attempting to shame andsanction folks with different viewpoints, particularly on highly politicalissues. Instead of a loyalty oath, thereis my department chair’s letter in support of 1631. Many folks are terribly disturbed by President’sTrump’s plans to “build a wall” but they are happy to build intellectual or procedural walls to keep out viewpoints they disagree with. Tyranny can come from either the right or left. Both are bad. How you can help Academic freedom and freedom of speech are acutelythreatened at the University of Washington’s College of the Environment by theactions of the Dean and other college leadership.
As only one faculty member, I simply don’t have the clout tofix this alone. Furthermore, my abilityto tell you honestly about what I believe regarding climate and other topics in myblog is threatened.
Now I need your help. The only individuals with thereal power to fix this situation are the UW President, Provost, and members ofthe Board of Regents. Let them know thatyou value academic freedom and constitutionally protected freedom of speech(contact information at the end of this blog). Tell the UW administration you expect the COENV leadership to follow universityrules and to protect diversity of viewpoints. If you use social media, let youfriends know about the problem and ask them to assist.
UW President Ana Mari Cauce and Provost Mark Richards areresponsible for what happens now. Arethey going to deal with serious violations by the leadership of the COENV? Will they protect a diversity of viewpointsat the UW? Or will a highly partisan collegeleadership group be allowed to continue on their current path?
At the very least, Dean Graumlich should apologize forauthorizing the inappropriate letter, acknowledge that it was done in violation of facultycode and constitutional protections, and affirm that such a situation willnever happen again. Similarly withex-chair Dale Durran, Associate Deans Wood and Harrington, and Assistant DeanRoss. President Cauce and ProvostRichard must establish a policy that robustly defends faculty and staff freedomof speech.
I do find reason for optimism in the words of UW PresidentAna Mari Cauce, givenin her message of October 17, 2017:
“ Speech by people we strenuously disagree with…. is the price we pay for democracy and to ensure our own freedom of speech. …If a self-appointed group is able to use intimidation or violence to decidewhat speech is acceptable — no matter if they are well-intentioned or even ifwe share their opinions — then we’ve taken a step toward a society where “mightmakes right.”
There is great wisdom in President Cauce's words. Will she take the steps needed to support them? I truly hope so.
I am a fullprofessor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington. I specialize in weather systems, weatherprediction, and regional climate research and have published over 100 papers inthe peer-reviewed literature. During thepast year I have been chair of the College of the Environment College Council,the only democratically elected representative body of the College. I am the author of the book, the Weather ofthe Pacific Northwest, and was a student of climatologist Stephen Schneider andAstronomer Carl Sagan. I have a B.S. inphysics from Cornell University and a Ph.D. from the University of Washington.
OTG
Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians? | Technology | The Guardian
I n 2010, the small community of specialists who pay attention to US road safety statistics picked up the first signs of a troubling trend: more and more pedestrians were being killed on American roads. That year, 4,302 American pedestrians died, an increase of almost 5% from 2009. The tally has increased almost every year since, with particularly sharp spikes in 2015 and 2016. Last year, 41% more US pedestrians were killed than in 2008. During this same period, overall non-pedestrian road fatalities moved in the opposite direction, decreasing by more than 7%. For drivers, roads are as safe as they have ever been; for people on foot, roads keep getting deadlier.
Through the 90s and 00s, the pedestrian death count had declined almost every year. No one would have confused the US for a walkers' paradise '' at least part of the reason fewer pedestrians died in this period was that people were driving more and walking less, which meant that there were fewer opportunities to be struck. But at least the death toll was shrinking. The fact that, globally, pedestrian fatalities were much more common in poorer countries made it possible to view pedestrian death as part of an unfortunate, but temporary, stage of development: growing pains on the road to modernity, destined to decrease eventually as a matter of course. The US road death statistics of the last decade have blasted a hole in that theory. (A similar trend has been observed with regards to the country's cyclists: a recent analysis found that cyclist fatalities decreased through the 80s, 90s and 00s, but since 2010 have increased 25%, with 777 cyclists killed in 2017.)
Trouble, albeit of a less dramatic sort, has also been brewing in the UK and western European countries, long seen as bastions of pedestrian-friendly (and cyclist-friendly) conditions. Through the 70s and 80s, these countries' fatality rates were just as bad as America's, or worse. But, since then, their progress has been more substantial and more enduring. The problem is that, since 2010, that progress has mostly sputtered to a halt. In general, the fatality numbers are not going down. ''There's immense frustration,'' says Philip Gomm, of the RAC Foundation, a UK organisation that studies road safety issues. ''Things were getting better, and now they're not.''
In almost every country in the world, regardless of national prosperity, it remains on average more dangerous, per mile of travel, to be a pedestrian than to be a car driver or passenger. Worldwide, more than 700 pedestrians die every day, disproportionately in poorer countries. At least four times that number are seriously injured. We talk a great deal about how cars congest our cities and pollute the atmosphere. We talk less about how they keep killing and maiming people simply trying to get from A to B on two feet.
Lately, our cultural conversation about road safety has been dominated by visions, sold by Silicon Valley, of vehicles that minimise or even eliminate the need for input from a fallible human driver. Every year, more cars come armed with ''pedestrian detection and avoidance'' systems; soon, these systems will likely be standard issue. And not long after that, we are promised, sensors and self-improving algorithms will take over the driving process altogether, eliminating human error from roads and ushering in a new golden age of safety for all their users, whether or not they're cocooned by a car's steel frame. Since 2017, General Motors, the US's largest car manufacturer, has claimed that it is developing self-driving vehicles in the service of a ''triple-zero'' world: zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion.
The possibility of making pedestrians safer is a welcome one, not least because walking is so undeniably good. Walking boosts physical and mental health, draws communities together and produces no carbon emissions. But there are good reasons to be sceptical about the promises made by the proselytisers of the high-tech car future. Car companies swear they are here to help '' by selling us products that hardly ever hit anyone or anything. But the truth is that this promise is, at best, a distraction. In fact, much of our discourse around cars, self-driving or otherwise, is less about transforming the status quo than maintaining it, obscuring paths to progress exactly when we need them most, and leaving pedestrians right in the line of fire.
A sk a room full of road safety experts what is causing pedestrian fatalities to increase and most will admit that, well, they are not exactly sure. Every time a car hits a pedestrian, it represents the intersection of a vast number of variables. At the level of those involved, there is the question of who is distracted, reckless, drunk. Zooming out, there are factors such as the design and condition of the road, the quality (or absence) of a marked pedestrian crossing, the speed limit, the local lighting, the weight and height of the car involved. In a crash, all these variables and more converge at high speed in real-world, non-laboratory conditions that make it hard to isolate the influence of each variable.
Attempting to explain a trend '' to correctly apportion blame not for one but thousands of pedestrian deaths '' adds yet more layers of complexity. Economic and employment trends, the availability and quality of public transport, shifts in the age of walkers and drivers: it all matters. Disentangling the threads in a scientifically rigorous way is fiendishly difficult. ''There are multiple theories about how to account for what is happening,'' says Norman Garrick, a University of Connecticut professor who studies road safety. ''We know something radically new is going on. But I don't think we have an exact answer yet.''
Ask that same room of road safety experts a slightly different question '' not exactly why US pedestrians fatalities have risen lately, but instead why the US has more of them than any other wealthy country '' and the answers will come flooding out. In recent months, after conversations with more than a dozen such experts, I became familiar with a particular tone of voice: deep frustration at how obvious it all is, but wrapped in a package of professional cheeriness. ''Well, where to start?'' says Eric Dumbaugh of Florida Atlantic University. ''So much of it is relatively simple, which makes the lack of progress that much more aggravating.''
Here is what the frustrated safety experts will tell you: Americans are driving more than ever, more than residents of any other country. More of them than ever are living in cities and out in urban sprawl; a growing number of pedestrian fatalities occur on the fringes of cities, where high-volume, high-speed roads exist in close proximity to the places where people live, work, and shop. Speed limits have increased across the country over the past 20 years, despite robust evidence that even slight increases in speed dramatically increase the likelihood of killing pedestrians (car passengers, too '' but the increase is not as steep, thanks to improvements in the design of car frames, airbags and seatbelts). American road engineers tend to assume people will speed, and so design roads to accommodate speeding; this, in turn, facilitates more speeding, which soon enough makes higher speed limits feel reasonable. And more Americans than ever are zipping around in SUVs and pickup trucks, which, thanks to their height, weight and shape are between two and three times more likely to kill people they hit. SUVs are also the most profitable cars on the market, for the simple reason buyers are willing to pay more for them. As with speeding, there appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle at work: the increased presence of large cars on the road makes them feel more dangerous, which makes owning a large car yourself feel more comforting.
More fundamentally, the US is the country in the world most shaped, physically and culturally, by the presumption that the uninterrupted flow of car traffic is an obvious public good, one that deserves to trump all others in the road planning process. Many of its younger cities are designed almost entirely around planning paradigms in which pedestrians were either ignored or factored only as nuisances. Cars move fast and are heavy and hard; humans on foot move slower and are made of flesh and bone. ''The layperson can realise, if they think about it for a minute, that if you want to keep people safe, you have to design streets differently,'' says Dumbaugh. ''You have to slow the cars down. You have to recognise the reality of road users who aren't in cars. You have to design roads so people in cars take notice of their fellow road users. But these basic realisations aren't things the US transportation system knows or integrates into practice. And so people keep getting killed.''
While safety experts tend to focus on broad factors '' the road environment and what types of behaviour it encourages '' America's cultural discourse on road safety tends to go in the opposite direction, zooming in on that most American of variables: the individual. It is not cars, car culture or bad, car-centric planning that kill pedestrians. Instead, it is individuals making bad choices about how to use the roads.
There is no greater symptom of this worldview than the recurring focus on mobile phones, especially smartphones and their tendency to monopolise our limited attention. Road signs warning against phone use while driving are so commonplace that they almost blend into the landscape. Parents make their kids promise they won't use their phones while driving. Kids nod and promise they won't. Phone-tracking studies indicate that most of them do it anyway and that their parents do, too.
In recent years, America's fear of the distracted driver expanded to include the distracted walker. This is a replay of an old phenomenon: it was the US that invented the concept of the ''jaywalker'', a ''jay'' being an unsophisticated person from the country who did not even know how to walk correctly. In the US, much like anywhere that cars have taken hold, drivers screaming at pedestrians (and cyclists) that they are doing it wrong is a fixture of national life. More recently, numerous states and cities, including San Francisco and New York, have launched public campaigns against inattentive walking, as has the US National Safety Council. Some jurisdictions have passed, or sought to pass, bills that would make using a smartphone while crossing the road an offence punishable by fine. On Twitter, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has weighed in on the pedestrian safety crisis primarily by coaching pedestrians on how to protect themselves. ''When you are walking, be predictable'', advises @NHTSAgov.
Ask a room full of safety experts about smartphones and you will get a mix of resignation, bemusement and contempt. ''I tend not to buy the smartphone distraction stuff,'' says Garrick, echoing nearly identical comments from just about everyone I talked to. ''To me, it reads as shoving aside actually dealing with the relevant issues.'' What particularly bothers him, he says, is how poorly thought out the distraction discourse tends to be. In the UK, Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Austria and Iceland, for example, pedestrian deaths occur at a per capita rate roughly half of America's, or lower. Are we really to believe that the citizens of these countries are 50% less susceptible than Americans to distraction, by their phones or anything else? Plus, within the US, pedestrian death occurs disproportionately in neighbourhoods populated by people with low-incomes and people of colour. Is distraction really more endemic in those neighbourhoods, or among people driving through them, than it is in wealthier, whiter areas? Or is it more likely that these neighbourhoods are more likely to be criss-crossed by high-speed roads, and less likely to receive investment in transit interventions that protect pedestrians?
''All this talk about pedestrian distraction, driver distraction? It's such a distraction,'' says Ben Welle of the World Resource Institute for Sustainable Cities. ''It puts all the responsibility on individuals, and none on the environment they operate in.''
O ver the past decade, as the American pedestrian's plight has worsened, global car manufacturers have stepped forward with news of a supposedly game-changing innovation, one that might at last improve the fate of those who want to travel on foot. This innovation has nothing to do with re-engineering roads, regulating SUV design, investing in public transit or any other intervention that would require using the creaky levers of democratic politics. Instead, people just have to buy new cars.
In spring 2010, Volvo announced what sounded like the inauguration of a new era, one in which cars at last acknowledged pedestrians. Starting that autumn, anyone who bought a Volvo S60 saloon could, for an extra $2,100 (£1,700), have it equipped with Pedestrian Detection, a radar-and-camera-based system designed to sense the presence of pedestrians in the car's path '' and, if needed, automatically brake to avoid hitting them. An older variety of sensor, made available in 2005, had equipped some cars to sense pedestrian collisions while they were in progress and, in response, pop up their hoods a few inches, creating a ''crumple zone'' between the bonnet and the hard machinery inside, making for a softer landing. But these systems had been sold only in Europe, and they did nothing to stop cars from hitting pedestrians in the first place, or slow them down in advance of the collision.
Every year since Volvo Pedestrian Detection arrived on the market, systems like it '' like all ''assistive driving'' features '' have become more sophisticated and more common. As of last year, pedestrian-sensing technology is now standard on close to a third of new vehicles sold in the US, and available as an add-on for another third. In the EU, regulations passed earlier this year will make such systems mandatory on new cars starting in 2022. Their growing popularity is largely attributable to the relevant tech getting cheaper, but endorsements from trusted institutions have also played an important role. Since 2016, Europe's New Car Assessment Program, which issues influential annual rankings of vehicle safety, has awarded extra points to cars with pedestrian detection and avoidance systems. In the US, the well-respected Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has advocated the widespread adoption of pedestrian avoidance tools. Just this year, the nationally venerated American buyer's guide Consumer Reports announced that, for the first time, it would factor pedestrian avoidance into its ratings, in hopes of incentivising carmakers to help address rising pedestrian fatalities.
At first glance, this all sounds like a long-overdue corrective to the car-first chauvinism that has made American roads so deadly. But none of the safety experts I spoke to were terribly excited about pedestrian avoidance technology. It wasn't that they doubted it might save some pedestrian lives. Instead, their recurring concern was that it reflects an ongoing focus on individual shortcomings '' on flawed drivers and walkers '' and a neglect of flaws built in to the roads they are forced to use.
''Pedestrian detection will probably help a bit,'' says Dan Albert, author of Are We There Yet?, a history of American car culture. ''But at the same time, it's pretty clear that these problems can be addressed without hi-tech solutions. And so what are the car companies up to? It's not just about some altruistic desire for safety, or they would be including these systems on all of their cars, which very few companies are doing. It's more about creating a range of products that allows them to maximise profit.''
Recent studies have found that high percentages of drivers do not understand exactly what these new systems do. I recently rented a car armed with sensors to help you stay in your lane, sensors to detect other cars and sensors to detect pedestrians; for four days I drove around not knowing to what extent each of these systems was switched on or what they did, exactly. Studies of car dealerships have found that many people selling these systems are not much better informed than I was; in 2015, a video that went viral in the online car world showed a salesperson behind the wheel of a Volvo X60 driving into a crowd of customers; he was demonstrating the car's City Safety system, but he had failed to understand that, unlike other Volvo safety systems, the one he was showing off did not include pedestrian detection. (None of the people hit were seriously injured.)
Get the Guardian's award-winning long reads sent direct to you every Saturday morningOf course, people can learn to understand new tools. More troubling is the fact that very little robust evidence has been available as to pedestrian avoidance systems' real-world benefits. The organisations rating these systems do so based on tests conducted in laboratories and on test tracks, but it has not yet been reliably established how well these tests predict performance on actual roads, with real live pedestrians instead of crash test dummies (not to mention variable light and rain conditions).
''These technologies are still very much in their infancy,'' says Laura Sandt, a pedestrian safety expert at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. In the US, pedestrian avoidance systems are rated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The organisation, Sandt explains ''is only able to test effectiveness in very specific conditions. One big example is that, in their tests, the vehicles are always going straight. But we know that a huge number of pedestrians are hit by vehicles that are turning. We have no way of knowing how well the tests line up with real-world conditions.''
In the US, almost every article about pedestrian avoidance systems cites a single real-world impact study, holding it up as evidence that such systems could decrease pedestrian collisions by 35%. This study is the best one available, for the simple reason that it is the only one available. This makes its weaknesses all the more glaring: it considers only one system, the Subaru EyeSight, and uses a severely limited methodology that '' as the study's authors acknowledge but press coverage never does '' meant the authors could not know for sure that they were accurately counting the total number of times Subarus hit pedestrians. No one can honestly claim to know how well these systems do what they claim. A 2018 study concluded that, when it came to simply detecting pedestrians (let alone avoiding them), these systems would have to improve their performance tenfold just to match that of humans.
Plus, as several of the experts I spoke to reminded me: every year since 2010, cars with pedestrian avoidance systems have represented a higher proportion than ever of cars moving around on American roads. And almost every year since 2010, the pedestrian death count has gone up.
T he origin story of pedestrian avoidance systems has almost nothing to do with a desire to protect pedestrians. Instead, they grew out of a desire to make war more bloodless '' or more bloodless for the US side, anyway. In 2004, the US Department of Defense announced a race, open to all comers. Entrants were asked to build a vehicle that could undertake a journey without immediate human input: no driver in the car, no remote control. Whoever's vehicle made it through a 150-mile course in the Mojave desert first would win $1m.
For years before the race, the military had been trying and failing to create unmanned vehicles to minimise the loss of life along battlefield supply routes. The widespread use of improvised landmines in post-9/11 warzones had only increased the urgency. The DoD races (there was a desert sequel in 2005 and a San Francisco-based contest in 2007) attracted teams of the world's brightest and most ambitious engineers and programmers, focusing their energy on a new goal to which very few people had given much thought before.
It was all this excitement among techies that put the idea of driverless vehicles on Silicon Valley's radar. In 2009, when Google launched its self-driving car lab, it was staffed almost entirely by participants in the military contests. Like the US military, tech conglomerates had a specific motive for developing these cars. Again, the central concern was not road safety, let alone pedestrian safety. In several industries, from taxis to long-haul transport, one of the major costs is the need to pay human drivers, plus to reckon with those drivers' human limits, such as the need for sleep and bathroom breaks. By removing the need for humans, and providing the replacement at a lower cost, tech firms stood to reap big profits '' especially if the new vehicles relied on wireless internet connections, served as streaming entertainment stations for their passengers, and generated gigabytes of harvestable data per journey. For some transport companies, such as Uber, self-driving vehicles are a cornerstone of their long-term plans. One reason that Uber has never turned a profit is because of the cost of paying human drivers. The company believes that if it can win the race for self-driving technology, it will finally be in the black. Since 2016, it has invested more than $1bn towards achieving this goal; this April, its self-driving team secured another $1bn in investments from Toyota, SoftBank and the Japanese carmaker Denso.
Of course, in time-honoured Silicon Valley tradition, this simple profit motive was quickly swaddled in all manner of high-flying rhetoric about saving lives (of car users and pedestrians alike), saving cities and transforming transportation as we know it. ''Every year that we delay this, more people die,'' Anthony Levandowski, then of Google, told the New Yorker in 2013. At a 2016 press event, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, warned journalists who expressed doubts about self-driving cars '' like the type that Tesla plans to sell '' that they had blood on their hands. ''If, in writing something that's negative, you effectively dissuade people from using an autonomous vehicle, you're killing people.''
''There is simply a very good business reason for car companies to sell people a future where everything is better, especially when the way to get there is by purchasing a lot of cars,'' says Peter Norton, perhaps the most prominent historian of how Americans think about traffic safety. As Norton pointed out, car manufacturers have long made a practice of stoking consumer dissatisfaction, and yoking it to utopian visions of the future in which cars of the future solve problems created by cars of the present. ''I don't think there's any chance that autonomous vehicles will deliver us a safe future, and I don't necessarily think the companies think so either. I think they think we'll buy a lot of stuff. The safe future will recede before our eyes like a desert mirage.''
The self-driving car ''space'' is flooded in loose cash. This is why pedestrian avoidance systems are becoming ubiquitous. Investment dollars have both improved the required parts and programmes and pushed down their cost. Otherwise, they would not be affordable enough to sell to any but the richest car-buyers. Meanwhile, the race continues. The tech companies keep saying they are almost there (they know they said they were almost there before, but this time is different, they promise). Almost every major car company has partnered with a lab developing self-driving car technology, either because they think it might become a requirement to stay in business, or because enough of their shareholders think so that they need to make a show of playing along.
All this activity '' and the rollout of shiny pedestrian avoidance systems '' feeds more credulous media coverage, stoking our cultural sense, unsupported by any evidence, that of course our hardworking nerds are on the brink of unveiling safe self-driving cars. Why not? A car that is basically a smartphone will, of course, have no temptation to look at its smartphone.
One night in March 2018, a 49-year-old woman named Elaine Herzberg was pushing a bicycle laden with grocery bags across a four-lane road in Tempe, Arizona when she was struck and killed by a Volvo X90 operating under the control of Uber's self-driving software. As is standard practice, a backup safety driver, employed by Uber, was sitting in the car, the idea being that she would take over in the case of error. 1.3 seconds before impact, Uber's software calculated that emergency braking was called for. According to Uber, self-braking had been turned off to reduce jerky and unpredictable behaviour. With less than a second to go, the safety driver tried''''and failed''''to swerve away. (The post-crash investigation indicated that she had probably been watching the singing contest The Voice on her phone.) News outlets around the world covered Herzberg's death in obsessive detail, asking whether it indicated that autonomous vehicles were less ''ready'' than we had been led to believe.
But, just as the original quest for autonomous vehicles had nothing to do with pedestrian safety, concern over Herzberg's death often felt curiously divorced from concern for pedestrians in general. Herzberg was killed in March 2018. Between January and June of that year, 124 pedestrians were killed in Arizona, more than all but four other states in absolute terms, and more than all but one on a per capita basis. It goes without saying that none of these pedestrians' names are known around the world, or that any of them generated a slurry of commentary about whether the American transportation environment is ''safe enough'' or ''as safe as it should be''.
T he sight, to our contemporary eyes, of a car navigating without a human behind the steering wheel, is so viscerally strange '' so sci-fi '' that it can obscure the extent to which a self-driving car remains '... a car. Engine, seats, wheels. Similarly, our contemporary sense that hi-tech disruption comes for all things can obscure the extent to which the world promised by autonomous cars is still a world full of cars. To the extent that the world's roads and cities remain shaped around the worship of smooth car traffic flow, the laws of physics will continue to make them dangerous places for everyone, especially those not protected by a steel frame and airbags.
The problems of car culture and car-centric planning '' with its hostility to an activity as beneficial and simple as walking around '' are an American gift to the world, but unfortunately they are not exclusively American problems. Worldwide, urbanisation and car ownership are on track to increase massively in coming years. One in three new cars sold globally are SUVs or ''crossovers'': smaller SUVs that get better fuel economy but replicate many of the hazards to pedestrians. To the extent that poorer countries building new roads follow traditionally American models of street planning, pedestrians will continue to be the most vulnerable road users in the world. And to the extent that self-driving car hype influences thinking on the future of road safety, the debate will remain muddled.
''Let's say these cars are going to be the miracle solution,'' says Etienne Krug, a Belgian epidemiologist who works on road safety for the World Health Organization. ''I think it's very naive to think so '' but maybe. Even if they were ready tomorrow: it takes a long time for the fleet of vehicles on the road to get totally replaced. Let's say it takes 10 years. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Let millions of people die on the road? And then what if the miracle solution never comes? We need to assume it won't.''
''People in the international road safety community aren't running around incredibly excited about autonomous vehicles,'' says Ben Welle. ''We don't know if they're going to work, or when they're going to work. And meanwhile we know what we can do: we can get over this idea that we must engineer unending car flow. And we can do that now. And we need to do it no matter what happens with autonomy. An unending flow of autonomous cars is just as bad. And that could happen if we're not careful.''
In the UK and western Europe, the question of whether pedestrian fatality numbers can once again decline may depend on political will, which varies from country to country. In Sweden, for example, stagnating pedestrian death numbers have been a cause for immense concern from the country's safety officials, who have committed to doing whatever it takes, including developing new street surfaces that are softer for pedestrians to fall on, and even banning cars from the core of major cities.
In the UK, by contrast, the coalition government formed in 2010 opted to no longer set goals for road casualty reductions of any kind, because setting goals meant the possibility of admitting failure; no new national targets have been set since, which safety advocates point to as part of the reason for the lack of progress. ''We picked off a lot of the low-hanging fruit,'' says Joshua Harris of Brake, a UK road safety charity. ''And now it's the difficult decisions that need to be made, decisions about whether we're going to fundamentally reshape the landscape to be a place where everyone can travel in a safe and healthy way.''
In the US, meanwhile, it remains the case that pedestrian advocates have failed to engineer the cultural process that transforms a scattered mass of dead and injured bodies into a widely recognised problem. They have not come close. When two Boeing 737s went down, killing 346 people, it triggered multiple government investigations. Crash reconstruction and analysis experts showed up. Corporate spokespeople apologised, began handing out cheques to victims' families and swore to do better. Journalists searched for explanations. But cars kill a 737's worth of American pedestrians every couple of weeks. Internationally, it is more than three 737s per day. And the news cycle barely stutters.
In 2017, for the first time, each US state was required to submit road fatality reduction targets to the federal government. Most states set extremely limited goals: Wisconsin, for example, aimed to have 342 pedestrian fatalities, instead of 361. Several set a rather fatalistic goal of no reduction at all. Eighteen states went a step further, setting as their target an increase in their pedestrian death count. It is not that they want more pedestrians to die. But they know that people are likely to be driving more, they know what their roads are like and they know the laws of physics. Unlike the unending stream of hype coming from the autonomous car sector, these dour projections received no coverage outside of traffic reform circles. Unfortunately, they are more likely to contain the truth.
' This article was amended on 3 October 2019 to clarify the sequence of events before the fatality in Tempe, Arizona.
' Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, and sign up to the long read weekly email here.
Police battle distracted drivers; bill held up on Beacon Hill '' Boston Herald
Chelsea Police Officer Bryan Hernandez, behind the wheel of his cruiser, pointed to someone pulling up to a stop sign, finishing a text message and slowly heading into a busy intersection in Chelsea on Tuesday afternoon.
''You see that? There's one now,'' Hernandez said, motioning toward a car. ''You see it a lot more now, people on their phones while driving. We're responding to a lot of motor vehicle accidents with serious injuries. Just looking down at your phone is enough to cause a serious accident.''
With the Herald along for the ride, Hernandez flipped on his blue lights, sounded his siren and sped after another car after it blew through a stop sign. It's not uncommon to spot people texting behind the wheel Hernandez said '-- he sees drivers on their phones ''all the time'' '-- and when he pulls them over, he talks to them about the dangers of it.
''We notice things like that. That's the nature of our job,'' Hernandez told the Herald. ''We have to educate them that something like that can cause serious harm.''
Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 3,450 people died across the country in 2016 in distraction-related crashes, 45 of whom were killed in Massachusetts, according to AAA Northeast.
Despite nearly universal agreement to ban hand-held cellphone use while driving, a bill to do just that is hung up in a behind-the-scenes battle on Beacon Hill over how to collect ethnicity data and whether or not to share it with the public.
The ''sticking point'' is a part of the bill that requires police to report people's race, rather than having drivers self-identify, which is ''inefficient,'' and could have ''dangerous'' implications, according to Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes, who is president of the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Association.
''We are in complete agreement that the hands-free provision is necessary to enhance safety,'' Kyes told the Herald. ''But in our opinion, the data collection piece has not been well thought out. The existing provisions for collecting race data currently do not allow for accuracy and reliability. Officers are currently and will be forced to guess the race of a person.''
He and the president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Hamilton Police Chief Russell Steven, wrote a seven-page memo to legislators, Gov. Charlie Baker, Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and other officials a few weeks ago, suggesting the issues be separated. Transportation Committee Chairman William Straus confirmed Tuesday that the possibility has since been ''discussed.''
A Conference Committee report on the bill has been sitting on a counter in the House clerk's office since July 31, awaiting signatures from at least two of the three senators on the committee, Joseph Boncore, William Brownsberger and Dean Tran. Reps. William Straus, Joseph Wagner and Timothy Whelan have signed off.
The ACLU of Massachusetts raised concerns about language in the bill that would keep the race data hidden from the public.
''Personal privacy and government transparency are critical to our democracy, and the issue of racial profiling is too pressing to do nothing,'' ACLU Racial Justice Director Rahsaan Hall said. ''That is why 16 civil rights organizations are urging the House to embrace robust data collection, full transparency, and online publication '-- and get this bill done.''
RING - Police apprehend Florida man for cutting electric scooter brakes | Autoblog
The debate about whether free-standing electric scooters are the key to sustainable mobility or an overhyped fad might never get a real answer, but there's one thing that's sure: The people who are strongly against them are strongly against them, to the point of illegal action. Some opposers have taken to throwing the scooters into bodies of water, and at least one rogue individual took it upon himself to cut brake lines on the scooters. Caught on camera, a vandal has been linked to at least 20 instances of the dangerous act, according to The New York Times.
In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a 59-year-old man was arrested and charged with a third-degree felony for "criminal mischief." Police say at least 140 scooters have been vandalized in the Fort Lauderdale area since April, and they say the suspect was directly linked to at least 20 of those. The scooters had severed brake lines and a sticker over the barcode that allows users to activate the electric-powered two-wheelers.
Police reportedly pegged the man as a suspect back in July, but they did not have the proper evidence to take action. That changed when an act of sabotage was captured by a home-mounted Ring camera. In the video, above, a man is seen poking around the scooters at about 4 a.m.
Even when he was approached by police, the suspect reportedly didn't go down easy. After balling his fists and refusing to work with the cops, ''the defendant then began to brace, tense, and pull away from officers and refused to let go of the objects in his hands," according to a report of the incident. The objects he possessed were wire cutters and pliers.
According to police estimates, scooters have incurred at least $1,400 in damages. Read more about the case at The New York Times.
Popular Now
2020 Ford Mustang EcoBoost High Performance Package First Drive | Get hep to the HPPRivian has billions of dollars, a factory and a huge order '-- it's time to make some trucks2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid introduced for the United States2020 Ford Escape Hybrid First Drive | More frugal, but still funMazda bringing electric car to the Tokyo Motor Show2019 Goodwood Revival photo galleries | The races and faces of Goodwood
Autoblog Daily Roundup
News, Reviews, Photos, Videos
delivered straight to your in-box.
Thank You
Thanks for subscribing.
Check your in-box to get started.
More Info
Hi! We notice you're using an ad blocker. Please consider whitelisting Autoblog.
We get it. Ads can be annoying. But ads are also how we keep the garage doors open and the lights on here at Autoblog - and keep our stories free for you and for everyone. And free is good, right? If you'd be so kind as to whitelist our site, we promise to keep bringing you great content. Thanks for that. And thanks for reading Autoblog.
Here's how to disable adblocking on our site.
Click on the icon for your Adblocker in your browser. A drop down menu will appear.
Select the option to run ads for autoblog.com, by clicking either "turn off for this site", "don't run on pages on this domain", "whitelist this site" or similar. The exact text will differ depending on the actual application you have running.
Refresh the Autoblog page you were viewing. Done!
Hey again!
You still haven't turned off your adblocker or whitelisted our site. It only takes a few seconds.
You must be logged in to perform that action.
Login
Fox7 ring doorbell native ad
Joker Social Media Posts Are Being Monitored by the FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into any potential threats concerning the release of Todd Phillips' Joker this weekend. The movie has been at the center of debate for months over violence concerns. There are many who believe that the movie could go on to inspire people, who might be in the same mind frame as the fictional Arthur Fleck played by Joaquin Phoenix, to go out and carry out acts of violence. The FBI is also looking into potential acts of violence. They had this to say in a statement.
"While our standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products, the FBI is in touch with our law enforcement and private sector partners about the online posts. As always, we encourage the public to remain vigilant and to promptly report suspicious activity to law enforcement."The FBI had been reportedly receiving tips of "unspecific mass shootings" linked to the release of Joker going back as far as May of this year. In addition, the Iowa National Guard has warned service members about "potential active shooter threats" at upcoming screenings of the movie. Apparently, "credible sources indicate a known extremist group may be behind the threat." In addition the "threat appears credible." With that being said, the memo then ends by stating, "no specific threat is identified."
It's nice to see that the government is on the lookout for any suspicious behavior in regard to the Joker movie. The safety of moviegoers is of the utmost importance and law enforcement will do whatever possible to make sure that nothing violent ends up happening. Some theaters have been beefing up security and even the world premiere of the movie in Hollywood had increased security on hand too.
Apparently, the FBI had found "disturbing and very specific chatter in the dark web" about Joker screenings. Hopefully this chatter is a bunch of trolls attempting to get some negative attention thrown on to the movie, which opens for Thursday night previews this evening across North America. Whatever the case may be, Joaquin Phoenix and director Todd Phillips don't believe the movie is going to inspire acts of violence across America or anywhere else in the world.
Related: Watch Joaquin Phoenix Cuss Out Joker Cinematographer in Set Outtake
Despite the increased law enforcement activity, Joker is expected to do just fine at the box office this weekend. The movie is tracking to open to $80 million-plus, which is about on par for what was originally estimated. In addition to the FBI, National Guard, and local law enforcement, theaters across the United States are taking safety into their own hands by banning costumes at the venues, which should help to add comfort. In the end, let's just hope that nothing bad happens at any of these screenings. Maybe someone can get beat up for spoiling the movie like a specific screening of Avengers: Endgame, but that's it. No real violence, just some escapism at the movies. The Hollywood Reporter was the first to reveal the FBI involvement.
Does Joker Have a Post-Credit Scene?Ryan ScottJoker Laughs Its Way to $13.3M Box Office Record on Opening NightRyan ScottCredible Joker Movie Threat Shuts Down Theater in Huntington Beach, CAKevin BurwickJoker Review: DC's Darkest Film and First Serious Oscar ContenderJulian RomanCan Joker Break Venom's October Box Office Record?Ryan ScottWatch Joaquin Phoenix Cuss Out Joker Cinematographer in Set OuttakeKevin BurwickJoker Director Says Woke Culture Drove Him Away from ComedyJeremy Dick
Nokia 2720 Flip review: proof you can't opt out of the smartphone generation - The Verge
If you're seriously considering buying a feature phone like the Nokia 2720 Flip in 2019 then I think you're likely to be one of three kinds of people. Either you live or work in the developing world, where smartphones sometimes aren't a practical option, you're the kind of person who thrives on nostalgia for a simpler time, or else you're trying to do a ''digital detox,'' and decrease the amount of time you seem to waste staring at screens every day.
It's these latter two groups that HMD has been pitching its retro-styled feature phones at for a couple of years now. Two years ago it produced an updated version of the iconic 3310, and last year it remade the 8110, the ''banana phone'' similar to the model used in the original Matrix movie.
The difference with this year's £89.99 Nokia 2720 Flip is that, for the first time, it actually has most of the apps and services you need in a phone in 2019. Yes, you'll be accessing them on an absolutely tiny 2.8-inch display and typing into them with a basic T9 keyboard, but fundamentally you won't be cut out of your WhatsApp conversations, you won't have to be without email, and you won't even have to go without Google Maps. They're all technically here.
But the thing is, you'd have to have the patience of a saint to actually use these services on a device as limited as this. Maps and emails take forever to load, and WhatsApp messages take an age to manually type out. You might not be fully cut off from the modern world, but the limited hardware these apps are running on means that, for all intents and purposes, you basically are.
Good Stuff Neat designCompatible with WhatsApp and many Google appsMultiday battery life Bad Stuff Typing on a T9 keyboard is worse than you rememberStruggles to multitaskIt really is a feature phoneIt's a little hard to review a feature phone like the Nokia 2720 Flip, because it's so obviously not trying to compete with any smartphone on the market. It's got a tiny screen with a resolution of just 240 x 320, a 2-megapixel camera (there's no selfie camera), a dual-core 1.1GHz CPU, and just 512MB of internal storage. It can connect to both 4G LTE networks and Wi-Fi, and it's got Bluetooth for connecting to your wireless headphones.
Since HMD is pitching the Nokia 2720 Flip as the kind of phone you'd use for a ''digital detox,'' it seems only fair to evaluate it on these terms. In other words, can this phone do the basic things you need a communication device to do, without constantly distracting you like a smartphone?
You'll find many popular apps preinstalled on the Nokia 2720 Flip. There are Google apps like YouTube, Maps, and Assistant, and you'll also find Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp (but no Instagram, Messenger, or Spotify). On paper, its apps cover most of the functionality you'd need from an everyday phone. However, just because a phone has these apps, this doesn't mean that they work the way you're used to.
The phone has access to modern services like WhatsApp, Facebook, and YouTube.Take WhatsApp. The Facebook-owned messaging app isn't impossible to use on the Nokia 2720 Flip. All the WhatsApp group chats that I'm a member of seemed to work just fine, and barring one occasion where someone tried to send me their live location, the app seemed to support most of the service's main functionality.
But trust me, trying to type out WhatsApp messages on a T9 keyboard is endlessly frustrating, and it affected my ability to communicate with people in ways I hadn't anticipated. Unless you're willing to spend a lot of time typing, you'll find that your messages will start to get incredibly short and blunt. Group chats with more than a couple of participants will become almost impossible to respond to once messages start coming in more quickly.
Using WhatsApp with a T9 keyboard feels like running in a race where you're the only person wearing lead boots. Everyone else is firing off messages quickly on their touchscreen keyboards, but you're struggling to get your first message sent. It was fine back in the '90s when everyone was in the same position, but in 2019 you risk coming off as uncommunicative, blunt, or a little rude, when your messages are as short as they'll be when typed out on this phone.
You can mitigate this issue slightly by relying on your voice rather than the T9 keyboard to send messages. Either you can send WhatsApp voice memos as you would on a regular smartphone, or else you can hold the select button, wait for the Google Assistant to activate, and then dictate a written message. This second process can take a good few seconds to complete (meaning it's not great at sending a message quickly), but the dictation accuracy was about as good as you'd expect from Google Assistant. Neither are great options if you're in public and don't want to talk out loud to your phone.
The phone includes a web browser, YouTube, Twitter app, and Google Maps, but they're all a struggle to use on its small screen and slow processor.
It's a similar story when it comes to the phone's Twitter client, or web browser, or email app, or calendar, or Google Maps app. Yes, it has these things, but these are all apps that are basically optimized for touchscreens and for processors that are an order of magnitude faster than the 2720's. You have to have a huge amount of patience to browse the web with the T9 keyboard or watch YouTube on this phone's basic dual-core processor. Using Google Maps works in a pinch, but you have to be prepared for it to take a good minute or so to go through the laboriously slow process of getting some directions.
If you're prepared to put in the effort, then you can make the phone do the things you need it to do. One time I managed to use the phone to listen to an episode of a podcast, but it was only because I had the foresight to download the MP3 file onto my PC and then transfer it into the phone's internal memory. Even then, however, I lost my place in the podcast when I hopped out of the media player to respond to a WhatsApp message.
Some of these limitations can be overcome by carrying more stuff around with you, like we used to. When I went away for the weekend with the Nokia 2720 Flip as my only phone, I took a Kindle, a standalone camera, and a Nintendo Switch with me. There was something nice about this. I played better games, I took nicer photos, and I didn't get distracted as much while I did some reading.
But the phone easily over-emphasizes how many apps you use on a daily basis without realizing it. This was my biggest takeaway from using the Nokia 2720 Flip. It doesn't have any authenticator apps, for example, so I had to use my smartphone to get the six-digit 2FA code to log into my Google account as I was setting up the phone. My bank doesn't produce a KaiOS version of its app, so I had to use my old phone to generate a security code to log into my online bank account. There's no password management app, and you can forget about using this phone to hail an Uber.
So a lot of the time I just had to carry my smartphone with me, or risk not having access to vital information throughout the course of a work day. I had my SIM card installed in the Nokia, meaning my smartphone didn't have internet unless I was on Wi-Fi, but I still had it with me as a backup, and honestly it was a lifesaver. One time, I was struggling to get into a company's building for a meeting because its intercom system wasn't working, and I didn't have their contact information saved in my contacts list. Without my smartphone it would have been a nightmare to find their phone number in my emails.
The 2720 Flip folds down into a compact package.As you'd expect for a feature phone, the Nokia 2720 Flip has longer battery life than most smartphones, although I'd be lying if I said I hadn't expected slightly more from it. I found I had to charge the phone once every couple of days. That's a lot better than the single day you'll get out of the average smartphone, and you could probably tease more out of it if you don't set your emails to automatically sync every five minutes as I did.
Using a feature phone in 2019 ends up being a very isolating experience
If you're really looking to do a digital detox, then the Nokia 2720 Flip technically delivers on its promises. You can get by. You can spend ages painstakingly typing out your WhatsApp messages, you can slowly keep track of your emails as they come in, and you can download your favorite podcast as an MP3 file on your computer and then manually move it to the Nokia's internal memory.
You can technically do all these things, but I want to stress that the novelty of doing them on a feature phone wears thin really quickly. No amount of pleasure at being able to snap your phone shut at the end of a phone call will make up for the odd sense of isolation at not being able to participate in a group WhatsApp conversation like you used to.
You think you can put up with these limitations because the last time you were forced to do so was when everyone else was limited by exactly the same technology. But in 2019 that's no longer the case, and as much as I hate to say it, I just don't think it's possible to opt out of the smartphone era anymore once you've embraced it, and that makes relying on a feature phone like the Nokia 2720 Flip a pretty isolating experience.
Photography by Jon Porter / The Verge
Vox Media has affiliate partnerships. These do not influence editorial content, though Vox Media may earn commissions for products purchased via affiliate links. For more information, see our ethics policy.
Many of the smart devices in our homes today rely on Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections to stream music to a nearby speaker or help a video doorbell notify us when a package is delivered. But these connections only extend so far. On the other end of the spectrum, 5G cellular is incredibly important when you need reliable, long distance, guaranteed delivery of data, but it can be complex. In the space around homes, that leaves a middle-ground for devices like sensors and smart lights that can benefit from low-cost, low-power, low-bandwidth connections. Customers shouldn't have to settle for connected devices that lose functionality past the front door, which is why we're excited to introduce Amazon Sidewalk.
Amazon Sidewalk is a new long-term effort to greatly extend the working range of low-bandwidth, low-power, smart lights, sensors, and other low-cost devices customers install at the edge of their home network. Using the 900 MHz spectrum, we are developing a new protocol we project can increase the connection range of these devices by more than one half mile/one kilometer. With Amazon Sidewalk, customers will be able to place smart devices anywhere on their property and know they'll work great, even in dead spots where Wi-Fi and Bluetooth don't reach.
Using the 900 MHz spectrum to help devices communicate isn't new. In fact, it's been around for decades, providing reliable, secure connections for long-range devices like the radios used by emergency services and the digital pagers carried by doctors on-call. It's by combining this tested communications network with an innovative new protocol developed by Amazon that we arrived at Sidewalk; a new way for the next generation of low-cost, low-bandwidth sensors and smart devices to work together to create a secure network of long-distance connections, bridging the connectivity gaps around our homes.
The immediate benefit of a 900 MHz-based network is the ability to use your favorite connected devices even if they're located far away from the router inside your home. Today, Ring Smart Lighting Bridges use connections in this spectrum to extend the range of smart lighting products, and soon additional devices including the latest generation Ring Floodlight Camera and Ring Spotlight Camera will also help customers extend the network connections around their homes and control those 900 MHz devices at much greater distances.
Better network connectivity can also help keep devices safe and up to date. Today when customers place a smart device at the edge of their home network, poor network connectivity can prevent that device from receiving important feature and security updates. By extending long-range, low-bandwidth connections using the Amazon Sidewalk network, customers won't have to worry about smart devices that don't have access to the latest security updates or work as intended because they're out of network range.
In the near future, we also see the potential to help customers get more from 900 MHz connections in their neighborhoods, creating a broad network among neighbors that can be used to extend connectivity all the way to your mailbox out at the street where a smart sensor lets you know exactly when your mail has been delivered, or to a water sensor that lets you know it's time to water the garden in the backyard.
For example, just a week ago Amazon employees and their friends and family joined together to conduct a test using 700 Ring lighting products which support 900 MHz connections. Employees installed these devices around their home as typical customers do, and in just days, these individual network points combined to support a secure low-bandwidth 900 MHz network for things like lights and sensors that covered much of the Los Angeles Basin, one of the largest metropolitan regions in the United States by land area.
This neighbor-created network demonstrates the potential of Amazon Sidewalk '' a broad coverage network, great for low-bandwidth, low-cost devices, that requires no complex setup or maintenance for customers. But the benefits don't stop there. With Sidewalk, we also see the opportunity to deliver new devices and experiences that delight our customers.
As one example, this week we announced Fetch , a compact, lightweight device that will clip to your pet's collar and help ensure they're safe. If your dog wanders outside a perimeter you've set using the Ring app, Fetch will let you know. In the future, expanding the Amazon Sidewalk network will provide customers with even more capabilities like real-time location information, helping you quickly reunite with your lost pet. For device makers, Fetch also serves as a reference design to demonstrate the potential that devices connected to a broad, reliable network can provide to their customers.
Extending the convenience of a long-range network will take time, but we're already working quickly to bring this future to life for customers. For device makers, we plan to publish protocols that any manufacturer can use to build reliable, low-power, low-cost devices that benefit from access to long-range, low-bandwidth wireless connections. In the meantime, you can sign up to be notified when more information is available.
Amazon Sidewalk is a long-term effort, but we're excited to get started and can't wait to see what device makers build and how customers benefit. The possibilities are endless.
When Ukraine's Prosecutor Came After His Son's Sponsor Joe Biden Sprang Into ActionThere are some serious questions around the Biden family involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son's sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that assertion.
At Naked Capitalism Yves Smith reposted a 2014 piece by Richard Smith who at that time looked into the Hunter Biden appointment to the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas producer. Yves writes:
Richard [Smith] did a deep dive into the dodgy appointment of Hunter Biden and then Secretary of State John Kerry's long-standing bundler, Devon Archer, to the board of Burisma Holdings. Richard quickly got past the noteworthy fact that Biden Jr. was being paid quite a lot for no relevant expertise and no investment in the company'...so what was he being paid for, exactly? Oh, and Richard also describes how Hunter's and his uncle James Biden's past financial rides were with con artists.But the real puzzlement is that from everything that can be inferred, Burisma is either tiny or just a shell company. So who is behind these big director payoffs payouts? Richard found some bread crumbs that pointed to Burisma being owned by Privat Group, a conglomerate controlled by the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.
Burisma is officially owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian Minister for Natural Resources who (illegitimately) issued oil and gas licenses to companies he himself owned. But Richard's trail shows that Burisma was sold or raided with the help of various shell companies and that the real owner is probably the Nazi loving criminal oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.
The German state funded DW notes an additional candidate:
In late 2013, [Zlochevsky] denied that he owned Burisma, and an employee in his office reported that he sold the company - but no evidence of this has come to light yet. Two oligarchs, Ihor Kolomojski and Viktor Pinchuk, have been named as the possible new owners. ...DW could not reach Kolomojski for comment about Burisma. Pinchuk refused to comment, but is said to have a good relationship with the Democratic Party in the US, and is also believed to have been a long time friend of former Polish President Kwasniewski.Kwasniewski was, like Hunter Biden and his friend Devon Archer, appointed to the board of Burisma.
Kolomoisky is the sponsor of the current President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.
No one seems to know who really owns the company. Whoever does has hidden behind a bunch of shell companies in Cyprus and Britain. DW says that Zlochevsky denied in 2013 that he was the owner but several Bursima press releases name and quote Mykola Zlochevsky as owner and president of the Burisma Group. Is he now just a front man for a bigger oligarch?
Joe Biden himself bragged that he blackmailed the Ukrainian government to get the "corrupt" prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired:
And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't.So they said they had'--they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to'--or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said'--I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Several papers claimed that the story Biden told happened in March 2016. That is however not correct:
Biden never traveled to Ukraine that month. The Ukrainian president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, traveled to Washington in March '-- but only after the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, had already been dismissed by the Ukrainian parliament.Why the confusion? Because Biden managed to squeeze months of diplomacy into a few hours when he recounted the story years later at the Council on Foreign Relations.
After the U.S. sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 then Vice President Joe Biden led the Ukraine policy of the Obama administration. His campaign against prosecutor general Shokin started in September 2015:
[The U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey] Pyatt kicked off the effort with a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for ''openly and aggressively undermining reform'' and having ''undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.'' In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Oct. 8, Nuland declared: ''The Prosecutor General's Office has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.''Biden followed up with a visit to Kiev in December. On Dec. 7, he held a news conference with Poroshenko and announced $190 million to ''fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the justice sector.'' He made no public mention of the loan guarantee, but behind the scenes he had explicitly linked the $1 billion loan guarantee to reform efforts, including removing Shokin, according to Colin Kahl, Biden's national security adviser at the time.
A day after the news conference, he addressed the Ukrainian parliament and decried the ''cancer of corruption'' in the country. ''The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform,'' he noted. ...Biden next met on Jan. 20 with Poroshenko on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, when he also pressed ''the need to continue to move forward on Ukraine's anti-corruption agenda,'' according to a White House statement.
The campaign was rather slow. But in February Biden's efforts to get Shokin fired suddenly went into overdrive:
Feb. 12: Biden spoke to Poroshenko by phone. ''The two leaders agreed on the importance of unity among Ukrainian political forces to quickly pass reforms in line with the commitments in its IMF program, including measures focused on rooting out corruption,'' the White House said.Feb. 16: Poroshenko announced he had asked Shokin to resign. [...]
Feb. 18: Another call took place between Biden and Poroshenko. [...]
Feb. 19: Poroshenko announced he has received Shokin's resignation letter. It still required parliamentary approval, and Shokin did not go away quietly.
That same day, Biden spoke separately to Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. [...]March 16: Reports emerged that Shokin was back at work after having been on vacation. [...]
March 22: Biden and Poroshenko spoke again by phone [...]
March 29: The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approved Shokin's dismissal.
On March 31, Poroshenko met with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden emphasized that the loan guarantee was contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin's removal.
On April 14, Biden and Poroshenko had another call. Biden congratulated the president on his new cabinet and ''stressed the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General [...]
May 12: Poroshenko nominated Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general.
On May 13, in a phone call, Biden told Poroshenko he welcomed Lutsenko's appointment [...]
The Biden driven campaign against Shokin started slow but in February 2016 it went into a frenzy. What had happened? Did it have to do with Burisma?
U.S. mainstream reporting denies that. The Washington Post wrote:
Giuliani's primary allegation '-- that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine's top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky '-- is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists. ...Even as he overhauled Burisma, Zlochevsky remained in the crosshairs of authorities in Ukraine. By 2015, prosecutors had opened two probes into the former ecology minister '-- one into claims of unlawful enrichment and the other into alleged abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement, according to documents from the prosecutor general's office reviewed by the Wall Street Journal at the time. Zlochevsky denied wrongdoing in those cases. ...Shokin '-- who has provided information about Biden to Giuliani '-- told The Post earlier this year that he believes he was ousted in March 2016 because he was investigating Burisma. If he had been allowed to remain in the job, he would have questioned Hunter Biden's qualifications to be a board member, he said, noting that ''this person had no work experience in Ukraine or in the energy sector.''But at the time, the Zlochevsky case was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
[Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center,] recalled how she and other anti-corruption activists in Ukraine criticized Shokin heavily for not pursuing the investigation and hoped his dismissal would re-energize the case.
The New York Times makes a slightly different claim:
Mr. Zlochevsky's allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation.Mr. Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma. But the oligarch's allies say Mr. Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team, and that left the oligarch's team leery of dealing with the prosecutor.
The above accounts are incorrect. Shokin did go after Zlochevsky. He opened two cases against him in 2015. After he did that Biden and his crew started to lobby for his firing. Shokin was aggressively pursuing the case. He did so just before Biden's campaign against him went into a frenzy.
On February 4 2016 Interfax-Ukraine reported:
The movable and immovable property of former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine Mykola Zlochevsky in Ukraine has been seized, according to the press service of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine (PGO)."The PGO filed a petition to court to arrest the property of the ex-Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine, the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, from which arrest was withdrawn, and other property he actually uses, namely housing estate with a total area of 922 square meters, a land plot of 0.24 hectares, a garden house with a total area of 299.8 square meters, a garden house in the territory of Vyshgorod district, a garden house of 2,312 square meters, a land plot of 0.0394 hectares, a Rolls-Royce Phantom car, a Knott 924-5014 trainer," reads the report.
The PGO clarifies that the court satisfied the petition on February 2, 2016....Zlochevsky is suspected of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 368-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illicit enrichment).
On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired.
The Washington Post falsely claimed that the Zlochevsky case was "dormant". The executive director of the U.S. and EU financed Anti-Corruption Action Center falsely claimed that the prosecutor was "not pursuing the investigation". The NYT repeated that false claim and added an obvious false claim from unnamed Zlochevsky "allies". Why did the media claim Shokin did nothing against Zlochevsky when the record shows the opposite?
Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky:
Mr. Shokin was replaced by a prosecutor named Yuriy Lutsenko, whom former Vice President Biden later called ''someone who was solid at the time.'' Mr. Zlochevsky's representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch's legal issues, according to the people familiar with the situation.While Mr. Lutsenko initially took a hard line against Burisma, within 10 months after he took office, Burisma announced that Mr. Lutsenko and the courts had ''fully closed'' all ''legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations'' against Mr. Zlochevsky and his companies.
The oligarch, who had fled the country amid investigations by previous prosecutors, was removed by a Ukrainian court from ''the wanted list,'' and returned to the country.
When the political wind from Washington changed the prosecutor general Biden earlier lauded proved to be flexible:
This year, though, Mr. Lutsenko's office moved to restart scrutiny of Mr. Zlochevsky.The timeline above seems to support Shokin's claim that he was fired on Joe Biden's order because he went after Zlochevsky who paid Biden's son a very significant monthly sum.
That U.S. main stream media try to obfuscate or even deny that Shokin was serious in his investigation lets one doubt their other claims about the Biden affair and the now evolving impeachment inquiry.
I am not against an impeachment of Trump. But to go after him because he asks serious questions about Biden's shenanigan in the Ukraine is not a productive way do that. Those questions must be asked and answered.
Posted by b on October 3, 2019 at 17:30 UTC | Permalink
HOW BIDEN'S SON HUNTER ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR 3
For the last 75 years Eastern Europe and much of Western Europe has relied on a constant flow of cheap hydrocarbon fuel from Russia. Russia has made huge efforts to guarantee the reliability of this supply. For most of the time Eastern Europe received this energy practically for free. In Western Europe reliable Russian natural gas supplies have enabled the phasing out of high-CO2 coal and even of nuclear energy. In Ukraine and the rest of the Soviet Union gas replaced firewood. This enabled urbanization and turning most land over to agriculture.
The United States has done everything possible to try to disrupt or stop this energy flow. In the early 1980s sanctions were imposed on West European companies involved in the construction of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline that now passes through Ukraine. Recent achievements include blocking SouthStream and delaying NordStream2. Modern propaganda speaks of "European energy dependence on Russia" and "Gazprom's gas monopoly". The alternative demanded by the US: build enormously expensive LNG terminals and import bottled LNG from USA. This American surplus gas would be produced by fracking.
The main geopolitical aim of the Maidan coup was to disrupt the gas flow on the trans-Ukrainian pipelines. Simply blowing up the pipelines was not possible, as Ukraine was dependent on Russian gas imports. By making Ukraine self-sufficient on energy, even temporarily, would enable the US to dismantle the gas pipelines. The solution to fast but unstable gas supplies is fracking. Fracked oil and gas wells produce most of their output in the first year and quickly run out, but leave permanent damage to the environment.
Burisma was the gas company chosen for the implementation of the fracking plan. Biden's son Hunter was placed on the board, not as a form of bribery but because of the importance of this geopolitical project. The largest gas reserves in Ukraine for fracking are in the east, in the fully Russian parts of the Ukraine. A central point of the fracking operation was to be Slavyansk on the former Donetsk Oblast.
Fear of fracking played a major part in the opposition to the Maidan coup in Kiev. The armed uprising against the new rulers started in Slavyansk on April 8, 2014. By May 2014 the Donetsk People's Republic had been established in a referendum.
Quotes from three articles:
Before the fear of war, fear of fracking in Ukraine - Al Jazeera, August 10, 2014A visitor to the Donbass in February or March wouldn't have heard fear of war but fear of fracking, with residents fearful their land would be destroyed.
''If you asked me last month, I would tell you right away that gas was the real reason for our hate for Kiev and for this war,'' said Ivan Vailyevich, a pensioner from the building on Bulvarnaya Avenue when recalled how he participated in mass street protests in February and March.
''We'd kill and die but never allow production of shale gas here,'' he said. ''That would poison our land.'' Now he doesn't know what to say. ''After our house was bombed this month, we realized that shale gas was not as scary as shells.''
Oksana, a young shop assistant selling swimsuits at a department store on a corner of Lenin Avenue, said that she and her family became scared of ''foreigners coming'' to drill for shale gas in Slovyansk after then-President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell in January 2013.
***
Russia's silent shale gas victory in Ukraine - Euractiv, September 2, 2015According to Russia's TASS, the residents of Slavyansk, which is the centre of the Yuzivska deposit, organised several protests against development of the deposit. They even planned to have a referendum on the issue.
Another TASS report even allegedly cited Pavel Gubarev, the self-proclaimed leader of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, admitting in an interview with Russian television Rossiya 24 on 19 May that one of the key reasons for the fighting is Kyiv's push to ''continue development of shale gas on the territory of Ukraine''.
It is hard to miss the massive American interest in Europe's desire to cut dependency of Russia and simultaneously Ukraine's promising shale gas prospects. Besides the obvious profit-oriented business interests of American companies in tapping the shale gas of Ukraine, as usually, politics and strategic foreign political interests are also at play in the war for Ukraine's new gas potential.
In fact, the Biden family was so interested in Ukraine, that his son Hunter was appointed to the board of directors of Ukraine's largest private gas producer, Burisma Holdings. This has put Ukraine's shale gas question into a new perspective '' at least from the American viewpoint.
Burisma holds licenses covering the Dnieper-Donets basin in the eastern Ukraine and Biden Jr. is not the only American with political ties to have recently joined the company's board. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a college roommate of Kerry's stepson, signed up with Burisma in April 2014.
***
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World - Mother Jones, September 2014Following the Crimea crisis, the Obama administration has also been pressing Eastern European countries to fast-track their fracking initiatives so as to be less dependent on Russia. During an April visit to Ukraine, which has granted concessions to Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the United States would bring in technical experts to speed up its shale gas development. ''We stand ready to assist you,'' promised Biden, whose son Hunter has since joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company. ''Imagine where you'd be today if you were able to tell Russia: 'Keep your gas.' It would be a very different world.''
Posted by: Petri Krohn | Oct 3 2019 17:44 utc | 1
Biden's Ukraine shenanigans is just the tip:Biden tells Trump You're not going to destroy me
Trump said China should investigate the Bidens.
And the Bidens have been getting a lot of exposure:The troubling reason why Biden is so soft on China
Last week, Biden raised eyebrows when he shrugged off concerns over the China threat. ''Come on, man,'' Biden said. ''I mean, you know, they're not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they're not competition for us.''Perhaps Biden's insouciant attitude toward the Chinese government has to do with the fact that his family does not consider them competitors but business partners.
In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden's firm inked a $1'billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China. The deal was later expanded to $1.5'billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president.
If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son '-- who has scant experience in private equity '-- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that's because it is.
Until the publication of my book, ''Secret Empires,'' no one knew the deal took place. Indeed, it took me and a team of seasoned investigators nearly two years to unearth and report the facts.[.]
Trump does not know when not to stoke the fire. Stop twittering.
Joe did the destroying all by himself. The paper trail is long recorded and no pre-trial discovery required for the impeachment. Rudy will wipe the floor and play the videos for the kill.
Posted by: Likklemore | Oct 3 2019 18:05 utc | 2
Seems it's going to come down to why Joe Biden wanted Viktor Shokin fired. Probably to protect his son but where's the proof? Biden will say he was only trying to stamp out corruption in Ukraine.
Posted by: dh | Oct 3 2019 18:14 utc | 4
@3 Thanks for that. I posted my comment # 4 before I saw it. Paragraphs 9-11 look the most relevant. No doubt in Shokin's mind anyway that Biden was protecting Burisma.
Posted by: dh | Oct 3 2019 18:26 utc | 5
@dh 4
where is the proof? the money trail leads you there and the video:
"FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor"Video In Biden's own words
Posted by: Likklemore | Oct 3 2019 18:35 utc | 6
I wonder how much it's gonna cost to suppress this information. These clowns have hook, line and sinkered themselves. What a shit show. Walked into a trap of their own making. Like shooting fish in a barrel for The Don. Anyone would think putting on a bullseye in the morning would be fashion of the month over at the DNC.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Oct 3 2019 18:40 utc | 7
@6 Well yeah there's Joe bragging about getting Shokin fired. But he'll say he was doing it to clean up Ukraine for everybody's benefit. He probably sees nothing wrong with getting Hunter on the board of Burisma. Heck any dad in his position would have done the same.
Posted by: dh | Oct 3 2019 18:47 utc | 8
This post, which sums up and rounds out information which is either widely available (@6) or easily deducible (Hunter's sudden elevation, while on vacation in Ukraine, into the $50,000 per month salary bracket)ought to put a QED under the question of whether Biden is corrupt.It beggars belief that the idiots in the Democratic leadership sense any political gains from associating themselves, to the death, with behaviour that is clearly and incontrovertibly corrupt. A case, in fact, which more or less encapsulates everything that Joe Sixpack of Peoria and his kindred feel is desperately wrong with the US political system and US society.
Impeachment? Good luck with that guys! It would be easier to build an igloo in the corner of Hell reserved for Tammany Hall and its legion acolytes.
Posted by: bevin | Oct 3 2019 19:16 utc | 10
The "Knott 924-5014 trainer" seems to be a translation error - the Russian sources have "ÐÑиÑеРKnott 924-5014", which means Knott trailer (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ÐÑиÑеÐ).
Posted by: Bernd Neuner | Oct 3 2019 19:28 utc | 11
The post has: "After the U.S. sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 then Vice President Joe Biden led the Ukraine policy of the Obama administration. His campaign against prosecutor general Shokin started in September 2015:"
Then the post quote:"[The U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey] Pyatt kicked off the effort with a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for 'openly and aggressively undermining reform' and having 'undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.'''
The problem for the post is that Pyatt never worked for Biden. Including this as proof of what Biden did is incompetent or dishonest. It is in fact evidence that it is silly to take Biden's statements about him personally getting Shokin fired seriously, instead of as bragging or yet another failure of mind. It was a goal of US government diplomacy, not just Joe Biden. Biden was not more under oath than Trump was at Access: Hollywood.
The assumption that Shokin was actually a threat to Hunter Biden remains unconfirmed. Sorry, no, the list of seized property is evidence of a political threat to Zlochevsky but not to Burisma. Going after that instead of seizing Burisma as illegal enrichment is suggestive in fact of protection for Burisma while attacking Zlochevsky personally. Worst of all, if Shokin was actually fighting corruption---which takes a lot of faith in the honesty of the post-Maidan government!---the question is who the opponents of Shokin wanted to protect. I suggest the local oligarchs had a lot more to lose and more influence. The notion that Zlochevsky counted as an "oligarch" is so preposterous it suggests a treacherous source or flagrant stupidity. Akhmetov, Poroshenko, Boholyubov, Kolomoyskiy, Pinchuk, Kosiuk were oligarchs.
Personally I think Trump campaigning during government business is indefensible and I believe violation of campaign laws. But conjuring up a phony need to investigate a non-case is just crawling in the mud with the Trump worshipers.
As for Hunter Biden being selected for Burisma's board? Why, of course, those people selected the boy because of his connections. Board members are generally held to be qualified *because* of their connections. It's not like they do any real work, after all. And of course Biden Hunter took the job. But, to say it again, the real corruption is in what's legal. Hunter Biden discreetly influence peddling is not illegal.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 3 2019 19:29 utc | 12
re: b's lede and Petri Krohn 1
Several years ago while doing my own research on all that has gone on in Ukraine recently I learned that both Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron had signed development agreements with Ukrainian energy interests to develop shale gas fields in eastern and northwestern Ukraine. Those agreements were all backed out of after the Maiden revolt. I also found a map of the eastern shale gas field and it almost exactly overlaps the area under control of the Russian separatists. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that Russia was fomenting the resistance to this development - it would be a perfectly reasonable and expected response, and as someone living in the US sacrifice zone of the heart of the Marcellus and Utica, more power to them.
Of course Russia's interest was not environmental but economic. Most probably know that the former Soviet bloc Ukraine and Russia had been feuding for many years (at least a decade) over the Russian pipelines crossing Ukraine about transit royalty payments, gas allowances, etc. Both sides were intransigent and unreasonable, and I have to wonder know how much on Ukraine's side was being poked and prodded by US spooks and spies.
In 2014 the US DOE produced a study requested by the Obama admin that purported to be a cradle to grave analysis to answer the question "Will exporting LNG produced from fracked US shale gas (Marcellus and Utica in the study)increase global GHG emissions?" The study combined all of the GHG contributing factors all the way up to arrival of the product to Rotterdam in Europe and Shanghai in China. For comparison the study looked at the GHG contributions of the existing European coal and gas fired energy sectors of Europe and China. The conclusion of the study was that it was a wash, but imo the study was flawed because it considered "the grave" - the end point - to be the port arrival and re-gasification, and not the further conveyance and distribution, or even the final consumption inputs. And of course a more helpful question to have asked (of course it wasn't because of the foregone conclusion) "would it REDUCE GHG's? Probably also flawed further because as has been revealed methane escapes from all aspects of this industry are much greater than is claimed or reported.
The long and the short of it is (imo,)Ukraine was all about the US shale gas industry. The US shale gas boom could only happen AS a boom in our completely capitalistic monetized system, and booms always create gluts. The US can't consume what we already have on hand and to break even or make a profit it has to be sold everywhere, as much and as quickly as possible. It was always known and anticipated by the industry that this would be the end game. All the BS about "100 years of energy security" was just BS propaganda to get us proles on board.
Where does Trump fit in to all of this? Remember when he travelled to Europe several summers ago that he berated Angela Merkel for being "Russia's puppet" for participating in the development of Nordstream II. He has no choice but to promote the US shale gas industry; to do otherwise would be political suicide. And this relates also to our great ally KSA who in 2015 flooded the global market with cheap oil, collapsing the market and crippling all competitors (in their desire to punish Iran for their victory of the JCPOA,) including the US and Russia. As the US shale gas industry and all of its investor speculators scramble to limit their losses, interests in US gas holdings are being bought up by foreign investors, mostly from Asia.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we attempt to deceive.
My first time posting a comment here at MoA. A great site (been reading here for several weeks regularly)and the format of the forum is very conducive to in-depth discussion.
Posted by: vinnieoh | Oct 3 2019 19:40 utc | 13
Thank you, b, in particular for establishing the time line for these events. That was a point that Giuliani made in his Fox interview, that he had done his investigation on behalf of Trump back before this latest development with the call to the new Ukranian president. Your post on that call is borne out.
I should not have said it was not about Biden; I should have said it was not currently electorally motivated, which is the impeachment claim, but had been simmering since before the last election. Thank you for clearing that up.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 3 2019 20:13 utc | 15
Pinchuk is also a member of the Ukrainian Atlantic Council,the sponsor of Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins, who promulgatedthe fake photos and videos in the MH17 case. With thewhistleblower BS grabbing all the headlines, I keep hearingof all the missing billions from the aid and IMF loans to Ukraine.What portion of those billions was siphoned off as payment for theMH17 false flag atrocity, the massive Information Operation thatsupported it and the hit team that executed it? The informationOperation was gargantuan, spanning media across the globe.
Posted by: evilempire | Oct 3 2019 20:21 utc | 16
@ SteveK9 3Shokin's statement to an Austrian Court.
Besides Giuliani's notes from his January 2019 interview with Shokin, we have a lengthy affadavit here dated Sep 4, 2019 with Shokin saying:
The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings ("Burisma"), a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. I assume Burisma, which was connected with gas extraction, had the support of the US Vice-President Joe Biden because his son was on the board of Directors.. . . Therefore I was forced to leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration. In my conversation with Poroshenko at the time, he was emphatic that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma. When I did not, he said that the US (via Biden) were refusing to release USD$ 1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that b he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2019 20:25 utc | 17
This issue remind me the old Monty Python.
Meanwhile in ImpeachmentVille....."Nobody expects the Democratic Inquisition":
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsefeg
"Our chief weapons are: surprise, fear and a fanatical devotion to money...."
Posted by: DFC | Oct 3 2019 20:27 utc | 18
This whole affair is a nothing-burger that only serves to bolster Biden.
Note: I previously thought the nothing-burger was a distraction from imminent war with Iran, but it's apparent that the nothing-burger relates more to US politics than war.
As I predicted, Biden is now using Trump's scorn as a political asset:
"He did it because, like every bully in history '-- he's afraid," said Biden on Wednesday. "He's afraid of just how badly I would beat him next November."None of the allegations against Trump or Biden are likely to have legal repercussions. They can't be proven. It all hinges on intent.
What this brouhaha really does is take all media attention away from other Democratic Party candidates.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Trump already helped Pelosi to become the Speaker of the House.
In December 2017, he invited her, along with Schumer, to the White House Oval Office to discuss "the Wall" DAYS BEFORE the vote for Speaker of the House.
This gave her credibility and public exposure at a time that many detractors were saying that she was her work with the Bush Administration made her unsuitable.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Biden is a Deep-Stater. He's viewed as 'safe hands'.
Tulsi took out Biden's first main opponent (Kamala) at the debates. Now Warren leads the Democratic race (and must be stopped).
I'm still expecting a Biden-Tulsi ticket (which loses to Trump).
<> <> <> <> <> <>
99% of Democratic voters will not care that Biden's son got money from Ukraine and China.
12 paragraphs to explain how the Bidens are corrupt is 11 paragraphs too much.
Hillary did very well in 2016 despite being suspected of violating national security, colluding with DNC against Sanders, and giving a $750,000 speech to Goldman Sachs.
Democratic stooges and Democratic asshat media willingly ignore US support for Israeli apartheid and Saudi genocidal warfare, and a power-grab in Venezuela. Democratic voters are a captured and captivated audience.
If the devil himself were running against Trump the Democrats would laud his equal treatment of the condemned and denounce the holier than thou 'religious right' that can't see that *Trump* is the greater evil.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 3 2019 20:33 utc | 19
Of course, it can hardly be proven that protecting his son Hunter was the goal of Biden demanding that Ukraine immediately fires Shokin, using threats of withholding money. There may have been different reasons.
But whether this is the reason is not everything that counts.
First, Biden's uncivilized behavior towards Ukraine (and his bragging about it) is obviously completely unacceptable. In some ways, it may remind people of some outrageous actions of Trump, but in any case, it does not support Biden's claim that he represents a style that is very different from Trump. Of course, in a way, it was just honest to treat Ukraine openly as a kind of US colony after the US supported coup and this is the real problem, not that Biden was so open about it.
Second, the fact that Hunter Biden received such a lucrative position in Ukraine at the time when Joe Biden was Obama's main representative in Ukraine and traveled there all the time, even though Hunter Biden had no relevant experience and qualifications and had just been fired from the Navy because of drug use is just obviously unethical. This was a way for Ukrainian oligarchs to buy Joe Biden's support, and with his behavior, Joe Biden clearly showed that he was the one they had to please. I find it hilarious that there are people who defend this corruption scheme and pretend it was normal that an unqualified relative of an influential government person is hired for a lucrative position ("for his connections"). The only thing such statements reveal is the people who make them have very low ethical standards.
It is a fact that some people have very low ethical standards. But when Democrats now want to criminalize any talk about the Biden family corruption, they certainly go too far.
I also find it absurd that the Democrats willingly put themselves in the position of mainly being the party for the defense of corruption. In a way, of course, this is nothing new. They also pretended it is completely normal that Bill Clinton raked in huge sums from foreign governments both personally for speeches and for the Clinton Foundation at the same time as his wife dealt with these governments as Secretary of State. Any criticism of this was allegedly a "right-wing conspiracy theory".
I used to think that Democrats are the lesser evil compared to Republicans, and in areas such as healthcare or taxes they probably are (from my rather left-wing point of view according to which the Democrats are slightly less right-wing in economic matters, though still very far to the right). But when Democrats are now mainly the party for giving the secret services more and more power and defending corruption, I am not so sure whether they have not become the greater evil by now.
One may think it is a dumb action by Democrats to give the topic of Hunter Biden and Burisma so much prominence. But this may be besides the point. After all, media that support the Democrats had made a completely evidence-free conspiracy theory about Russia the main topic for year, and many people in the radicalized pro-CIA base of corporate Democrats still believe this conspiracy theory. So, they can probably put forward anything, and among their radicalized base hardly anyone will look at it critically. Whether they can convince a majority of voters is, of course, a different question. But that is probably difficult, anyway - soon more information about the beginnings of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and how Democrats and secret services set it up will come out, and after that, it will be difficult, anyway, for Democrats to find support outside their radicalized base that does not care about facts and evidence.
Posted by: Adrian E. | Oct 3 2019 20:41 utc | 20
Considering how old Biden is, his pick for vice-president would be of massive importance. I can't see him picking Tulsi Gabbard - unless she's actually a very skilled deep-state goon, there's no way the establishment would allow it, the risk would be too high.
As for the Dems, of course they won't give a fuck what the Bidens did or do, just like GOPers don't give a damn if Trump shot a man in the street. On the other hand, the centre, the indie voters, might be slightly annoyed to have an openly corrupt candidate - which would, obviously, apply both to Biden and Trump.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Oct 3 2019 20:43 utc | 21
One thing for sure, western media does not published all the facts.
Thanks for this post. I hadn't realized western corporations' fracking push was prior to the Maidan Coup. Even I know that Russian history is replete with the importance of the borderlands to Russia's national security. Barbarossa would have succeeded except for Greece and starting at the Romanian border not Kiev. Vladimir Putin would never let the Russian naval base since 1783 in Crimea be seized by the West. Clearly he also had an economic reason to hinder Ukraine's competition to Russia's natural gas sales. It is unthinkable that the Russian Federation would not have supported the uprising in Donbass after neo-Nazis shot up polling places starting the rebellion.
The West was absolutely incompetent in not recognizing that they were restarting the Cold War; risking mankind's extinction. Joe Biden was the point man. He is greedy, incompetent, corrupt, and ancient. Hunter Biden earned $50,000 a month for nothing; except that he is Joe Biden's son.
Adam Schiff's failure to acknowledge this, indicates that America is a house divided once again.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 3 2019 21:02 utc | 22
Thanks b. Looks to me that the Trump team is shaking down Zelensky. Easy way out is for Kolomoisky to purchase Kuschner's 666 Park Avenue building. I am sure that in those circles you could sell the same building twice with no complaint from the previous buyer.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 3 2019 21:09 utc | 23
Ihor Kolomoisky's possible ownership of Burisma was reported even before the 2014 coup.Burisma's official owners had an address in Cyprus in the same building as a company called Ukrnaftoburinnya which was associated with Kolomoisky. That company's former CEO said that its immediate owner was Privat Group (Kolomoisky's bank), as reported in 2012:
"90% of Ukrnaftoburinnya is owned by a Cypriot company, Deripon Commercial Ltd. (...) This company has often been involved in various financial schemes of the Privat Group and especially with Ihor Kolomoisky. The owners of Ukrnaftoburinnya, Pari, and Esko-Pivnich were finally confirmed through first-hand sources. Oleh Kanivets worked as CEO of Ukrnaftoburinnya for two years. He confirmed who actually controlled the above-mentioned companies to ''Slidstvo.Info''. ' '' The Privat Group is the immediate owner. This company was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky some time ago, but he later sold his shares to the Privat Group.' "https://antac.org.ua/2012/08/26/kings-of-ukrainian-gas/
The official documents say that Zlochevsky remained as owner of the companies that controlled Burisma, but Kolomoisky's role in the company has never been clarified.
Posted by: Brendan | Oct 3 2019 21:10 utc | 24
There must be a lot more to the replacement (Prosecutor General) Lutsenko story than we are being told. No idea if he's a good guy or not, but it seems to me that the MSM is bending over backwards to spin everything relating to him in a decidedly negative light, i.e., he's corrupt and 'anti-DNC' or 'pro-Trump'. My immediate inclination, therefore, is to assume the exact opposite: he found some kind of DNC/State Department shenanigans linked with Ukraine corruption and (like his predecessor) is outraged enough to investigate it. Naturally, the MSM has to pillory him to discredit anything he says about... well, everything.
Yonatan@9 - Thanks for the link, but the Yandex translation is difficult to understand. Is he no longer Prosecutor General? Did he go to London to live there? What would he be 'running' from?
What do you think of the MSM trying to discredit him? Maybe they're right and he is just another corrupt weasel - I have no idea besides noting the tone of the current MSM narrative. My impression about him so far based on this:
The thread I was following on him was his interactions with the (then) U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. From what I can tell, he was investigating the embezzlement of $4 million in US aid that was suppose to go to his office for anti-corruption efforts. His investigation was focusing on Ukraine anti-corruption 'activists' (?) that had repeatedly visited the US embassy around that time.
There was much made in the press about his statement that he got a 'do not prosecute' list from Ambassador Yovanovitch at that first meeting, then he supposedly 'walked back' that claim. Seems odd - this article seems to explain the situation, but I have no idea about the veracity of source, UNIAN. The details are never mentioned in western MSM aside to suggest he lied about the list - which is a bit disingenuous given UNIAN's article.
link
[bold emphasis mine]
"She was accompanied, so was I. Mrs. Yovanovitch was interested in Vitaliy Kasko's case. The fact was that Mr. Kasko's mother got registered for official housing [in Kyiv], while she had never left Lviv. That had signs of abuse."Lutsenko recalled Yovanovitch insisted Kasko was an outstanding anti-corruption activist, and "the criminal case discredited those who were fighting against corruption."
"I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: 'Give me a do not prosecute list.' She said: "No, you got me wrong.' I said: "No, I didn't get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential administration's address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good," Lutsenko gave the details of his meeting with the ambassador.
link
The weirdness of the missing $4 million in technical aid:
''At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,'' he said. "At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy."''Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem."
link
Yovanovich was recalled from Ukraine May - highly unusual for someone of her tenure. Supposedly Trump's doing - I have no idea. It's notable that the MSM is silent about the possible embezzlement (theft, misappropriation) of aid intended for the Prosecutor General's office. If the US Embassy did steal this money, divert it from an unfriendly Shokin's office and distributed it to their 'anti-corruption activists' in Ukraine instead, well... that would be kind of bad.
The Biden criminal clown-show is unrelated to whatever happened above other than the overarching actions of the US meddling in Ukrainian matters of state.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 3 2019 21:10 utc | 25
By an apparently amazing coincidence, Kolomoisky had a chance meeting in Amsterdam with Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko who was supposed to be investigating Burisma. The two happened to bump into one another on the street, according to Lutsenko who said he had travelled to Amsterdam for medical treatment.https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/kolomoisky-lutsenko-meet-amsterdam.htmlLutsenko had taken over the job of Prosecutor General after Joe Biden forced President Poreshenko to fire Shokin.
Posted by: Brendan | Oct 3 2019 21:11 utc | 26
A case, in fact, which more or less encapsulates everything that Joe Sixpack of Peoria and his kindred feel is desperately wrong with the US political system and US society.@Posted by: bevin | Oct 3 2019 19:16 utc | 10
I wonder whether that "Joe Sixpack of Peoria" is smart enough and has dug so deep so as to know...
The America of Trump's Father: an Aspirational Fascism Reigned in New York
Posted by: Elora Danan | Oct 3 2019 21:12 utc | 27
@Keith McClary 14re: James Risen intercept piece
so in this article the reporter is saying that Biden insisted that Shokin be fired, not for investigating Burisma, but for investigating the wrong people in general, as reckoned from Biden's point of view. Okay then.
Shokin was apparently in a position to block natgas development, which would have profited Burisma. Thus an alignment of interests between official policy and family business. Nothing new under the sun...
Question: the Risen article states that Burisma was one of the "biggest natural gas companies" in Ukr. How does it make money before Maidan? (presumably before the change of govt made it realistic to consider fracking?) The circumstantial evidence as stated on this blog is that it is a vehicle for extracting money from a subsidized market (i.e. aid $ ultimately)? Was Hunter Biden there to smooth over the sale of the company in the immediate aftermath of the regime change? I.e. both the pro and anti Russian oligarch owners were getting something there, the former by getting their money out in spite of attempts to freeze the assets, the latter by some fracking related scam to follow? with Hunter and Joe providing legal concer for the transaction?
Posted by: ptb | Oct 3 2019 21:22 utc | 28
typo above - "legal cover"
Posted by: Ptb | Oct 3 2019 21:23 utc | 29
steven t johnson | Oct 3 2019 19:29 utc <-- Incoherent.
You agree that people with "well known names" are placed on director boards for their influence. But you do not make the next mental step: what does it mean to have an influence.In USA it may mean that regulations that a company is subjected to are written by a lobbyist hired by the company, or an association of such companies, say, shale gas producers.And there are some more slippery types of influence that are rarely discussed, e.g. certain Epstein had influence and state attorney treated him very humanely.But we have no idea how it came to pass.
As I was writing before, hunting corruption in many countries is like hunting terrorists in USA -- a wanted list is compiled, checking it twice, some people who look and walk like terrorists are nice, and some who look OK are actually naughty. Subsequently various nasty or moderately nasty things are done to the people on the list.The targets of corruption investigations are determined is a similarly mysterious manner. Zlochevsky personally and Burisma by implication were under a danger of being on the naughty list. Zlochevsky hires Hunter Biden as a director. Favor for Biden family. Shukin made moves against Zlochevsky, with under circumstances was a show of disrespect for Biden.
At the very least, this is the picture from public sources, including unreliable tale of Joe Biden himself, and thinking that an internationally coordinated investigation is a good idea is at the very least excusable. But should leaders of executive branch be deeply involved in the prosecution business? Isn't in inherently abusive?
Sure it is inherently abusive, but this is EXACTLY what Biden proudly told about himself. To make a good impression.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 3 2019 21:48 utc | 30
About shale gas in Ukraine and other places in Europe: so far, it did not work anywhere. Perhaps some minuscule quantities were extracted, hard to get data separated from "normal gas".
Either total ineptitude in Europe, or sloppily exaggerated estimates of "potential resources" and geological differences.
Shale gas in Donbass: maps show a region with those "potential resources" that extends from Dnieper river (i.e. due north of Kiev) along the border with Russia.Slavyansk is on the eastern end, the Donbass rebellion started there, but government offensive "liberated it", so none of it is under the control of Donbass republics.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 3 2019 21:54 utc | 31
[sigh] I should have known better than to spend any time trying to understand Ukrainian politics...
"...Lutsenko was a close personal ally of former President Petro Poroshenko and much vilified by observers as he was seen as one of the main obstacles to pushing through Ukraine's anti-corruption campaign, demanded by Ukraine's donors.Despite over 1,000 investigations by the newly formed anti-corruption body, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and several indictments of high ranking officials, no one of note was prosecuted or jailed by Lutsenko. His depature will be welcomed by Ukraine's western allies..."
So I'm getting the idea that this whole thing was a big war between which corrupt oligarch's people got busted in the anti-corruption campaign(s). Looks like the winners of immunity are Ihor Kolomoisky and agents of 'western allies' (neocons, US State Department, Biden/DNC). Only corrupt individuals from other oligarch gangs will actually be prosecuted. Sad, but better than nothing, I guess... Poor Ukraine.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 3 2019 21:58 utc | 32
''Kolomoyskyi was born in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, to a Jewish family of engineers. He graduated from the Dnipropetrovsk Metallurgical Institute in 1985.''
How do no-name ''engineers'' become oligarchs owning state assets ''privatized'' following the breakup of the USSR? This is a common occurrence. Plus the fact that the Oligarchs are overwhelmingly of Jewish origin, a group that was supposedly persecuted under Soviet rule. One would think they would be at a disadvantage in acquiring Soviet assets but apparently not.
Posted by: guest | Oct 3 2019 21:59 utc | 33
Wow. If that is not the most complete and convincing timeline on this complex, i don't know what it.Hut ab Bernhard!
Only I dont know why you feel the need to appease those who claim you are biased pro Trump with your last sentence. Those who claim that are the ones who are biased against Trump. You just defend the law and constitution. And those are the only things who can save us from the Weimar 2.0 that the western world is increasingly facing.
Again, "Hut ab!" for this strong stance and for not swimming with the stream of hysteric fanatics on both sides.
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Oct 3 2019 22:00 utc | 34
Biden is presumably senile, as even a kid knows that the first rule of crime is silence...old people may know this dictum> ''Hustlers of the world, there is one mark you cannot beat: the mark inside.'' ' (William S. Burroughs) Poor Biden forgot...eh?
I am minded of Mark Twain's remark>
''There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.''
Posted by: Walter | Oct 3 2019 22:05 utc | 35
"The problem for the post is that Pyatt never worked for Biden. Including this as proof of what Biden did is incompetent or dishonest." @12
Pyatt was the US Ambassador. Biden was the Vice President. Did Pyatt work for Biden? I would say that he did, particularly given Biden's role as a lead in the regime change operation.
Posted by: bevin | Oct 3 2019 22:06 utc | 36
I still think that Biden is just a side issue and the real reason for the whistleblower memo, for the impeachment drive and the all-around panic in the media and among the Democrats is the fact that the Barr-Giuliani investigation is getting close to CrowdStrike. With that in mind I am slightly changing the topic...
THE NEW YORK TIMES QUOTES ME
Thank you Stever @16 for linking to the article in The New York Times by Scott Shane. (archive link) The article goes out of its way to dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory. But unexpectedly, about three fourths way down the page they actually discuss the issue itself. They even went so far as to contact George Eliason via email for a comment.
The CrowdStrike Plot: How a Fringe Theory Took Root in the White House - The New York Times, October 3, 2019George Eliason, an American journalist who lives in eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian separatists fought Ukrainian forces, has written extensively about what he considers to be a ''coup attempt'' against President Trump involving American and Ukrainian intelligence agencies and CrowdStrike. He said he did not know if his writings for obscure websites might have influenced the president.
''CrowdStrike and Ukrainian Intel are working hand in glove,'' he wrote in an email. ''Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the U.S. to take a hardline stance against Russia? Are they using CrowdStrike to carry this out?''
Mr. Eliason and other purveyors of Ukraine conspiracies often point to the Atlantic Council, a research group in Washington, as the locus of the schemes. The Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk has made donations to the council and serves on its international advisory board; Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike's co-founder, who was born in Russia and came to the United States as a child, is an Atlantic Council senior fellow.
A bit later in the article they cite an interview I did for Sputnik.
And Russian state news outlets are always ready to cheer on Mr. Trump's efforts to point the blame for the 2016 hack away from Moscow. On Sept. 25, after the White House released its memo on the Zelensky call, Russia's Sputnik news website ran a story supporting Mr. Trump's remarks.The Sputnik article cited Mr. Eliason's writings and suggested that CrowdStrike might have framed Russia for the D.N.C. hack '-- if it occurred at all. It quoted a Twitter account called ''The Last Refuge'' declaring: ''The D.N.C. servers were never hacked.''
The Sputnik article by Ekaterina Blinova is here:
Cyber Expert Explains the Theory of Crowdstrike's Connection to Ukraine, DNC Hacking ControversyKrohn notes that many of those Russian-speaking hackers actually originate from Ukraine. According to him, they are using hacking tools widely accessible in the web.
"It is my belief that 'Fancy Bear' or the hacking group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 may be little more that the collection of hacking tools."
To illustrate his point, Krohn refers to his January 2017 research of malicious activity called Gryzzly Steppe, outlined in a joint report by the Department Of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in October 2016 and attributed to the so-called "Russian hacker" groups, including 'Fancy Bear' and 'Cozy Bear'. The report described a sample of a malware, also known as the "PAS web shell".
Having analysed the YARA signature file of the malware tool, the cyber-security analyst traced it to the Ukrainian download site Profexer.name and finally to an information technology student at Poltava National Technical University.
In August 2017, The New York Times de facto confirmed Krohn's story, reporting about "a young man from a provincial Ukrainian city" who created the malware described in the DHS/DNI report.
(Actually it was Wordfence that matched the YARA signature to the download site.)
The article only used about a third of the interview. Adam Carter and The Forensicator also need credit. I hope no one is offended if I post the full unpublished interview here.
1.In the transcript of Donald Trump's phone talk with Volodymyr Zelensky, the US president touched upon the issue of Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor that carried out the examination of the alleged "hack" of the committee's server. He asked his Ukrainian counterpart to "do him a favor" and get "to the bottom of this". What did Trump mean? Why does he believe that the American cybersecurity firm has any relation to Ukraine?Trump is referring to the origins of Russiagate that are widely known outside mainstream media, but regarded as conspiracy theories by the media.
According to this narrative, CrowdStrike fabricated the evidence of a hack in order to hide a real leak and to put blame on Russia. Some independent investigators have suggested that the hack was real but it was done on CrowdStrike's order by hacker groups tied to the Ukrainian security services.
It is also well established that Russiagate, or as some call it, the Russia collusion hoax, has its origins in Ukrainian Americans working for the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. CrowdStrike, through its Russian-born but pro-Ukrainian co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is closely linked to the Ukrainian-American community.
2.On 25 September, The New York Times denounced the "theory that Ukrainians, not Russians, were behind the DNC hacking" an "unfounded conspiracy". What do you make of this theory? What's your opinion about the Dems' narrative of the DNC's server "hack"? Does it seem more plausible than the theory allegedly cited by Trump?
Cyber attribution or using forensic methods to establish the origin of cyber attacks and operations is extremely difficult. Intelligence services have an array of tools to hide their tracks and make it seem like the attack is the work of their opponent.
When Americans speak about ''Russian hackers'' they do not specifically refer to the Russian Federation and its citizens. Russian hackers are people who communicate in Russian on the Russian language Internet, ''Runet'' and Russian language dark web. A large part of these ''Russians'' are actually Ukrainians. Many of the hacking tools used are openly shared by the Russian hacking community. The motive is more often fame, even pseudonymous fame than money. It is my belief that ''Fancy Bear'' or the hacking group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 may be little more that the collection of hacking tools shared by this community.
CrowdStrike, no doubt, is active following, if not participating in this scene. In some cases CrowdStrike and their Ukrainian contacts seem to have exclusive access to the Fancy Bear malware.
There is evidence that directly links ''Fancy Bear'' and the alleged tools used in the DNC ''hack'' to Ukraine.
The journalist George Eliason has written extensively on the Ukrainian connection to Russiagate. He believes, based on evidence that ''Fancy Bear'', the Ukrainian CyberHunta, and the Russian hacker group Shaltai Boltai are actually one and the same or at least closely collaborating. They again are allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. Leading Shaltai Boltai members have been arrested in Russia, some of them FSB officers, and charged with treason for working for the US.
In January 2017 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claimed that the DNC was hacked by Russian intelligence services using a Russian malware tool they have named ''Grizzly Steppe''. I identified the author of the software using cyber forensics. He was a Ukrainian university student from the Poltava National Technical University. Almost a year later the New York Times confirmed the story. Supposedly he has become a witness for the FBI in the Russiagate case.
The hacking tool was made publicly on the web. Anyone could have used it. Ukraine is at least as likely a suspect as Russia is.
3.VIPS has repeatedly stated that the DNC server had never been hacked. What's your take on their technical report and are there any other independent cyber analysts who came to similar conclusions?
VIPS follows work originally done by Adam Carter and The Forensicator. Their aim was to prove that the Guccifer 2.0 persona is a hoax created intentionally to act as Russian intelligence. The evidence comes from the material leaked by Guccifer 2.0.
The US Intelligence community and special counsel Mueller claim that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian intelligence, more specifically 12 Russian intelligence officers indicted by the US Department of Justice in July 2018. Guccifer 2.0 allegedly hacked the DNC. They also claim that Guccifer 2.0 was the source that leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks.
What The Forensicator and VIPS has shown is that it would have been impossible for Guccifer 2.0 to hack the DNC. This is done by a forensic analysis of the DNC material released by Guccifer 2.0 independent of Wikileaks. The important evidence is in the multiple layers of timestamps in the emails and the email archives. They show that the files were copied to an USB flash drive by an insider with physical access to the DNC servers.
The VIPS material says nothing about how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails. Wikileaks says they were passed by an insider. Ray McGovern and Craig Murray say they have first-hand knowledge of how the transfer happened. Some people claim that that the insider was Seth Rich. The VIPS report throws no light on this. What it does is it proves that the Mueller narrative of Guccufer 2.0 hacking the DNC and passing the material on to Wikileaks is a hoax. It also suggests that whoever created Guccifer 2.0 was close to DNC and CrowdStrike.
4.What technical measures should be taken to find out whether the much discussed "hacking" took place and who was behind it? Could the examination of the DNC server help sort this issue now and for all?
Is Trump suggesting that the DNC servers are stored in Ukraine? Not the physical servers, naturally but a copy of their contents or parts of it after the alleged ''hack'' is claimed to have happened? I do not think a search of the DNC servers this late would reveal anything new. A search of the CrowdStrike servers could be far more revealing.
Adam Carter claims malware on the DNC servers was compiled after CrowdStrike started working at the DNC. How did it get there? Was it inserted by CrowdStrike or their Ukrainian collaborators?
There is one piece of critical evidence that that could solve all this. If Seth Rich truly was the leaker inside DNC then the Federal Government must have some evidence of this. Trump would save himself from a lot of trouble if he was ablate release this evidence.
Off-Guardian has unexpectedly gone offline. My January 2017 article can also be found here:
Did a Ukrainian University Student Create Grizzly Steppe?Posted by: Petri Krohn | Oct 3 2019 22:12 utc | 37
"I wonder whether that "Joe Sixpack of Peoria" is smart enough and has dug so deep so as to know..." (about Trump's father's facistic tendencies. Or for that matter Roy Cohn's.
I doubt it. And I doubt whether it would make any difference if he did. Joe isn't a political theorist or a student of the history of ideas, he's a guy trying to make end meet in an economy crumbling all around him. Just like the highway he takes to one of his jobs or the schools that his kids now have to pay to go to. All he knows is that things get worse for him while politicians and the vast class of those dependent on them get richer. And richer. And he is no longer ready to believe that it is all his fault
Posted by: bevin | Oct 3 2019 22:16 utc | 38
Keith @14
Thanks for the link to the Risen article in the Intercept. This further confirms what a reactionary rag they are turning out to be. I exempt Glen Greenwald from this charge since editorial control is not in his hands, Obenmyer brought him in to the provide a leftish credibility for his enterprise. If Glen was a little more sophisticated about international politics I doubt he would allow himself to used in this way.
In any case, Risen certainly has come up with one of the better arguments that Hunter and his dad are not corrupt that this whole Burisma case shows them to be. Oh my, unbelievable -- Risen is asking us to feel sorry for poor Hunter because he was a natural loser over-shadowed my his father and more illustrious brother. No disputing the facts except to simply assert that the Republicans are liars and replaces their narrative with Risen's tale of woe.
Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 3 2019 22:23 utc | 39
b: I am not against an impeachment of Trump. But to go after him because he asks serious questions about Biden's shenanigan in the Ukraine is not a productive way do that.Yes. . . and1. "Responsible" people in the media have said that Trump urged, or demanded the Zelensky provide "dirt" on Biden which amounts to foreign election meddling. But he didn't, and it isn't.2. No Trump crimes have been revealed, so3. as with Russian collusion they'll subpoena any one they can think of, try to catch them in a false statement and send them off to prison, a fine spectacle.
Regarding Biden, if his conduct with Ukraine was above approach, if he did nothing wrong, why is it wrong to get the details? And since voters want the most information they can get in order to exercise their voting franchise wisely, isn't that contributing to the election, and not meddling in it?
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2019 22:25 utc | 40
b ended the article with this:
"But to go after him because he asks serious questions about Biden's shenanigan in the Ukraine is not a productive way do that."
So why the heck *did* Demos go with this issue as their means totake Trump down?
I hesitate to post this as it is such a far out idea.But take it as food for thought.
Hillary wants to throw her hat back in the ring. Who can doubt that?
How could Hillary's people take out Trump AND Biden with one magicbullet?
Was this Ukraine issue created so that Biden gets dirtied and Trump gets impeached? And then Hillary rides in to save the day.
Posted by: librul | Oct 3 2019 22:35 utc | 41
I'll add a 4, Don Bacon:
4) They hastily changed the law on whistleblower evidence to include evidence by hearsay.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 3 2019 22:46 utc | 42
@ 45Nobody is shocked by US-caused regime change any more, if they ever were. It had an early start, against the Native Americans.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2019 22:52 utc | 43
@ juliania 46Yes, plus Mr X is not really a whistleblower delivering a complaint based on personal knowledge about a bad situation in his own agency (IC).
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2019 22:55 utc | 44
@ librul 44Hillary wants to throw her hat back in the ring. Who can doubt that?Wanting and getting are two different things.
The Dems haven't had an open convention since 1952. Recent conventions have been mostly ceremonial commercials because most of the delegates voting will be pledged to a candidate as a result of the primaries. The 2020 Dem convention in Milwaukee will be no different unless Biden and Sanders drop dead, or something nearly as radical.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2019 23:06 utc | 46
Great piece b! Re: Burisma: "Two oligarchs, Ihor Kolomoisky and Victor Pinchuk have been named as the possible new owners. DW could not reach Kolomojski for comment about Burisma. Pinchuk refuse to comment but is said to have a good relationship with the Democratic Party..."
As does his dinner companion the foreign minister of Canada with whom he goes way back:
Posted by: John Gilberts | Oct 3 2019 23:09 utc | 47
@13 vinnieohThe early resistance in Ukraine was very very much local, not Russian backed, and dependent on local resources and more importantly the level of prepared (nazi) militia aggression. Thus Kharkov rebels failed to take control of its regions simply because of the level of violence offered by the militia. Even though Kharkov is close to the Russian border and could have received plenty of Russian support if it wanted it. Odessa did not rebel because of the arson that lead to many leaders dieing. Mariupol was also one of the first areas to get the militia treatment. Likewise the military equipment and organisation did not come from Russia but from the Ukrainian army. It takes little imagination to realise that in 2014 most of the better officers in the Ukraine army were immediately sympathetic to the rebels and many left to join them. They also knew where the massive arms dumps were. (Whereas Soviet troops in say Poland took their weapons back with them after their gradual withdrawal in 1990-94, the weapons in Ukraine were left in enormous dumps. Largely sold off now to assist US aims in ME and oligarch needs for cash - hence the massive explosions at the dumps in last few years to cover up for the missing arms).Russian supplied arms came later, but at first the civil war, rebels and militia, was supplied by local dumps.
In other words the territory of the rebels has little to do with Russian intervention, but everything to do with happenstance and Ukrainian planning. All those violent men owned by oligarchs didn't arise by chance, anymore than the Maidan snipers.
Posted by: Michael Droy | Oct 3 2019 23:10 utc | 48
Paveway IV @ 27, 34:
The current Ukrainian Prosecutor General (equivalent to Attorney General in other countries) is Ruslan Riaboshapka.
To understand Ukrainian politics, best try to understand it as parallel to warlord politics in Afghanistan or Libya, or Mafia politics in Italy: different organisations and their hangers-on revolving around a leader or a hardcore leadership but all equally up to their eyeballs in corruption, criminal activities and willingness to use torture and violence to get their way.
With Volodymyr Zelensky as President, and Ihor Kolomoisky having sponsored the president's previous TV career and comedy series, the likelihood is that Ze may be under some pressure to get Riaboshapka to go after previous President Petro Poroshenko (who did not entirely divest himself of all his businesses while President, despite being required to do so under Ukrainian law, and continued to hold some under trusts managed by a Rothschilds-owned company) and former Prime Minister Julia Tymoshenko for her role in signing a deal with Gazprom and claiming she had Verkhovna Rada parliamentary approval (which she did not) to do so.
What's not likely to happen is President Ze asking Riaboshapka to investigate why his patron needs to hold three passports (Ukrainian, Cypriot, Israeli) in violation of Ukrainian law that Ukrainian citizens cannot be citizens of another country or countries, or his patron's own links to Burisma Holdings.
I'll do a Scooter Libby / Karl Rove here: a current Board Director at Burisma Holdings is ex-CIA official Joseph Cofer Black.
US influence peddling goes on.
Posted by: Jen | Oct 3 2019 23:16 utc | 49
Adrian E @ 22
I found your comment so helpful I am repeating it in a format that isa bit more readable:
Of course, it can hardly be proven that protecting his son Hunter was the goal of Biden demanding that Ukraine immediately fires Shokin, using threats of withholding money. There may have been different reasons.
But whether this is the reason is not everything that counts.
First, Biden's uncivilized behavior towards Ukraine (and his bragging about it) is obviously completely unacceptable. In some ways, it may remind people of some outrageous actions of Trump, but in any case, it does not support Biden's claim that he represents a style that is very different from Trump. Of course, in a way, it was just honest to treat Ukraine openly as a kind of US colony after the US supported coup and this is the real problem, not that Biden was so open about it.
Second, the fact that Hunter Biden received such a lucrative position in Ukraine at the time when Joe Biden was Obama's main representative in Ukraine and traveled there all the time, even though Hunter Biden had no relevant experience and qualifications and had just been fired from the Navy because of drug use is just obviously unethical. This was a way for Ukrainian oligarchs to buy Joe Biden's support, and with his behavior, Joe Biden clearly showed that he was the one they had to please. I find it hilarious that there are people who defend this corruption scheme and pretend it was normal that an unqualified relative of an influential government person is hired for a lucrative position ("for his connections"). The only thing such statements reveal is the people who make them have very low ethical standards.
It is a fact that some people have very low ethical standards. But when Democrats now want to criminalize any talk about the Biden family corruption, they certainly go too far.
I also find it absurd that the Democrats willingly put themselves in the position of mainly being the party for the defense of corruption. In a way, of course, this is nothing new. They also pretended it is completely normal that Bill Clinton raked in huge sums from foreign governments both personally for speeches and for the Clinton Foundation at the same time as his wife dealt with these governments as Secretary of State. Any criticism of this was allegedly a "right-wing conspiracy theory".
I used to think that Democrats are the lesser evil compared to Republicans, and in areas such as healthcare or taxes they probably are (from my rather left-wing point of view according to which the Democrats are slightly less right-wing in economic matters, though still very far to the right). But when Democrats are now mainly the party for giving the secret services more and more power and defending corruption, I am not so sure whether they have not become the greater evil by now.
One may think it is a dumb action by Democrats to give the topic of Hunter Biden and Burisma so much prominence. But this may be besides the point. After all, media that support the Democrats had made a completely evidence-free conspiracy theory about Russia the main topic for year, and many people in the radicalized pro-CIA base of corporate Democrats still believe this conspiracy theory. So, they can probably put forward anything, and among their radicalized base hardly anyone will look at it critically. Whether they can convince a majority of voters is, of course, a different question. But that is probably difficult, anyway - soon more information about the beginnings of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and how Democrats and secret services set it up will come out, and after that, it will be difficult, anyway, for Democrats to find support outside their radicalized base that does not care about facts and evidence.
Posted by: Adrian E. | Oct 3 2019 20:41 utc | 22
Thank you for your insights.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 3 2019 23:19 utc | 50
Below is a link about Joe Biden that speaks to his character and connection to the monied world....he is from Delaware that is where most US corporations are formed because profit
Joe Biden Backed Bills To Make It Harder For Americans To Reduce Their Student Debt
The student debt problem has been discussed recently on other links at MoA and is a sad commentary about the financialization of America and how used to control the populace....ex-students in debt are not going to challenge the status quo while they are struggling to keep their heads above water financially
Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 4 2019 0:04 utc | 51
I came across a curious thing in here https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-china-biden-ukraine-volker-1.5307076 "Trump supporters have accused Joe Biden of leading a U.S. effort to remove a Ukraine prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in a bid to end investigations at Burisma, an energy company in which his son held a board seat.
But Ukraine officials have gone on record stating that any inquiries into potential corruption at Burma were focused on the 2011-2012 period, two years before the younger Biden joined the board. Shaken was removed by then-president Petro Poroshenko in early 2016 after just over a year in the role. "
I am wondering about the bold part. I frequently cite MOA in abc.ca/news comments and I got shot down by the above. Is the bold part correct?
Posted by: rtfan | Oct 4 2019 0:32 utc | 52
The sooner Joe Biden departs politics, the better. He is definitely this seasons HRC. Both, bought and paid for, by the party of big global money.
That Biden helped his unqualified son to a position that paid big money, is not news. Don't most parents of wealth and influence do the same?
Including DJT..
Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2019 0:49 utc | 53
Did Biden ask for the resignation of any other Prosecutor Generals when he was VP? Have other VPs sought the resignation of a foreign prosecutor?
Posted by: Qualtrough | Oct 4 2019 1:10 utc | 54
@ 61; Who knows? Bottom line, Biden's a scum bag. Case closed for me...
Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2019 1:15 utc | 55
Biden is simply the current face of the Clinton russiagate corrupt mess that is the democratic party.
This from politico"Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham on Wednesday asked several foreign leaders to continue to assist Attorney General William Barr with his investigation into the 2016 election.
In a letter to the prime ministers of Australia, Italy and Britain, the South Carolina Republican requested their ''continued cooperation with Attorney General Barr as the Department of Justice continues to investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 election.''At President Donald Trump's urging, Barr is examining how the FBI investigation into connections between Russia and the Trump campaign began.Graham stated in the letter that during the 2016 election, the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities used a ''deeply flawed dossier filled with hearsay and written by a biased, former United Kingdom intelligence officer'' '-- a reference to the so-called Steele dossier '-- as part of its investigation."https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/02/lindsey-graham-barr-foreign-leaders-022594
The good thing about the US infighting is that it slows down their destruction of, and loosens their grip on other countries. Hanging their Ukraine dirty laundry out in public, backing separate sides in Saudi Arabia ect.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 4 2019 1:33 utc | 56
Peter AU1 said @ 63; "The good thing about the US infighting is that it slows down their destruction of, and loosens their grip on other countries. Hanging their Ukraine dirty laundry out in public, backing separate sides in Saudi Arabia ect."
Yep, guess there's always a silver lining.
I'm thoroughly enjoying Two totally corrupt political parties going at it. That's my silver lining..
Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2019 1:42 utc | 58
I remember after the maiden coup in which Biden played a prominent part that the newly appointed finance minister spoke only English. A number of Ukrainian officials could not speak the countries language but could only speak English. Those legitimate protests and future coup was hijacked by US interests and that should be enough of a clue for everyone where the fate of the Ukraine was headed in the medium term.
Biden was in place to capitalize on the new direction for the Ukraine and its new business interests with the West. Small wonder why his son would be involved in the process riding Air force two to cut business deals that support western interests. This may not be illegal but it lays at the heart of how the Empires' business is conducted and it is something they will never be taken to task for in the mainstream.
Trumps fishing around all the deep interests of these business deals may be his downfall. He should know better as his son in law is probably doing exactly the same thing.
So it lays there flopping around like a fish out of water until it gives up the ghost or does him in. My guess is that many want this whole thing to go away once they extract enough damage to both sides out of this. Trump is on his way out and overplaying their hand on this is the worst thing they can accomplish. Even Fox News is turning against him.
You can be assured once Trump is gone any talk of peace with North Korea, pulling out of Afghanistan, and backing away for the many conflicts he has talked about will be long gone. Love him or hate him he has attempted to steer the bureaucracy away from using the MIC while massively funding the MIC.
The peace deal shaping up with Zelinsky, the Eastern regions, and his backer could tear the country apart some more with its western regions moving closer to the west. My guess is that the lines are being drawn for a future conflict with Russia. NATO has lost hope of bases in Crimea and now Russia appears to be gaining a buffer between them and the west. More blow back from Western policies interfering in other peoples business for cash and prizes.
Russia also must comply with US Western business interests or else. There appears to be some slight backing away for this policy in France and Germany.
Excellent links and posts, it will take some time for anyone who wants to get a deeper handle on the story.
Posted by: dltravers | Oct 4 2019 3:08 utc | 60
Aziz | Oct 3 2019 22:14 utc: Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Corrupt, Dim-Witting Agent of British Intelligence?
Ha ha! Imagine Joe Biden as an honest and brilliant agent of British intelligence. Kind of James Bond in his latter years (note the same initials, coincidence? I do not think so.)
More seriously, many followers of Bandera and veterans of SS Galizien fled westward escaping Soviet wrath and were recruited by American and British intelligence, with many settling in Canada that already had notable Ukrainian communities. They were active in propaganda and presumably had links to those who were fighting guerrilla war against Soviets for roughly 5 years after 1945. So since 1945 there were plans to "liberate" Ukraine with those guys being in the vanguard.
Similar links to fascist epigones, misnamed Neo-Nazi (followers of the original creeds! no Neo-) were cultivated for Baltics and Croatians and all were activated when Soviet Union was ending. Naturally, all of them got warm bipartisan support in USA, fighters for freedom with CIA recommendations. Congress sports Ukrainian Causus with 40+ members and Senate counterpart has 15 members. All dead set on liberation of Crimea from dreadful occupation etc. It is a bit of mystery why Ukrainian caucus is so small, while Baltic Caucus has 70+ members.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2019 4:38 utc | 61
It seems to me like this whole thing was brewed up by the CIA/Brennan not to get rid of Trump, because that will never occur with the Senate, but to shut down any attempts to investigate CrowdStrike and the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane operation. Trump's team has investigated Australia and Ukraine for a reason, and spooks probably panicked about findings are trying to make any accountability seem like a criminal operation.
Posted by: Blooming Barricade | Oct 4 2019 5:12 utc | 62
@David Park #20
As much as I would like to read this material, the extra-wide lines are just to inconvenient.b has now removed the offending comment, but the problem will inevitably occur again. Use Firefox browser (breaks long strings, such as URLs, at "/" characters) or, if using Safari, apply this fix (will break any long string, e.g. the infamous ~~~~ string that led to a squabble which was the last straw that made karlof1 leave the site).
Posted by: S | Oct 4 2019 6:08 utc | 64
Sorry, B, with the greatest respect, if u r looking to allege corruption over Biden n his son, u will have to look somewhere else.
1)In my part of the world, it is normal, common n part of Company Law and normal business practice to appoint independent directors to the boards of big companies even if they have no experience or skill wrt the company's business. They r appointed to strengthen anti-corruption oversight of the board, to bring in contacts or business and so on.
There is absolutely nothing legally wrong or uncommon with the Biden son appointment. Thus said, for Trump to allege corruption simply because Hunter was appointed is silly and foolish. It's the norm in the business world, even if it does not seem right. I have seen hundreds of appointments like this.
Also, didn't Trump want to have his daughter Ivanka appointed as IMF head? Any difference from Hunter Biden and Burisma? Yet because of this, Trump is calling Biden "stone-cold corrupt".Give us a break. If Trump wants to allege corruption with Biden, he should try elsewhere. He's already gotten into an
impeachment situation with his foolishness and seems to be making it worse by day.
Posted by: Watcher | Oct 4 2019 7:31 utc | 65
S | Oct 4 2019 6:08 utc | 64...e.g. the infamous ~~~~ string that led to a squabble which was the last straw that made karlof1 leave the site).
That is not a wholly accurate statement.Karlof1 left because Hoarsewhisperer all but called Karlof1 a liar over the broken paragraph.Just to be clear...
Posted by: V | Oct 4 2019 7:50 utc | 66
Thanks b and all the posters. I thought (na¯vely now) that the Ukraine had a decent shot of success after the breakup of the USSR. Little did I realise the depth of corruption that existed and was able to persist because of outside pressures. Only years later when I a co-worker who had emigrated from the Ukraine described to me the depth of corruption that existed there did I get a better picture. The country was ransacked. It would take a strong and confident leader to clean up this mess. Ukraine is too much of an artificial construct to be able to do that, and that made it easy prey for those who sought to tear it apart for a geopolitical gain. It will fall apart to its neighbours and will be no more.
Thanks to those who raised the fracking of Ukrainian gas, a very important point I think.
Trump's popularity has risen since the DNC stepped on the Ukrainian rake. Trumps supporters dont really need to understand all the intricacies of Ukrainegate. All they need to do is look at the daily antics of the Democrats and the media hysteria that back this farce. They can see this is Russian collusion BS all over again. Trump Derangement Symptom is alive and well, tearing the country apart for their inability to accept Hillary lost. Democrats are stuck at the first two stages of grief, denial and anger. They will never reach the final stage at the rate they are going. TDS, I live with one who is affected and I live in Canada, and no I'm not a dual citizen like a certain person running for the Conservative party in Canada! Your prayers are gratefully accepted. (No, I'm not a MAGA fan)
Posted by: Tom | Oct 4 2019 7:51 utc | 67
Thanky Petri Krohn #37, your mention of Guccifer 2 prompted me to recall his predecessor, Guccifer (Marcel LazÄr Lehel of Romania). Last I heard he was a prisoner of the USA doing time for hacking Bush the dill and Powell the clown.
He had already served time in Romania for the crime but the USA fascists under Obummer's regime attempted to extradite him for more brutality USA style. Is he now a free man or still in Romanian prison? He insists that Guccifer 2 is an invention of the USA government.
Do you know of his fate as we owe him a debt of gratitude.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 4 2019 7:54 utc | 68
dhtravers @60
"Those legitimate protests and future coup was hijacked by US interests..."
No, it was all illegitimate, the maiden was all neo-Nazi and provoked by US/west from the very start. It was all predicated on exploiting the differences between eastern-Ukraine (ethnic Galician) and western-Ukraine (ethnic Russian). It was all US/western instigated and planned from the start and it was all murderous from the start. The protests weren't hijacked; they were instigated.
-----
To reveal the whole truth about Ukraine would mean revealing that the shooting down of MH-17 and the murder of 298 people was carried out by the US/West with the assistance of it's Ukrainian vassals. This cannot be allowed, therefore it must follow that nothing will really happen with regard to Biden's corruption or Trump's impeachment beyond a comical Mexican stand-off.
Posted by: ADKC | Oct 4 2019 8:25 utc | 69
Meanwhile back in the messy state of affairs known as reality, the Guardian reports on electronic comnunications between Trump administration diplomats clearly indicating a quid pro quo arrangement linking US aid to Ukraine to an investigation of Trump's political rival and requiring Zelenskiy's public statements announcing same.
Now we begin to see from where Trump's recent erratic public behaviour (even by his standards) stems.
Trump is in deep shit here. There clearly is active participation by many working as government employees within the the Trump administration to dig for Biden dirt on the taxpayer's dime and this community at the very least should acknowledge that fact by looking at reality uhm from a realistic standpoint.
Im no Greenwald fan primarily because of his Citizens United advocacy but the Intercept is credibly chasing the actual story here not spinning webs of convoluted "besides the points" and conspiratard nonsense to distract and spin away from the actual story like GOP party hacks so many commenters wish to emulate.
For some strangely fascistic reasons which make no sense on any level of leftism.
Posted by: donkeytale | Oct 4 2019 8:32 utc | 70
OMFG dltravers has been exhumed #60!
Peter AU 1 #56 citing Politico: "Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham on Wednesday asked several foreign leaders to continue to assist Attorney General William Barr with his investigation into the 2016 election.
In a letter to the prime ministers of Australia, Italy and Britain, the South Carolina Republican requested their ''continued cooperation with Attorney General Barr as the Department of Justice continues to investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 election.''
Hint to Lindsay Graham (if he is serious) why not ask the Australian Government if the Clinton Foundation fully acquitted the $30Million taxpayers donation via their Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. That is the same Alexander Downer that tried to trick Papadopulos AND is now a member of Citizens=Network. I dare Lindsay to ask for all details but I guess he is too chickenshit stupid.
Good research by Kit Klarenberg see Sputnik: https://tinyurl.com/yxearfzh
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 4 2019 9:05 utc | 71
V #65
Karlof1 left because Hoarsewhisperer all but called Karlof1 a liar over the broken paragraph.Just to be clear...
sad - I trust Karlof1 has only taken a sabbatical. If he returns i will gladly burn my chabad fedora and scatter the ashes on the bunya nut tree :)
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 4 2019 9:20 utc | 72
uncle tungsten | Oct 4 2019 9:20 utc | 71
I would gladly join you in said ceremony of scattering the ashes on the bunya nut tree.;-)
Posted by: V | Oct 4 2019 10:02 utc | 73
Blooming barricade @62: That's my take on it too, allowing that there are lots of other people who want to impeach Trump, the main purpose of cranking up the impeachment hysteria now is to distract from all the things that SHOULD be investigated done by non-Trump persons working in and around the cloud of parasites hovering over Washington, of which there are many. Many many. But in particular the Ukrainian/DNC meddling in our 2016 election and Biden's feeding at the Ukrainian public trough.
I mean I could see impeaching him too, if not for Pence. Perhaps something could be done about Pence, have him pull an Agnew or something (but for Christian reasons of course).
Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 4 2019 10:25 utc | 74
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 3 2019 21:48 utc | 30
It seems to be common political practice in the case of banana republics. Ukraine is a banana republic.
"Anti"-Corruption has become part of global lawfare and economic warfare. Maidan started with the arrest of Dimitri Firtash in Austria on behalf of the United States, he has been fighting extradition ever since. Firtash seems to be on the good side of the US government now.
It is a "market"
''Rudy kept running around talking to everyone, but he couldn't get to first base on the Ukraine-Biden info,'' says a sometime Ukraine player who says he has direct knowledge of the market for Biden dirt. Finally, say two sources, Trump grew frustrated with his personal attorney and took a more direct approach'--one that now may earn him a place in history as one of four presidents ever to face impeachment.....A Russian diplomatic source says that the chatter among high-powered Ukrainians for months has been that the Bidens were dirty, and it was only a matter of time before Joe Biden would be forced to leave the race. It was an epic political fantasy, the ultimate score'--if only Giuliani could close the deal. (Giuliani did not return a call from Vanity Fair.) ....''People started running around, saying, 'I represent the U.S. president. What do you have for me?' And people were like, 'What do you mean, What do I have? Where's the money?''' says the source. It's the Treasure of Sierra Madre, Kiev edition. (Parnas says he has no knowledge of any payments for information, and claims that Americans will soon be surprised by the documents uncovered in Ukraine.)There is a Russian Ukrainian proxy war raging in Washington. Pass the chips, please.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 4 2019 10:42 utc | 75
When Joe says it, we should believe him...'...
In January 2013, the Vice President joked about his son's decision to join the military later in life. "We have a lot of bad judgment in my family," Biden said.
Posted by: Just Sayin' | Oct 4 2019 11:00 utc | 76
"Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?)" & @11@11 is right. Knott is a specialist in Regenstauf, Bavaria, producing brake components for trailers and special trailers. Anyway, you can use it for training th pushing back with a trailer ;-)
Posted by: Kassandra | Oct 4 2019 11:47 utc | 77
I think there should be no surprise about all these. If we are allowed to dig, we will find out all the top ranking officials are involved in many dirty dealings, among those will be the narcotics. An example would be Afghanistan, while not many people think about this, but most definitely there are some officials that are getting rich form the narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan. I think Trump should be very cautious opening a wormhole like this, because it could exposed the nature of what is going on in Washington, including his own dealings.
Posted by: Patt | Oct 4 2019 11:48 utc | 78
Dozens of Kremlin-linked mercenaries are believed to have died in an airstrike in Libya as Russia seeks to establish a foothold in the war-torn country.
They were fighting alongside forces loyal to the self-styled Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a Gaddafi-era general backed by Moscow. They are thought to have been employed by the Wagner Group, a shadowy private military contractor linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy Russian businessman known as ''Putin's chef'' because of his Kremlin catering contracts.
Posted by: Fake? | Oct 4 2019 12:07 utc | 80
DHTravers @ 60:
That's right, the Minister for Finance in Petro Poroshenko's government when it first formed was Natalie Jaresko, a US citizen who didn't last very long. She was granted Ukrainian citizenship by Poroshenko when she was made Minister for Finance. For some reason she did not give up US citizenship even though Ukrainian Law forbids government officials from having dual citizenship.
Jaresko was originally a hedge fund manager and in this respect the most remarkable thing about her is that her ex-husband reported her to US authorities for corrupt practices in dealing with a US government-funded investment company way back in 2010.
Posted by: Jen | Oct 4 2019 12:10 utc | 81
somebody @75
Such an ignorant post. Nobody could be so misinformed, so your post can only be intended to manipulate readers that you suppose are stupid.
Ukraine has never been a "banana republic". Ukraine is a modern developed state. It has industries and standards comparable to most western countries; in fact, Ukraine would be indistinguishable from most western countries. Ukraine even has a long-standing and still functioning Space Agency.
Ukrainians are relatively well-educated and sophisticated.
Ukraine's misfortunate was to allow itself to be taken over by the US/west which has exploited it, ravaged its industries and stolen its resources, disrupted its existing essential economic relations (without providing viable alternatives), abused and misdirected Ukrainian policy and military and diplomatic postures. It is the US/West that has (up to now) insisted that Ukraine continue shelling the breakaway regions in order to prevent the implementation of the Minsk agreement.
You intend your reader to mislead themselves into believing that the Maidan is all about Firtash when the whole maidan project was about a US/western takeover of Ukraine with the aim of placing western military right on Russia's borders and stealing Crimea (and the Sevastopol Naval Base) away from Russia.
The truth is that what happened to Ukraine could happen to any developed/Western country if that is what the US decided to inflict.
You allow your reader to assume that it is all Ukraine's fault while you "pass the chips" as if it has nothing to do with the US/west and affect to appear oblivious to the unpleasant truth that those "chips" are washed down with a hell of a lot of blood that was split at the US/west's express wishes.
Posted by: ADKC | Oct 4 2019 12:36 utc | 82
Posted by: ADKC | Oct 4 2019 12:36 utc | 84
Ok. I take the "banana republic" back. Ukraine does not only export coal, iron, wheat and corn but also - still - a few weapons. My guess is that all state of the art industry has transferred to Russia . or China.This is not political but simply necessary as their production is different from Western industry standards.
But you are posing an interesting question on the direction corruption takes. Was "Maidan" a US project they bribed Ukrainians for or did Ukrainians bribe US politicians to intervene in an Ukrainian civil war.
I suggest it is bidirectional.
In any case normal people like you and me and people in Ukraine do not have a say in it, the only choice is between robber barons.
Ukrainian oligarchs get their money as and if they are in control of one of the main routes of Russian gas to Europe.
So yes, the US have a strategic interest (if the strategy is "to contain Russia") in controlling Ukraine, stop North Stream 2 and sell their own fracked gas.
And Ukraining oligarchs have an interest of US protection against Russia and their Ukrainian competitors.
Somehow this works in a way that Ukrainian oligarchs feel they have to bribe US politicians and involve themselves in US elections.
Maybe because in reality US strategic interest would be to partner with Russia and contain China? Remember the "reset?" Obama and Clinton started out with? That was in 2009. Also in 2009 during the Honduran coup, Obama stated
"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there."[41] He stated: "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections."[41] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, however, equivocated, saying that "We do think that this has evolved into a coup" and noting that under U.S. law, officially declaring a coup would oblige the U.S. to cut off most foreign aid to Honduras."So Obama caved to Clinton. Why?
Posted by: somebody | Oct 4 2019 13:44 utc | 83
You know what I think? I think our own country--the United States of America--is rapidly turning into Ukraine. We now have Trump and Biden going at each other like two Ukrainian oligarchs; our country is ever more bitterly divided by region and identity ... I suspect some day soon it'll be the Ukes knocking over our government in 'color revolution' coup!
Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Oct 4 2019 14:13 utc | 84
Anyway, you can use it for training th pushing back with a trailer ;-)
Posted by: Kassandra | Oct 4 2019 11:47 utc | 77
Search for "Knott trainer" also returns a number of personal trainers with the family name Knott.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2019 14:33 utc | 85
The goal, Jaresko noted, is to reduce Puerto Rico's debt to a level that it could feasibly control.
Posted by: Aziz | Oct 4 2019 12:36 utc | 85
So now Boris and Natasha (Natalie) loot Puerto Rico, having done yeoman job in Ukraine? I am not sure about Boris, but is it OK to give such important positions to foreign citizens (Natasha)?
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2019 14:38 utc | 86
"Im no Greenwald fan primarily because of his Citizens United advocacy but the Intercept is credibly chasing the actual story here ..." donkeytale@69 In the unlikely event that anyone should be tempted top follow the above advice: be warned, it is nonsense. The Intercept, whose proprietor is up to his ears in collusion with the Maidan fascists, has been engaged in a full court press, involving every lackey in the brothel, to deny the obvious and transparent reality that Biden's position is indefensible. As to Trump's breach of protocol: the US has imposed its demands on foreign satellite leaders for decades. (Julian Assange in Belmarsh attests to that.) In this case Trump's call on Ukraine to assist in his investigation of Biden's actions obviously led to to resistance on the part of Zelensky, who blanches at the insistence that he cooperates in an investigation of his own sponsors' crimes. The Ukraine is but one of many states in eastern Europe, Russia included, which has learned that the "Freedom" that Voice of America talks about is Hobbesian criminality, in which the people and their wealth are devoured by criminals who cream off their ill gotten gains and deposit them in London, Wall St and Bay Street, Toronto. In this noble enterprise they are assisted by the third generation of Neo Nazis-take a bow Chrystia Freeland- preserved in exile for just such an occasion. Those who talk of democracy in Ukraine (or Haiti) must always bear in mind that voters are not giving the choice of voting for the Communist Party or Aristide. If they could they would and the outflow of funds to the west would come to an end.
Posted by: bevin | Oct 4 2019 14:47 utc | 87
@ somebody 86So Obama caved to Clinton. Why?Because Obama was basically a man with a weak character, compensating by being a warmonger who upon reaching office foolishly sent 70,000 troops to Afghanistan, and who also had a weakness for Hillary's hawkishness, reference Libya, Syria and then Ukraine.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 4 2019 14:50 utc | 88
"...that the media have not picked up on?..."
Confused. Still think you're watching 'news' and not 'opinion pieces' meant to guide their sheep?
Posted by: Occams | Oct 4 2019 14:52 utc | 89
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Oct 3 2019 20:43 utc | 21. Biden with Gabbard as a running mate?
One can see some obstacles, like laws against groping of minors, but the concept has a promise. Especially if MDs will officially, before the election, provide a diagnosis that Biden will not be able to function as a president.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2019 15:16 utc | 90
@48 Michael Droy
Thanks for the information. I see the US as being the instigator and culprit of the coup in Ukraine, and wasn't trying to advance some thinly veiled accusations of Russian machinations. Tried to qualify my comments, perhaps ineffectively. I stated that it was all about the US shale gas industry, but of course there's much more to it than that. I hope the perspective that you relayed is accurate. Since the coup I've tried to understand the truth of developments there, but have been struggling to determine which sources to trust. Not talking about the official narrative of US "news" (which I reject just about automatically) but about Ukrainian, European, and Russian sources. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and many have real grievances.
The US made a power play. It perceived a weakness of its "enemy" and exploited it. Perhaps as an ultimate objective or maybe as just a huge bonus, depriving Russia of Sevastopol was an aim. Once the coup succeeded and the US (and cronies) recognized that as legitimate, Russia was wrong-footed into protecting an asset critical to its survival. Though the Russians didn't lose Sevastopol they lost that round of the information war to the western dominated narrative. Painted as an aggressor and occupier. That's exceedingly rich sauce, coming from the likes of the US. Rank hypocrisy. If China were to have an "either us or them" moment and Japan gravitated there, can you imagine the US giving up Okinawa? (Acknowledging that Sevastopol as to Russia is not equivalent to Okinawa as to the US.)
Thanks and be well; just trying to understand, here in Ohio, and only because I want to know what's coming before it rolls over me.
Posted by: vinnieoh | Oct 4 2019 15:22 utc | 91
The environmental damage caused by fracking is debatable in my view. The first major large area fracked was from Dallas/Ft Worthand southwest from there. It began in the early to mid 2000's andwas done before the term fracking was even popularized. I drive this area often and have for 25 years, and now 15 years after it was done one is hard pressed to see any damage, still largely ranch country and the winter capital of the Rodeo industry. Thebest arguments against fracking are economic it is a big time money loser.
Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Oct 4 2019 15:35 utc | 92
Thanks to Petri Kohn @ 37 for an insightful addition to b's analysis of early events. I will support what you say by repeating b's penultimate comment:
"...That U.S. main stream media try to obfuscate or even deny that Shokin was serious in his investigation lets one doubt their other claims about the Biden affair and the now evolving impeachment inquiry..."
b has laid the groundwork for further discovery. And one point your remarks about Ukrainians masquerading as Russians that hasn't been investigated here so far is their immediate anti-Russian-language law, that required the Ukranian language to be the sole language used after the coup. This effort to distinguish 'true' Ukrainians from Russians was surely meant to solidify the Russian-ness of the nasties doing all the infiltrating.
My investigation of karlof1's absence came up with his last post last night on the Valdai conference and a Russia/Africa one to be held in Sochi. I agree that is bound to be extremely interesting. There is more going on in the world than just the Ukraingate proceedings, important as they are to us here in the US, but I am grateful to b for putting the topic here for sober consideration, if that's possible in a bar room!
Posted by: juliania | Oct 4 2019 15:51 utc | 93
Meant to say, "...and one point further to your remarks...", sorry.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 4 2019 15:54 utc | 94
steven t johnsonJoe Biden broke the law. He violated conflict of interest laws. If you have ever worked internationally the training specially mentions recusing yourself in such cases involving family members. His stated "intentions" whether honorable or not don't matter.
Posted by: goldhoarder | Oct 4 2019 16:20 utc | 96
I am not against an impeachment of Trump.
YES YOU ARE.
If, during all this time you went after Trump like you just did here with Biden, maybe I could respect and trust the effort you made here.
Trump has dirt and skeletons pilled up to the rafters of Mar-a-Lago, up to the penthouse roof of Trump Tower and a mile high and wide, but you just won't touch that cause there's Russian crap rolled in there.
If you put even the amount of effort you put into Biden unearthing Trump shet you'd have put Robert Mueller out of business, but instead every step of the way you protected the bastard Trump and made no effort to expose Trump's dirt.
In your eagerness to trash Biden and undermine every effort to expose the shet Trump is mired in YOU DAMAGE MORE YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY AND INTEGRITY than anything else.
You pretend to be concerned with the tuth, but are you really when you only go after the convenient truth and not the one that sullies your agenda? You are not as innocent and well-intentioned as you pretend and you are definitely, definietly not on the side of GOOD. Yours is not even a case of the bad means justifying a good end!
You're clever but not that much. I really wish someone would uncover the motive behind this lopsided truth.
Posted by: Circe | Oct 4 2019 16:26 utc | 97
Piotre Berman @ 61:
"...Ha ha! Imagine Joe Biden as an honest and brilliant agent of British intelligence. Kind of James Bond in his latter years (note the same initials, coincidence? I do not think so.)"
Maybe not an agent of British intelligence; there was a CIA man in those Ian Fleming novels too. One who often saved the day. But I think you have joked about an important aspect of Biden's character. He does think of himself as a player, I believe. Actually very like Trump in that respect, and when he was younger he was a charmer indeed.
I was wondering why it was that he wasn't the candidate of choice after Obama, but Clinton instead. Probably because of the somewhat suppressed style of his VP terms. One interview I remember well was after a trip to Davos, Switzerland for the big meetings there. It was on Charlie Rose, and clearly he had enjoyed himself.
Very much James Bond territory.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 4 2019 16:31 utc | 98
People SAY that they're skeptical of the USA political duopoly. People SAY that USA is ruled as an oligarchy via money politics. They SAY that individuals with long connections to the Deep State should not be trusted. But they prove otherwise when they take the bait and invest themselves in a divisive nothing-burger.
It would be funny, if it were not so sad.
You are being played as you wax on about Ukrainian minutiae and how the OTHER SIDE is corrupt. Our political conversation is ALL about Biden and Trump now. And it will be that way for weeks to come. The Democratic primary race is over. The Deep State wins (once again).
For more, see my comment @19.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 4 2019 16:35 utc | 99
Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Oct 4 2019 14:13 utc | 87
I agree. It is called blowback. Usually, when this happens the politicians of a country look for an enemy most people can agree on.
Any suggestions?
Posted by: somebody | Oct 4 2019 16:44 utc | 100
Trump 'Impeachment Task Force' Hellbent on Holding President 'Accountable For His Betrayal of America'
As President Donald Trump attacks House Democrats heading an impeachment inquiry of him, The Democratic Coalition is countering with a new "Impeachment Task Force" studded with liberal celebrities to protect lawmakers seeking to hold Trump "accountable for his betrayal of America."
The task force, designed to lead rapid response to Trump during the impeachment inquiry, has confirmed members including comedian Rosie O'Donnell; actors Tom Arnold, Ron Perlman and George Takei; and actresses Debra Messing and Alyssa Milano, The Democratic Coalition's co-founder Scott Dworkin told Newsweek. The task force launched a fundraising effort and basic plan on Thursday. The group has already started meeting and is set to go live with its website next week.
It aims to utilize The Democratic Coalition's massive social media following to protect House Democrats in the front lines of the impeachment inquiry on Trump.
The task force, which projects having 100 celebrities and more than 1,000 other members by next week, plans to spread hashtags to streamline impeachment information, combat disinformation and reach out to Congress through letters and phone calls.
"Trump's propaganda machine is going to be in overdrive for the foreseeable future, so we need to be fighting every day, in every way," stated Dworkin, who will work in the task force.
The coalition's chairman Jon Cooper stated, "For now, impeachment is the only way to hold him accountable for his betrayal of America."
As its logo, the task force is using a doctored presidential seal with that was mysteriously projected behind Trump as he spoke at the conservative group Turning Point USA's student summit in July. The altered seal featured a bird similar to the one on the Russian coat of arms with two heads, and clasped golf clubs instead of 13 arrows in one talon, and cash instead of an olive branch in the other talon.
The Democratic Coalition's "Impeachment Task Force" uses as its logo a doctored presidential seal that was mysteriously projected behind President Donald Trump in July, featuring a bird similar to the one in the Russian coat of arms, holding golf clubs and cash instead of 13 arrows and an olive branch. The Democratic Coalition/CourtesyOther confirmed famous task force members are musician Stefan Lessard, authors Grant Stern and Lea Black and former tennis player Martina Navratilova. Celebrities in the left-wing movement The Resistance and VoteVets will be involved, as well as former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, former congressman David Jolly, gun control activist Fred Guttenberg, patient advocate Peter Morley and progressive activist and lawyer Ady Barkan.
Dworkin said the celebrities got on board in less than 24 hours of the coalition coming up with the task force idea last week and "a lot are personal friends." Most of the celebrities, with more than 25,000 followers, will be heavily involved in video conferences, conference calls and amplifying the message "to a Trump-level on Twitter," he said.
"A lot of these celebs have been attacked by Trump people or even by Trump personally, so he will be paying attention," Dworkin said.
The Trump campaign has reportedly spent as much as $2 million running Facebook ads to enlist people in his "Official Impeachment Defense Task Force."
"I want to know who stood with me when it mattered most, which is why my team is making me a list of EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT who adds their name and joins the Official Impeachment Defense Taskforce," one of the Trump ads reads.
But Dworkin, who ran the Artists Against Trump group with more than 100 actors and musicians in 2016, believes the coalition's task force "will without a doubt, absolutely, overpower Trump's propaganda machine." The coalition consistently gets hashtags to trend on Twitter and is planning to push its task force as #TrumpITF and the overall impeachment conversation with #ImpeachTrump.
"We've been one of the key groups fighting his propaganda machine for three and a half years," Dworkin said. "We've learned a lot. And it's kind of led us to this moment."
Ukraine Halts Repayments on $3.5 Billion It Owes Russia - The New York Times
Europe | Ukraine Halts Repayments on $3.5 Billion It Owes Russia MOSCOW '-- The Ukrainian government declared a moratorium Friday on repaying about $3.5 billion in debt to Russia, introducing new strains to an already poisonous relationship.
Ukraine's cabinet prohibited further payments to Russia unless Moscow agrees to join a restructuring program that has been accepted by commercial creditors '-- a step President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has rejected '-- or a court orders Ukraine to pay up.
Ukrainian officials said that paying the Russians in full now, after commercial creditors agreed last summer to a 20 percent write-down and long delays in repayments, would be illegal and run counter to Ukraine's $17.5 billion International Monetary Fund bailout.
''If we were to repay this bond in full, it would mean we failed to meet the terms of the I.M.F. and the obligations we made under our restructuring,'' Natalie A. Jaresko, Ukraine's finance minister, said in a telephone interview on Friday.
The dispute centers on a contentious $3 billion loan that Russia granted to Ukraine in 2013 after the former Ukranian president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, rejected a trade deal with the European Union and agreed instead to join a Russian-led bloc, the Customs Union. That decision set off the street protests known as the Maidan movement that led to Mr. Yanukovych's overthrow, and subsequently war with Russia.
Russia's Finance Ministry had, for unclear reasons, structured the $3 billion loan as a Eurobond, a financial instrument typically used in commercial transactions rather than bilateral loans.
Ukraine has asserted that Russia should accept the same deal as the commercial creditors but Russia's Finance Ministry refused, saying that the loan was bilateral and therefore had to be paid in full.
Thrust into the uncomfortable role of arbiter, the International Monetary Fund initially backed the Russian position and held that the Eurobond was, in fact, a bilateral loan.
But the fund, which has Ukraine's ailing economy on life support, altered its lending rules to allow the bailout for Ukraine to go forward despite Ukraine's likely default on the Russian bond. That provided Ukraine the backing it needed to declare the moratorium on Friday.
''This is in fact a declaration of default by Ukraine,'' said Konstantin Kosachev, a Russian senator.
Russian officials have said they will sue Ukraine in a British court, as stipulated in the terms of their Eurobond issue.
The moratorium on payments to Russia covers the $3 billion bond and two sovereign loan guarantees to Russian banks.
Ukraine and Russia have in recent weeks escalated their trade war that has been simmering on the sidelines of the real war in eastern Ukraine after a series of energy and air travel disruptions earlier this fall.
Ukraine's cabinet decided on Wednesday to halt most trade with Crimea, the peninsula Russia annexed in 2014, starting in mid-January, inevitably raising the cost for Russia. Mr. Putin then signed a decree excluding Ukraine from a free-trade bloc of former Soviet states starting Jan. 1. On that date, Ukraine is scheduled to join a trade alliance with the European Union.
The International Monetary Fund, while eventually backing Ukraine on the debt dispute with Russia, has its own problems with Kiev.
The fund cautioned Friday that support could be suspended if a draft budget under consideration in Parliament is passed with a deficit greater than 3.7 percent of gross domestic product, the maximum allowed under the bailout terms.
Get news and analysis from Europe and around the world delivered to your inbox every day with the Today's Headlines: European Morning newsletter. Sign up here.
A version of this article appears in print on
, Section
A
, Page
4
of the New York edition
with the headline:
Ukraine Halts Repayments on Billions It Owes to Russia
. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
Read the Text Messages Between U.S. and Ukrainian Officials - The New York Times
Connecting Rudy Giuliani with Ukraine President Zelensky's Advisor: On July 19, Ambassador Volker texted President Trump's agent, Rudy Giuliani, to thank him for breakfast and to introduce him to Andrey Yermak, a top advisor to President Zelensky:
[7/19/19, 4:48 PM] Kurt Volker: Mr Mayor '' really enjoyed breakfast this morning. As discussed, connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky. I suggest we schedule a call together on Monday - maybe 10am or 11am Washington time? Kurt
Sondland Briefs Zelensky Ahead of Call with President Trump:1 On July 19, 2019, Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, and Mr. Taylor had the following exchange about the specific goal for the upcoming telephone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian President:
[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrow'--say noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation'--and address any specific personnel issues'--if there are any
Concerns about Ukraine Becoming an ''Instrument'' in U.S. Politics:2 On July 21, 2019, Ambassador Taylor flagged President Zelensky's desire for Ukraine not to be used by the Trump Administration for its own domestic political purposes:
[7/21/19, 1:45:54 AM] Bill Taylor: Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk's point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.
[7/21/19, 4:45:44 AM] Gordon Sondland: Absolutely, but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective of the pretext. I am worried about the alternative.
Giuliani Advocates for Trump-Zelensky Call: Mr. Yermak and Mr. Giuliani agreed to speak on the morning of July 22. Later that evening, Ambassador Volker informed Ambassadors Sondland and Taylor that Giuliani was now "advocating" for a phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky:
Texts From Top Diplomat Described 'Crazy' Plan to Keep Aid From Ukraine - The New York Times
A text exchange given to Congress as impeachment investigators questioned their first witness shows an internal dispute over whether the president was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine.
Image Kurt D. Volker, the former United States special envoy to Ukraine, arriving Thursday on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview with House investigators. Credit Credit Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via Shutterstock Published Oct. 3, 2019Updated Oct. 4, 2019
WASHINGTON '-- A top American diplomat in Ukraine repeatedly raised concerns with colleagues about the White House's decision to withhold $391 million in security aid from Ukraine, describing it as a ''crazy'' plan to withhold security assistance ''for help with a political campaign,'' according to texts released Thursday as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
The texts, which were turned over to Congress by Kurt D. Volker, the State Department's former special envoy for Ukraine, come from a series of early September exchanges. They appear to show a dispute among American diplomats over whether the president was trying to use security aid or a White House meeting with the country's new leader as leverage to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on a leading political rival '-- a charge at the heart of the impeachment investigation.
One message, written by William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, suggested that Mr. Trump was holding back the package of military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip to influence the country's president to do his political bidding.
''As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,'' Mr. Taylor wrote on Sept. 9 to Mr. Volker and Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union.
After speaking to Mr. Trump, Mr. Sondland replied, taking issue that there was any sort of direct agreement. He wrote, ''The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind.'' He then suggested the conversation move to phone rather than text.
That exchange and others emerged as congressional investigators met privately for more than nine hours on Capitol Hill with Mr. Volker, who is the first witness in their growing impeachment inquiry into whether Mr. Trump tried to bend American policy for his own political benefit by pressuring President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.
While the president has openly admitted that he wanted Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden and his son Hunter Biden, a crucial question has been whether Mr. Trump tried to use the security aid or a meeting at the White House as leverage. The money was delayed until the Trump administration released it last month amid a bipartisan outcry from lawmakers.
In his text, Mr. Sondland added, ''The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.''
It was not immediately clear what led Mr. Taylor to conclude that Mr. Trump was withholding aid as leverage over Ukraine. When the texts were sent, news reports about the delay in releasing the aid, and about attempts by Mr. Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating Mr. Biden and other Democrats, had already prompted public speculation that Mr. Trump was engaging in a quid pro quo.
But his concerns persisted. Roughly a week earlier, on Sept. 1, Mr. Taylor had asked Mr. Sondland, ''Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?''
Mr. Sondland replied simply, ''Call me.''
The next day, Mr. Taylor described a ''nightmare'' situation in which the Ukrainians announced they would conduct the investigations Mr. Trump wanted and still not receive the security assistance. ''The Russians love it,'' he wrote of that potential outcome. ''(And I quit.)''
Mr. Taylor could not be reached for comment on Thursday. The texts thrust him into the center of the blossoming controversy, and he is now almost certain to be called to testify by lawmakers.
Democrats leading the investigation said the messages ''reflect serious concerns raised by a State Department official about the detrimental effects of withholding critical military assistance from Ukraine, and the importance of setting up a meeting between President Trump and the Ukrainian president without further delay.''
Republicans demanded a full transcript of Mr. Volker's interview be released. ''The facts we learned today undercut the salacious narrative that Adam Schiff is using to sell his impeachment ambitions,'' wrote Representatives Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, the top Republicans on the Oversight and Reform and Intelligence committees, referring to the chairman of the intelligence panel.
When the Trump administration forced out Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former ambassador, before her term was up, Mr. Taylor was sent to be the charg(C) d'affaires, the No. 2 post in an embassy, and acting ambassador. Mr. Taylor was a former ambassador in Ukraine, serving from 2006 to 2009.
The texts among Mr. Volker, Mr. Sondland and Mr. Taylor portray Mr. Taylor as a diplomat deeply skeptical of the Trump administration's approach to Ukraine, flabbergasted that the military assistance had been cut off '-- and firmly believing that the White House was asking for Ukraine to begin political investigations in return for the aid being released.
In one text, he worried about how the hold would affect Ukrainians' view of the United States and if it would have ''shaken their faith in us.''
The texts also suggest that Mr. Volker, a former ambassador to NATO, was deeply intertwined in efforts by the president and Mr. Giuliani to press the Ukrainians into action.
Mr. Volker's name appears several times in an anonymous C.I.A. whistle-blower complaint that set off the impeachment inquiry, and Mr. Giuliani has said publicly he briefed Mr. Volker on his efforts. The complaint centers on a July call Mr. Trump had with Mr. Zelensky, in which he pressed him to investigate Mr. Biden, and asserts that Mr. Volker advised the Ukrainians on how to ''navigate'' Mr. Trump's demands.
In his session with investigators, Mr. Volker presented himself as a diplomat caught in the middle ''trying to solve a problem'' and help Ukraine, but as someone who was not ''fully in the loop'' on the president's campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate his rivals, according to a person briefed on his testimony.
Mr. Volker told investigators that even as he agreed to set up a meeting between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Zelensky's top aide, he warned Mr. Giuliani that he believed the conspiracy theories Mr. Giuliani was pursuing were unfounded. While there may have been Ukrainians interested in influencing the United States government, Mr. Volker told investigators that he thought it was implausible that Mr. Biden or the Hillary Clinton campaign did anything wrong.
Mr. Volker told the committee staff that he was never informed that Mr. Trump raised Mr. Biden or the 2016 election during the July 25 phone call, nor was he shown the rough transcript afterward. He was in Ukraine at the time and met the next day with Mr. Zelensky, who he said raised no concerns about the call with him.
In his testimony, Mr. Volker told investigators he believed Mr. Taylor was a diplomat of high integrity. But he also said he did not see the freezing of the assistance as directly linked to Mr. Trump's interest in beginning a new Ukraine investigation as Mr. Taylor did, according to a person familiar with the testimony.
Mr. Taylor concluded that the assistance was linked to Mr. Trump's desire for new investigations in Ukraine based on news reports, Mr. Volker testified, according to the person. While Mr. Taylor feared the aid would never come, Mr. Volker told House investigators he was sure that Congress or the Pentagon would force the administration to release the assistance and the issue would be resolved. Mr. Volker believed if he could persuade Mr. Trump that Mr. Zelensky was trustworthy, he could push the relationship to a better place, he said in his testimony.
Mr. Volker told the committee that he did not act at Mr. Pompeo's behest but briefed the secretary of state who approved of his actions. He also said he kept John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, informed.
The interview, which Mr. Volker participated in voluntarily, took place out of public view. The text exchange was part of a trove of more than 60 pages of documents, many of them texts, that Mr. Volker provided before he arrived.
Mr. Volker resigned on Friday from his part-time, unpaid State Department post without public explanation. A person familiar with his thinking said the longtime diplomat concluded he could no longer be effective in the post in light of the unfolding scandal. But the resignation also freed him to appear before the House investigators without restrictions, according to people familiar with his account.
Democrats are pushing their impeachment investigation forward with haste, issuing near-daily requests or subpoenas for documentary evidence and witness testimony.
The session with Mr. Volker was the first in what is expected to be a fast-paced series of interviews in the coming weeks, when Democrats aim to bring a parade of witnesses behind closed doors for questioning. Ms. Yovanovitch is expected to appear next week.
Other State Department diplomats, including Mr. Sondland, and associates of Mr. Giuliani's are scheduled to participate, as well, but it remains to be seen whether they will appear voluntarily. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the committee this week that its requests were inappropriately aggressive and untenable.
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York, and Lara Jakes from Washington.
Nicholas Fandos is a national reporter based in the Washington bureau. He has covered Congress since 2017 and is part of a team of reporters who have chronicled investigations by the Justice Department and Congress into President Trump and his administration. @ npfandos
Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter based in Washington, covering the intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote about security matters for the Wall Street Journal. @ julianbarnes ' Facebook
Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of five books, most recently ''Impeachment: An American History.'' @ peterbakernyt ' Facebook
A version of this article appears in print on
, Section
A
, Page
20
of the New York edition
with the headline:
Top Diplomat Described 'Crazy' Plan for Ukraine
. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
Pelosi-backed group gives House Democrats cover amid impeachment probe - The Washington Post
A Democratic group with close ties to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is set to spend more than $1 million on ads set to begin airing this week aimed at bolstering a handful of vulnerable House Democrats as the impeachment probe unfolds.
The ads from House Majority Forward, examples of which were reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention the word ''impeachment.'' Instead, they focus solely on the accomplishments of the 11 individual lawmakers targeted in the campaign.
''For Antonio Delgado, serving in Congress is all about serving country and community '-- not fighting on Twitter or shouting on cable news,'' says one ad set to run in the Albany market, touting prescription drug, ethics and agriculture bills that passed the House with the support of the Upstate New York freshman.
''Forget the noise '-- Haley Stevens is focused on Michigan, and getting the job done,'' says an ad running in the Detroit area, highlighting another freshman's work on manufacturing, pensions and '-- yes '-- prescription drugs.
The campaign represents the first tranche of television ads to be aired by a group with close ties to the party establishment. House Majority Forward is an affiliate of House Majority PAC, the largest Democratic super PAC focused solely on House races. The focus on non-impeachment issues is further evidence that Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders are aiming to sell a ''walk and chew gum'' image for the party '-- that they can investigate and possibly impeach President Trump while also working to make progress on jobs, health care and other concerns.
''Americans deserve to know about the progressive legislative accomplishments of these representatives, who are fighting for the kitchen table issues that matter most in their districts '-- lowering the cost of prescription drugs, protecting people with preexisting conditions, and taking care of our veterans,'' said Abby Curran Horrell, the group's executive director.
For House Democrats, impeachment probe widens the divide they hoped to bridge
As a 501 (c) (4) nonprofit, House Majority Forward can raise unlimited money and is not required to disclose its donors, but it cannot directly advocate voting for or against a particular candidate. It can, however, conduct informational campaigns that highlight candidates' records to voters.
Other Democrats included in the campaign are Reps. Cindy Axne (Iowa), Angie Craig (Minn.), Matthew Cartwright (Pa.), Abby Finkenauer (Iowa), Susie Lee (Nev.), Elaine Luria (Va.), Chris Pappas (N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Abigail Spanberger (Va.). All except Cartwright are freshmen.
The ads come amid considerable Democratic anxiety about the political fallout from Pelosi's decision last month to back a formal impeachment probe. Multiple lawmakers have privately pressed her to provide backup from party organs to combat Republican attacks '-- particularly in the 31 House districts held by Democrats where Trump won in 2016.
The Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign quickly announced a combined $10'million television and digital spending effort. The Congressional Leadership Fund, the main GOP super PAC focused on House races, has also launched a major impeachment-focused campaign.
A super PAC funded mainly by billionaire presidential candidate Tom Steyer separately announced a $3.1 million ad campaign last week targeting vulnerable Senate Republicans. That campaign addresses impeachment head on, asking ''Who would bargain away the security of our nation and our elections for his own political gain?'.'.'. Will our senator?''
Read more at PowerPost
Democrats fear disruptions of recent weeks will harm effort to defeat Trump - The Washington Post
With breathtaking speed, the events of the past two weeks have created huge uncertainty for the candidates who have dominated the Democratic nomination race, shaking a party desperate to defeat President Trump next year and deeply fearful of any misstep that risks reelecting a president many Democrats see as dangerously unfit for office.
Concerns have risen in recent days that the potential Democratic slate has been weakened by events largely out of the candidates' control. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) vowed a speedy return to the campaign trail after leaving the hospital Friday, but it was unclear whether the 78-year-old would be able to replicate his previously frenetic travel schedule. Former vice president Joe Biden, who has spent most of the race as the leader in the polls, has faced daily attacks from Trump over largely unfounded allegations about his son Hunter's foreign business dealings, highlighting a potential vulnerability for the candidate many saw as the best hope for beating Trump.
''This is crazier than most. It's the normal twists and turns '-- on steroids,'' said former senator Barbara Boxer (Calif.). ''Anything can happen. Anything can happen.''
Interviews with more than two dozen Democratic leaders, top strategists and former elected officials revealed that most are still holding out judgment about how '-- or how much '-- the events will shift the race.
But they point to several worrying factors, including questions about whether Biden is equipped to mount an effective defense against Trump's attacks and whether the surging Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would alienate moderate voters and donors if she were the nominee. Some fear that Sanders's health problems put a spotlight on the advanced age of the top contenders, all of whom are in their 70s. Others expressed skepticism that any Democrat would be able to compete against Trump's unmatched ability to shift the public's focus.
''We need to be proposing an alternative, and I think it is going to be very difficult to get any of that through when we are talking about impeachment,'' said former senator Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), who lost her reelection in 2018 in the face of high Trump popularity in her state. ''''My ideas are better than your ideas' has now been eclipsed by the news of the day.''
The shifting dynamic has already altered campaign strategies, as some trailing candidates focus on early-voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire where they can more easily avoid the nationally broadcast din of impeachment news. But for the front-running trio, the events of the last two weeks have served as a public test of how they would handle crises in a general election.
Trump's early and fierce focus on Biden '-- which includes public requests for foreign leaders to investigate his family '-- has challenged the former vice president to prove his ability to fight back.
''This is not about me, this is not about my son. There's not a shred of evidence of anything done was wrong,'' Biden told reporters Friday. ''Let's focus on the problem. Focus on this man. What he's doing that no president has ever done. No president.''
But there are signs that Trump's attacks are having an impact, even among prospective Biden supporters. One Biden volunteer, Marcie Lammers of Las Vegas, who showed up to his Las Vegas event last week wearing a Biden T-shirt, said the backlash to the impeachment news was clear in the phone calls she has been making for her candidate.
''I know it's getting in the way,'' she said of the impeachment talk and Trump's accusations about the Bidens' actions involving Ukraine. ''When I do the phone banking, at first people said 'Well, I'm thinking about Joe or I'm leaning toward Joe.' Now, the people that do pick up the phone, they say, 'Well if he wants to collect money why doesn't he just get it from Ukraine?'''
The danger for Biden, strategists say, is that voters look past the details of Trump's charges of corruption against him, many of which have been debunked, and fear the impact. Biden did seek the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had previously investigated a company where his son worked '-- but he was carrying out U.S. policy with the support of other Western governments, not intervening on behalf of his family. Hunter Biden was not accused of any wrongdoing as part of investigation into his Ukrainian employer, which was dormant at the time his father sought the dismissal.
''Whether it is true or not, you have to take it seriously that it is something that might stick, even if there is no there there,'' said Glen Caplin, who served as a top presidential campaign adviser for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who ended her campaign in August. ''We saw it in 2016,'' he added, referring to charges of corruption that Trump leveled against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
At the same time, several party strategists say Biden still has an opportunity to take advantage of the attention Trump has directed at him. The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee have announced $10 million in spending on campaign ads that misleadingly attack Biden for his work in Ukraine. Biden has begun airing an ad that directly takes on Trump and accuses him of trying to engineer the selection of the Democratic nominee.
''Biden's best positioning is when it is him versus Trump in the primary,'' said David Plouffe, a top adviser to Barack Obama's two presidential campaigns who now hosts the Campaign HQ podcast. ''It's an opportunity to show people: 'Trump is afraid of me. I can stand up to him.' I would seize that.''
One factor raising alarm is that Biden raised only $15.2 million over the past three months, putting him in fourth place among the candidates and well behind Sanders and Warren, who have built grass-roots fundraising networks.
''That'll be the discussion. He's the front-runner. Why is he not raising more?'' said Terry McAuliffe, a former Virginia governor and a prolific fundraiser who ran the Democratic National Committee. ''This is an opportunity with everything going on. Get yourself on the news and do it.''
The Trump onslaught has revealed growing frustration among some Biden supporters that top party officials '-- as well as some of his rivals '-- have not done more to rally behind him during what they view as a moment of crisis fomented by Trump.
''I'm disappointed in a lot of the leaders in our party who are allowing the GOP to do what they do very well,'' said Harold A. Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters and a fierce Biden backer. ''They have their guns blazing. They have a great coordinated plan. The basic Democratic comment is just crickets. .'.'. All I know is our side better learn to fight better.''
Democratic leaders and strategists also expressed concern that Sanders's recent illness could raise fresh questions about the septuagenarian polling leaders. Warren, 70, is the youngest, and both Biden, 76, and Sanders, 78, would be the oldest president to ever take office if they won.
Sanders started the week on a high note, announcing a massive third-quarter fundraising haul of $25.3 million, larger than every other Democratic candidate. But hours later, he was hospitalized for treatment of a blocked artery. He was released Friday but is taking an unknown amount of time off. It remains unclear whether he will hold events before the next debate on Oct. 15.
''The age issue was not so much a health-related issue, but rather more one about generational appeal,'' said Donna Bojarsky, a California Democratic consultant who has donated money to Democratic Sens. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). ''Now, because of Senator Sanders, maybe the issue will come up more.''
The three top-polling candidates have promised to release medical records before the Iowa caucuses, but the Sanders campaign was not fully transparent about his condition. The announcement by his doctors of the heart attack, in a campaign-issued statement, came three days after he arrived at the hospital.
The flurry of impeachment news and distractions for Sanders and Biden have accrued so far to Warren's benefit, disrupting other Democrats' efforts to more directly challenge her ideas and background. Warren took the lead in several state and national polls last month, and she is widely seen as building the most accomplished campaign.
''My sense is the person who is getting the best of this is Elizabeth Warren. She's not being attacked. And she's raising money,'' said Mitch Landrieu, the former mayor of New Orleans. But any pause in the scrutiny she may face is likely temporary, he added.
''She has a plan for everything except for how to beat Donald Trump. That needs to get tested,'' Landrieu said. ''She says she can do all these things. There's a thing called political reality. .'.'. Aspiration is wonderful, but you can't eat aspiration for lunch and send your kids to college on it. That's a fundamental decision that Democratic primary voters need to make a decision on.''
The now-overshadowed attacks focused on whether Warren was the person she claimed to be, and whether her plans, including Medicare-for-all, would alienate general-election voters.
Biden said Warren was not being candid with voters about her policy plans, and his aides had pointed to the vice president's release of decades of tax returns, highlighting the years when Warren did corporate legal work before entering public office. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has called Warren ''extremely evasive'' about the details of her health plans. Both Harris's and Sanders's campaign staff have pointed out that Warren, who boasts regularly of her grass-roots fundraising model, transferred $10 million into her campaign, including money she had solicited from wealthy donors during her Senate efforts.
''What has impressed me about her is she creates her own weather. She has risen in the polls on her own, not pushing off against somebody else,'' said Jennifer Palmieri, a top strategist for Hillary Clinton in 2016. ''I hear from a lot of campaigns that she is going to have to answer questions now. Well, I don't know. She gets asked questions all the time. I'm not sure that confronting her is going to have the impact that other campaigns want.''
As Warren has steadily marched upward in the polls, the reality that she could become the nominee has unsettled some of the party's top donors, who worry that she would hand the race to Trump. If it starts to look like Warren will win the party's nomination, a longtime Democratic bundler said, ''there will be efforts to stop that.''
''Right now, they think Joe Biden stands between us and Elizabeth/Bernie '-- and to defeat in 2020,'' said the bundler, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. ''So if he [Biden] doesn't measure up, that's where you start to feel angst in the donor community.''
Another major Democratic donor, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, said he and other donors seeking a moderate as a nominee have ''zero interest in coming around to Elizabeth Warren.'' If she's the nominee, ''we can't vote for her or Donald Trump'' and would sit out the election, he said.
The donor also expressed worries that if Warren is the nominee, her presence would ruin any Democratic chances to win the Senate, because voters would perceive having a Republican majority as ''the only way to keep her in check'' as president.
For the rest of the Democratic field, which has been struggling in single digits or less in polls, the disruption at the top has provided a shred of hope that they might still be able to break out in one of the early-voting states.
''One or two people are going to emerge out of that second tier and be viable because I don't think that the top tier is so strong that they can lock this down,'' said Aaron Pickrell, who helped run Obama's two winning presidential efforts in Republican-leaning Ohio. Asked about the general election, he admitted, ''I'm still nervous about all of it.''
Democratic Party rules are set to narrow access to the November and December debates, possibly excluding candidates such as former housing secretary Julin Castro, Klobuchar, former congressman Beto O'Rourke (Tex.) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii).
But many candidates may continue to campaign without debate access, betting on early-state voters to lift them from obscurity amid the ongoing impeachment turmoil. That is particularly true among those who see themselves as alternatives to Biden.
''There are some people who think it will fix the field where it is because it will take the oxygen away from the presidential campaign, and I doubt that is true,'' said Sen. Michael F. Bennet (Colo.), who polled at zero percent in the most recent Des Moines Register poll in Iowa. ''I think the big thing that is shifting is that the voters in these early states really for the first moment are beginning to pay attention to the race. Everything up to now has been preseason.''
Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio), another struggling candidate, said he has newfound interest from donors worried about Biden's campaign and Warren's ideology, and at the end of last week was meeting with newly interested donors in Los Angeles. He's also putting together meetings in New York.
''For us I think there's new life into the campaign because of that,'' he said.
''I've been saying how fluid this is,'' he added. ''It's just wide open, and uncertainty of impeachment adds to it.''
Annie Linskey, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Sean Sullivan and Cleve R. Wootson Jr. contributed to this report.
Epstein
Massage For Children? The 'Liddle Kidz Foundation' And House Representative 'Liddle' Adam Schiff Of California '-- Steemit
On February 18, President Trump mocked Adam Schiff in a tweet but could there be some deeper meaning hinted here? Note the spelling "Liddle"... Why not "Little"?... Is this a coincidence?...The 'Liddle Kidz Foundation' has had several training workshops within Adam Schiff's 28th district of California, I've also seen the two share an address, though I can't verify, I'll still leave those pictures down below...
Again, note the spelling! Tina Allen the founder of 'Liddle Kidz' has a long history of working in the Hollywood area, as does Adam Schiff. The organization is a global non-profit offering 'internationally accredited' pediatric and infant massage certifications. http://www.liddlekidz.com Check it out, yourself, you can't make this up. I don't know about you guys but this whole idea seems a bit fishy and crazy to me... It sounds like a cover for an organization to go touch vulnerable kids around the world, I mean... That's what it actually is... WTF... Am I crazy?...
Known symbol for pedophilia [ Always good to start with a satanic hand gesture! (Taken form liddlekidz.com)]So after two days of training, you're officially certified to go around the world to touch kids who're in need or sick. Not provide shelter, food or clean water... but to touch... sorry for the language, but I must again say, WTF!!?
* Images and video taken directly from website* Here are some affiliated and supporting groups...
Some side info on Tina: "Tina Allen began her service to The Heart Touch Project as a volunteer massage therapist and was the youngest member of the Board of Directors. As Director of the Children's Program for The Heart Touch Project, she provided specialized education and inspiration for massage therapists, medical personnel and parents committed to addressing the needs of medically challenged infants and children who are hospitalized or in hospice care."
Interestingly similar symbols...Was anyone else noticing the similarity between 'Liddle kids' and 'Diddle kids'?
You can purchase Tina's book on infant massage on Amazon.Here are images taken from her book... Notice the pizza references...
Looks like Liddle Kidz has visited Haiti...
Adam Schiff's instagram...
A picture of Adam Schiff in Haiti as well!
In his mid-20s, fresh out of law school, he volunteered to become a ''big brother'' through Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles. He was paired with David McMillan, a child of a single mother who needed a male role model for her son.
Read more at http://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/217845/making-adam-schiff-man-taking-president/
At the end of this circumstantial evidence, it's hard for me to accept that the Liddle Kidz Foundation is a completely innocent and clean organization... Well, I'm not the only who thinks this stinks to high heavens... This is Zuma Dogg going before the LA police commission and calling out the pedophilia cover-up by Adam Schiff. Completely destroys them! I really enjoyed his tirade.
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Any Collusion?
Italy's Connection to the Russia Investigation, Explained - The New York Times
Politics | Italy's Connection to the Russia Investigation, Explained Image The actions of Joseph Mifsud, a professor, played a role in the opening of the F.B.I.'s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Credit Credit Juan Manuel Herrera/OAS, via Associated Press Oct. 6, 2019, 5:00 a.m. ET WASHINGTON '-- Attorney General William P. Barr has said he is reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation. As part of the review, Mr. Barr met recently with officials in Italy, where in 2016 a Trump campaign adviser met Joseph Mifsud, a professor whose actions figured prominently into the F.B.I.'s rationale for opening the Russia inquiry.
President Trump and some of his allies have asserted without evidence that a cabal of American officials '-- the so-called deep state '-- embarked on a broad operation to thwart Mr. Trump's campaign. The conspiracy theory remains unsubstantiated, and the Justice Department has not explained why Mr. Barr feels the allegations merit a review, though he would need to run down all leads if he is to conduct a thorough audit.
Who is Joseph Mifsud?Mr. Mifsud was a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy who also spent time as a political science faculty member at Link Campus University, a school in Rome.
Some of the president's allies have pushed an unfounded theory that the Maltese-born Mr. Mifsud is a Western intelligence agent possibly under the control of the F.B.I. or C.I.A. whom the deep state officials dispatched as a counterintelligence trap for the Trump campaign.
Mr. Mifsud told a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in the spring of 2016 that the Russians had ''thousands'' of stolen Democratic emails that could prove damaging to Mr. Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, if they became public.
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, has called Mr. Mifsud a Russian agent. Mr. Mifsud maintained contacts with Russians associates, including a former employee of the Internet Research Agency, which used social media posts to sow discord in 2016 as part of Russia's election sabotage.
Mr. Mifsud told an Italian newspaper in 2017 that he was not a secret agent. ''I never got any money from the Russians,'' he said. ''My conscience is clear.''
What did he tell the Trump campaign?Mr. Mifsud and Mr. Papadopoulos first met in March 2016 in Italy. The following month, after Mr. Mifsud had traveled to Moscow, they met again in London, where Mr. Mifsud revealed that the Russians possessed information that could damage Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Mifsud suggested that the Russian government could assist the Trump campaign through the ''anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton,'' according to the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who took over the Russia investigation in May 2017.
How did the F.B.I. learn about his offer?Mr. Papadopoulos bragged in May 2016 to a pair of Australian diplomats about Mr. Mifsud's offer of Russian dirt about Mrs. Clinton's hacked emails. The Australian government passed the information to the United States, but only months later '-- after WikiLeaks published the stolen Democratic emails.
The Australians' account, including the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about the email hacking, was a driving factor in the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any Trump associates conspired.
What happened to Mr. Papadopoulos?The F.B.I. began investigating him, along with three other Trump associates, as part of the counterintelligence inquiry. When agents questioned Mr. Papadopoulos about his interactions with Mr. Mifsud, he repeatedly lied, according to court records, hindering investigators' attempts to potentially detain Mr. Mifsud.
He had been in the United States and agents interviewed him once, but Mr. Mifsud left the country. He has since disappeared from public view.
Mr. Papadopoulos was eventually convicted of lying to federal investigators and served 12 days in prison.
Since leaving prison, Mr. Papadopoulos has promoted unfounded assertions and outright conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation. He wrote a book, ''Deep State Target,'' accusing the Obama administration of mounting a coordinated effort to spy on the Trump campaign and keep Mr. Trump from being elected and asserting that he was a pawn in that operation.
How does Mr. Mifsud fit into that theory?Mr. Papadopoulos has posited that Mr. Mifsud was ''an Italian intelligence asset who the C.I.A. weaponized'' as part of the unsubstantiated ''deep state'' plot. The president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani has claimed, also without evidence, that Mr. Mifsud was a ''counterintelligence operative, either Maltese or Italian.''
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia last week alleging that one of its former diplomats who met with Mr. Papadopoulos was involved in the supposed plot. Australian officials rejected Mr. Graham's characterization of the diplomat's role in the episode.
On Friday, Mr. Trump also raised the specter of the conspiracy. ''They think it could have been by U.K. They think it could have been by Australia. They think it could have been by Italy,'' he said, without elaborating on the accusations themselves or who was making them.
Why are these theories improbable?Mr. Mifsud worked for neither the F.B.I. nor the C.I.A., former American officials said. If he had been an F.B.I. informant, prosecutors could have easily found and questioned him. If Mr. Mifsud were working for the C.I.A., the agency would have had an obligation to tell the F.B.I. as it investigated Mr. Papadopoulos.
So to believe the conspiracy that Mr. Mifsud was secretly working for the C.I.A. is to believe that either the intelligence community withheld from prosecutors that he was one of their agents or that prosecutors conspired to deceive federal courts.
To believe that another Western government secretly employed Mr. Mifsud as part of a plot against the president is to believe that an elaborate conspiracy entirely eluded the special counsel's office in its exhaustive investigation, which included more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence and interviews of about 500 witnesses.
Follow Adam Goldman on Twitter: @adamgoldmanNYT.
Barr and a Top Prosecutor Cast a Wide Net in Reviewing the Russia Inquiry - The New York Times
The attorney general and a veteran prosecutor, John H. Durham, have charted an unusual course that could bolster President Trump's pet theories about the Russia investigation.
Image President Trump has cheered Attorney General William P. Barr for beginning a review of the F.B.I.'s Russia investigation. Credit Credit T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times Oct. 6, 2019, 5:00 a.m. ET WASHINGTON '-- After a jet carrying Attorney General William P. Barr touched down in Rome late last month, some diplomats and intelligence officials at the American Embassy were unsure why he had come to the Eternal City. They were later surprised, two officials said, to discover that he had circumvented protocols in arranging the trip, where he met with Italian political and intelligence officials.
Everything about the visit was unusual '-- perhaps most of all, the attorney general's companion and his mission. Mr. Barr and a top federal prosecutor, John H. Durham, who is reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation, sought evidence that might bolster a conspiracy theory long nurtured by President Trump: that some of America's closest allies plotted with his ''deep state'' enemies in 2016 to try to prevent him from winning the presidency.
Mr. Trump has embraced the theory in his interactions with world leaders since the days after the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, testified to lawmakers in July that his investigation found insufficient evidence to charge any Trump associates with conspiring with Russia to help subvert the election. An emboldened Mr. Trump '-- who could benefit politically if Mr. Durham were to unearth facts that undermined Mr. Mueller's investigation '-- began pressing close allies to cooperate with the review.
The trip to Italy generated criticism that Mr. Barr was doing the president's bidding and micromanaging a supposedly independent investigation. But Mr. Barr seems to have embraced his role, signaling that he has made the investigation a priority and is personally overseeing it.
Now, glimpses of the Durham review are emerging. Investigators have interviewed F.B.I. officials about their work in 2016, examined intelligence files from around that time and cast a wide net in setting up interviews with a foreign cast of characters who played disparate roles in the pre-election drama.
One of Mr. Trump's efforts to aid the review, a discussion with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine one day after Mr. Mueller's testimony, so unnerved White House officials that it sparked a whistle-blower complaint, as well as formal impeachment proceedings and questions about whether the president hijacked American diplomacy for political gain.
Mr. Barr has portrayed the review as an attempt to ferret out any abuse of power by law enforcement or intelligence officials. But it is also a politically charged effort that takes aim at the conclusions of the American law enforcement and intelligence communities about Russia's election interference based on years of work by multiple agencies.
The review could fray diplomatic relations with overseas partners and affect Mr. Trump's political fortunes. And it is testing traditional boundaries drawn to keep the powers of American law enforcement out of electoral politics.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. This article is based on documents and interviews with current and former American and foreign officials as well as others familiar with the Durham review.
The review already created a minor diplomatic dust-up when Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the president's closest allies in Congress, fired off a letter to leaders of Britain, Italy and Australia on Wednesday, urging them to help ''investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 election.''
All three countries play some role in a counternarrative pushed by the president's supporters that the real story of election sabotage in 2016 was not the well-documented saga of Russian internet trolls and leaked stolen emails, but anti-Trump elements in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies working with sympathetic foreign allies to try to block Mr. Trump's victory.
Mr. Graham asserted without evidence in his letter that an Australian former diplomat was involved in the supposed plot. Australia's ambassador to the United States, Joe Hockey, responded sharply, rejecting Mr. Graham's description of the role of the diplomat, Alexander Downer.
The president further stoked the flames on Friday, suggesting a broad foreign plot against him. ''And just so you know '-- just so you know, I was investigated,'' he told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House. ''I was investigated. O.K.? Me. Me. I was investigated. I was investigated. And they think it could have been by U.K. They think it could have been by Australia. They think it could have been by Italy.''
He did not say whom he meant by ''they.''
One consequence of the president's attempts to investigate the investigators could be that some American allies might think twice before providing politically sensitive information.
''I'm gravely concerned if our Australian intelligence colleagues believe that they are sharing information with us for domestic political purposes, that trust could erode,'' said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Warner said he and his colleagues have pressed the Justice Department for information about the scope of the review but have gotten no response.
The president has handed Mr. Barr sweeping powers to conduct the review. It was not begun as a criminal investigation, though it is not clear whether that has changed. In conducting a review, Mr. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut and a veteran prosecutor who has broken up mafia rings and investigated C.I.A. torture, has no power to subpoena witnesses or documents and instead has the authority only to read materials the government already gathered and to request voluntary interviews from witnesses.
Typically, he would write a report at the end of his review summarizing his findings. If he finds evidence of a crime, Mr. Durham could make a criminal referral to the Justice Department.
Mr. Barr has asked Mr. Trump to help gain access to foreign officials for the inquiry, and the president has complied. Mr. Trump has called the leaders of Ukraine and Australia, and the attorney general has spoken directly to officials in Britain, Australia and Italy, according to a Justice Department official.
Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham traveled to Italy '-- the attorney general's second trip there in weeks '-- where a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, met a Maltese professor in the spring of 2016. During a later meeting, Mr. Papadopoulos told investigators, the professor said that Russia had politically damaging information about Hillary Clinton in the form of ''thousands of emails.''
The professor, Joseph Mifsud, has effectively disappeared since the Mueller investigation revealed his discussions with Mr. Papadopoulos, and Mr. Mueller's prosecutors suggested in a court filing that he may have served as a cutout for Russian intelligence.
Mr. Trump's allies have asserted, without evidence, that he was actually a C.I.A. agent working as part of an Obama administration plot to spy on the Trump campaign.
''Mifsud was an Italian operative handled by the C.I.A.,'' Mr. Papadopoulos wrote on Twitter on Sept. 27, the day Mr. Barr was in Italy. ''Italy holds the keys to the kingdom. Right government, right time.''
On Friday, former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy said he was suing Mr. Papadopoulos for slander because he told an Italian right-wing newspaper that Mr. Renzi, while in office, had taken orders from former President Barack Obama to try to derail Mr. Trump's candidacy. ''See you in court,'' Mr. Renzi wrote on Facebook.
Mr. Papadopoulos served 12 days in prison last year for lying to F.B.I. agents in the Russia investigation, and investigators said his lies hindered their ability to question Mr. Mifsud. An Italian government official confirmed that Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham traveled to Rome in part to gain more information about Mr. Mifsud.
Mr. Barr opened the Justice Department review this year after he said he did not get ''satisfactory'' answers when he asked why law enforcement officials opened the 2016 counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. He turned to Mr. Durham to review the origins of the F.B.I.'s Russia investigation and whether it was properly predicated.
Mr. Durham has a track record with delicate cases where the investigative focus is on F.B.I. agents and C.I.A. officers. In 1999, Attorney General Janet Reno asked him to investigate the F.B.I.'s handling of James ''Whitey'' Bulger, a notorious mobster whom agents used as an informant. He secured convictions and unraveled a corrupt network of law enforcement officials working with Mr. Bulger.
Almost a decade later, Mr. Durham was directed to investigate the destruction of C.I.A. videotapes depicting the torture of detainees in secret prisons run by the agency. During that investigation, he interviewed Gina Haspel, now the director of the C.I.A., about her role in the destruction of the tapes. The investigation was expanded to include abuses of C.I.A. detainees. It ended with no criminal charges.
His most recent assignment involved investigating James A. Baker, the widely respected former top lawyer at the F.B.I., over a suspected leak of classified information. Mr. Durham quietly used agents with the United States Postal Service in that case because the Justice Department had decided that the F.B.I. could not investigate itself, people familiar with the investigation said. Mr. Baker has denied wrongdoing and was never charged with a crime.
For his review, Mr. Durham has enlisted Nora R. Dannehy, a veteran federal prosecutor who worked with him in Connecticut and led a two-year inquiry into whether department officials under President George W. Bush broke the law in firing several United States attorneys.
Many of the F.B.I. and C.I.A. officials that Mr. Durham is expected to attempt to interview have left government, including Bill Priestap, the bureau's top counterintelligence agent during the Russia inquiry. Mr. Priestap privately told Congress last year that there was no F.B.I. conspiracy against Mr. Trump or his campaign.
He was also asked whether he met Mr. Mifsud on an overseas trip, a suggestion the F.B.I. was secretly working with the professor. Mr. Priestap said no.
For his part, Mr. Barr does not seem to mind that his travels in aid of the Durham review create an appearance that he is trying to protect the president. During a speech on Thursday, Mr. Barr recalled a recent episode when he was asked which country he planned to visit next. ''Greenland,'' he joked, a reference to one of Mr. Trump's previous controversies.
Jason Horowitz contributed reporting from Rome, and Julian E. Barnes from Washington.
Follow Mark Mazzetti, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner on Twitter: @MarkMazzettiNYT, @adamgoldmanNYT and @ktbenner.
Mark Mazzetti is a Washington investigative correspondent, a job he assumed after covering national security from the Washington bureau for 10 years. He was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump's advisers and their connections to Russia. @ MarkMazzettiNYT
Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. from Washington and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. @ adamgoldmanNYT
Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ ktbenner
SJWLGBBTQ
Vans shoemaker under fire after dumping Hong Kong protests-themed design from contest '-- RT Business News
Popular US skating shoe brand, Vans, has faced a massive backlash after removing a top-ranking design in support of the protests in Hong Kong from its annual competition in a bid to keep away from politics.
Vans' Global Custom Culture shoe contest invites artists globally to create designs for the company's shoes, and this year it accepted a submission by Canada-based artist ''Naomiso.'' The artist's design depicted Hong Kong's national orchid on the upper side and a yellow umbrella, the symbol of the Asian hub's anti-government protest movement. On top of that, the sides of the shoe featured illustrations of masked Hong Kong protesters.Since voting kicked off on October 1, the protest-themed design quickly gained the highest number of votes.
According to the conditions of the competition, the entry with the highest votes will win $25,000 and have the design added to this year's Vans production line.However, apparently fearing the potential repercussions from mainland China for producing an anti-government shoe, Vans on Saturday removed the design from the competition and released a statement. The manufacturer wrote that ''as a brand that is open to everyone, we have never taken a political position and therefore review designs to ensure they are in line with our company's long-held values of respect and tolerance.''
Vans' move and the company's stance sparked a wave of public ire online, with the hashtag ''#boycottVans'' instantly gaining traction.
''#vanscustomculturecontest please explain why you have removed Naomiso (a Canadian artist) submission. It received the highest vote. Can u explain to each of the 140,579 voters how you have used them for your marketing engagement, obtained their private info and dumped them. Shame #Vans,'' a user wrote.
Many others shamed the company, chiding Vans for not following its motto ''off the wall'' and turning it instead into a hashtag ''off the shelves!''
Representatives of Vans in Hong Kong later confirmed that a number of designs have been removed from the contest, explaining on their official Facebook account that ''a small number of artistic submissions have been removed'' due to violations of the competition guidelines by involving the brand in a political row.
Also on rt.com 'Deeply sorry': Versace in hot water as China accuses fashion brand of questioning its sovereignty Vans, however, is not the first popular brand to get knitted into the political turmoil in Hong Kong. The ongoing protests there, which escalated over the summer months, have already seen a number of footwear and clothing companies land in hot water for addressing the protests in one way or another, including Versace, Coach and Givenchy. Versace has found itself at the center of a scandal after its T-shirt design referred to China's Hong Kong and Macau as separate states. Coach and Givenchy also sparked uproar after launching products listing Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate countries. All three brands were forced to apologize to Chinese customers for their mistakes.
For more stories on economy & finance visit RT's business section
EU can order Facebook to remove 'hate speech' even if it's outside Europe, top court says in landmark ruling '-- RT World News
Facebook must comply with demands from EU nations to remove content deemed illegal, even if the material falls outside of their jurisdiction, a top court has ruled. The decision could undermine freedom of speech on the internet.
The European Court of Justice, the bloc's top court, said on Thursday that an individual country can order Facebook to remove posts, photographs, and videos, and even restrict access to these materials to people all over the world.
According to the Luxembourg-based court, a national court of any EU country has the right to instruct the social media giant to take down posts considered defamatory in regions beyond its jurisdiction.
Also on rt.com Facebook will bankroll an 'independent supreme court' to moderate your content & set censorship precedents The ruling upholds a non-binding opinion from an ECJ adviser in June, which Facebook argued ''undermines the longstanding principle that one country should not have the right to limit free expression in other countries.''
The initial opinion came after an Austrian Green party politician sued Facebook, demanding that the platform delete defamatory content about her posted by a user, as well as duplicates of the same material. The complaint was referred to the ECJ by Austria's High Court. The politician, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, insisted that Facebook prevent the content from being viewed worldwide.
This is the second major ECJ ruling in as many months concerning freedom of expression on the internet. In September, the court said that Google does not have to apply the EU's ''right to be forgotten'' law globally. The directive requires the tech giant to remove search result listings to pages containing damaging or false information about a person. As a result, Google implemented a feature that prevents European users from being able to see delisted links.
Also on rt.com France hits Google with record '¬50mn fine over 'forced consent' data collection Like this story? Share it with a friend!
Pope urges conservatives to be open to changes in Church - Reuters
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis appealed to conservatives on Sunday not to be bound by the status quo as he opened an assembly of bishops to discuss the future of the Roman Catholic Church in the Amazon, including the possibility of introducing married priests.
Pope Francis leaves after a Mass to open a three-week synod of Amazonian bishops at the Vatican, October 6, 2019. REUTERS/Remo Casilli
At a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica opening the synod, Francis also denounced past and present forms of colonialism and said some of the fires that devastated forests in Brazil in recent months were set by special interest groups.
In his sermon, Francis said some Church leaders risked becoming ''bureaucrats, not shepherds'', and urged them to have the courage of rekindling what he called the fire of God's gift by being open to change.
''If everything continues as it was, if we spend our days content that 'this is the way things have always been done', then the gift vanishes, smothered by the ashes of fear and concern for defending the status quo,'' he said.
One of the most contentious topics of the synod, whose some 260 participants are mostly bishops from the Amazon, is whether to allow older married ''proven men'' with families and a strong standing in local communities to be ordained as priests in the Amazon.
This solution to the shortage of priests, backed by many South American bishops, would allow Catholics in isolated areas to attend Mass and receive the sacraments regularly. At least 85% of villages in the Amazon, a vast region that spans eight countries and the French territory of Guiana - cannot celebrate Mass every week. Some see a priest only once a year.
Conservative opponents fear it would be a doctrinal Trojan horse that would then spread to the entire Church in the West.
HERESY AND ERROR They have attacked the synod's working document as heretical, including what they say is an implicit recognition of forms of paganism and pantheism practiced by indigenous people, such as nature worship.
The three-week synod will discuss spreading the faith in the vast region, a greater role for women, environmental protection, climate change, deforestation, indigenous people and their right to keep their land and traditions.
Bill Donohue, president of the U.S.-based Catholic League, a conservative group, drew criticism for what was perceived as a condescending attitude toward native cultures when he said this week that a dilemma in the Amazon was ''how to respect the culture of indigenous peoples while at the same time acknowledging inherent deficiencies in it.''
A number of conservatives have tweeted their disapproval of a three-planting ceremony in the Vatican on Thursday in which people from the Amazon used native symbols and gestures, such as blessing the earth.
In his sermon, Francis said indigenous cultures had to be respected.
''When peoples and cultures are devoured without love and without respect, it is not God's fire but that of the world. Yet how many times has God's gift been imposed, not offered; how many times has there been colonization rather than evangelization!'' he said.
Slideshow (7 Images) The synod is taking place at a time when the Amazon is in the world spotlight because of the devastating fires in Brazil. Francis implied that he believed at least some of the fires were intentionally set.
''The fire set by interests that destroy, like the fire that recently devastated Amazonia, is not the fire of the Gospel (which is) fed by sharing, not by profits,'' he said.
The synod does not make decisions. Participants vote on a final document and the pope will decide which recommendations to integrate into his future rulings.
Reporting By Philip Pullella; Editing by Frances Kerrry
'Hundreds' of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex | UK News | Sky News
Hundreds of young transgender people are seeking help to return to their original sex, a woman who is setting up a charity has told Sky News.
Charlie Evans, 28, was born female but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.
The number of young people seeking gender transition is at an all-time high but we hear very little, if anything, about those who may come to regret their decision.
There is currently no data to reflect the number who may be unhappy in their new gender or who may opt to detransition to their biological sex.
Charlie detransitioned and went public with her story last year - and said she was stunned by the number of people she discovered in a similar position.
"I'm in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn't, and their dysphoria hasn't been relieved, they don't feel better for it," she says.
"They don't know what their options are now."
Charlie says she has been contacted by "hundreds" of people seeking help - 30 people alone in her area of Newcastle.
"I think some of the common characteristics are that they tend to be around their mid-20s, they're mostly female and mostly same-sex attracted, and often autistic as well."
She recalls being approached by a young girl with a beard who hugged her after giving a public talk, who explained she was a destransitioned woman too.
"She said she felt shunned by the LGBT community for being a traitor. So I felt I had to do something."
Charlie is now launching a charity called The Detransition Advocacy Network, with their first meeting set to be held in Manchester at the end of the month.
Sky News went to meet one person who has contacted Charlie's network for help.
She does not want to be identified so we have changed her name.
'Why I decided to detransition'Ruby is now 21 but first began identifying as male at 13.
After taking testosterone her voice got a lot deeper, she grew facial hair and her body changed.
She had been planning to have surgery to remove her breasts this summer.
However, in May, Ruby voiced the growing doubts she had been harbouring and made the decision to come off testosterone and detransition to identify as female.
Image: Ruby is now 21 years old but first began identifying as male at 13"I didn't think any change was going to be enough in the end and I thought it was better to work on changing how I felt about myself, than changing my body," says Ruby.
"I've seen similarities in the way I experience gender dysphoria, in the way I experience other body image issues."
Ruby explains she has also had an eating disorder but she does not feel that issue was explored in the therapy sessions she had when she went to gender identity services.
"When I was at my gender clinic to get referred for hormones, we had a session where I went over my mental health issues and I told them about my eating disorder and they didn't suggest that that could maybe connected with my gender dysphoria," says Ruby.
"For everyone who has gender dysphoria, whether they are trans or not, I want there to be more options for us because I think there is a system of saying, 'okay here's your hormones, here's your surgery, off you go'. I don't think that's helpful for anyone."
The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust offers gender identity services for children under 18, with some patients as young as three or four years old.
They now have a record number of referrals and see 3,200% more patients than they did 10 years ago - with the increase for girls up by 5,337%.
With referrals at a record high, it suggests cases of detransition will rise too.
In a statement, a trust spokesperson said: "Decisions about physical interventions made in our care are arrived at after a thorough exploration process. While some of our patients may decide not to pursue physical treatment or drop out of treatment, the experience of regret described here is rarely seen."
Gender transition has positive outcomes for many people and even talking about detransition is viewed by some as transphobic.
But some believe further research and more discussion is needed in treating people with gender dysphoria, as well as more options for them than gender transition.
DiNero voice mail
Battery Cars
Millions in EV tax credits may have been ineligible, watchdog finds | Autoblog
A new report from a U.S. Treasury Department watchdog group says taxpayers may have improperly claimed nearly $74 million in federal electric vehicle tax credits for purchasing vehicles not eligible for the credits.
The finding comes from a Sept. 30 report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (or TIGTA, if you love government-bureaucracy acronyms), as reported by Bloomberg. Investigators found that the IRS lacks an effective process to identify and prevent erroneous claims for the EV credit, which tops out at $7,500 and is intended to offset the cost of purchasing a plug-in electric vehicle.
The watchdog agency analyzed EV tax credits for the 2014 through 2018 processing years. It found 16,510 tax returns that resulted in roughly $73.8 million in potentially erroneous EV tax credits. That's out of a total of roughly $1.4 billion in tax credits from 239,422 taxpayers over the five-year period. It redacted details about how exactly taxpayers were improperly claiming the credits.
It said IRS examiners ''are generally not reviewing questionable claims for the Plug-In Credit during examination when IRS filtering does not identify the credit,'' and it made four recommendations, which are also partly redacted to the public, including using VIN numbers provided by taxpayers and submitted by leasing agencies to verify eligibility. The IRS agreed to implement the changes and said it would launch a program to recover improperly awarded tax credits.
Congress first enacted the EV tax credits in 2008 and amended them as part of the 2009 economic stimulus package to include plug-in electric vehicles purchased after Dec. 31, 2009. They apply to each automaker up to the first 200,000 qualifying EVs sold.
So far, only General Motors and Tesla have passed the 200,000 sales mark, with 211,652 and 369,305 electric vehicles sold to date, according to the IRS. That triggers a phase-out that drops the tax credit to $3,750 for two quarters, then $1,875 for another six months until EV tax credits are no longer available. Tesla reached the 200,000 mark in the third quarter of 2018 and will no longer be eligible for any amount of credit starting in January, while GM hit it in the fourth quarter of 2018. President Trump has proposed scrapping the EV credit altogether, although automakers support extending the credit beyond the 200,000-vehicle threshold.
2020
Hillary Implies the Constitution Should Be Torn to Pieces In '20th Century Paper Shredder'
She might have been quoting someone but that doesn't matter.
Hillary Clinton absolutely implied that the United States Constitution needs to be shredded.
Sounds an awful lot like a child who didn't get their way, doesn't it?
Latest: President Trump Calls for the Impeachment of Republican Utah Senator Mitt Romney
LOOK:
take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
''If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!'' '--Rep. Barbara Jordan, 1974
''If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!'' '--Rep. Barbara Jordan, 1974 pic.twitter.com/TkF3MdYWsL
'-- Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 4, 2019
It looks like the Trump administration is prepared to still go after Clinton on at least one major issue: her deleted emails.
Here's the scoop, per The Hill:
The State Department reportedly intensified a probe into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, contacting dozens of former aides involved in email exchanges that passed through her server.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that as many as 130 former Clinton aides have been contacted by State Department investigators in recent weeks, with many being informed that they have been found ''culpable'' for transmitting information that should have been classified at a higher level than it was originally sent.
While giving the commencement address at Hunter College in New York, the twice-failed presidential candidate made it all about her.
And bashing Trump.
WATCH:
''Madam President '-- that has a nice ring to it,'' Hillary Clinton says addressing @HunterPresident Jennifer Raab in her commencement speech in New York City pic.twitter.com/FX0l42yi7c
'-- Bloomberg TicToc (@tictoc) May 29, 2019
Hillary Clinton slams the Trump administration for its ''complete refusal to condemn a foreign power who attacked our democracy.''
''There may not be tanks in our streets, but make no mistake we are witnessing an assault on the rule of law'' pic.twitter.com/pwXM4iDf6c
'-- Bloomberg TicToc (@tictoc) May 29, 2019
''It wasn't even a close call, the video is sexist trash,'' Hillary Clinton says, criticizing Facebook for refusing to take down a fake video of Nancy Pelosi pic.twitter.com/wBD2UWREmC
'-- Bloomberg TicToc (@tictoc) May 29, 2019
''How many more children are suffering right now?,'' @HillaryClinton, talking about the 10-year-old girl from El Salvador who died in U.S. custody.
''Our government is tearing children from the arms of their parents at the border.'' pic.twitter.com/iEfmn4ezLk
'-- Kay Angrum (@kayangrum) May 29, 2019
.@HillaryClinton on today's Robert Mueller statement re: Russia probe:
''That allegation deserves the attention of every American, but what we've seen from the administration is the complete refusal to condemn a foreign power who attacked our democracy.'' #huntergrad pic.twitter.com/NTyKQmnjaW
'-- Kay Angrum (@kayangrum) May 29, 2019
''Instead of standing up against bigotry and white supremacy, this administration has too often worked to tear down civil rights.'''--@HillaryClinton, speaking now at #HunterGrad in New York.
'-- Kay Angrum (@kayangrum) May 29, 2019
.@HillaryClinton also shouts out last years commencement speaker @vindiesel, "we're going to star in a movie together, The Fast and the Still Really Furious." #HunterGrad
'-- Opal Vadhan (@OpalVadhan) May 29, 2019
I feel so bad for these students. 4 years of hard work and they have to sit through this??? @HillaryClinton @JackPosobiec @Cernovich @AnnCoulter @realannapaulina @prayingmedic @DonaldJTrumpJr @charliekirk11 @RealCandaceO @NewRightNetwork @fortressfin https://t.co/DuPecKtoHa
'-- Manny Alicandro (@Manny_Alicandro) May 29, 2019
Paul Sperry on Twitter: "BREAKING: Indivisible, a leftwing protest group partnered w Obama's OFA, plans to dispatch astroturfing protesters dressed in peach costumes & armed w im-peach-ment pies to town halls/events to confront lawmakers reluctant to
Far-right conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl has been mocked on social media after sending out a media alert for a press conference where a former U.S. Marine will apparently claim he had an affair with 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren.
Public figures and journalists have described Wohl as a "curious combination of utter vileness" and noted that he managed to misspell "conscience" in his note to the press.
The Trump supporter sent out a claim in a media alert this week, shared by NBC News reporter Ben Collins on Twitter Wednesday, alleging that he will appear alongside a "decorated" former marine who supposedly had an affair with Democratic 2020 primary candidate Elizabeth Warren.
Jack Burkman, a lobbyist who worked with Wohl to perpetuate false sexual assault claims against former special counsel Robert Mueller, also put his name to the alert.
The note advertising a press conference today said: "Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl will be joined by a decorated, former U.S. Marine and bodybuilder who alleges he was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with presidential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren."
It went on to make claims about when the supposed affair began and how the former marine was allegedly approached.
"These charges will shock the conscious of the nation," Burkman claimed in a statement. "This young man's story is one that every voter needs to hear before casting a single ballot."
Newsweek has contacted Warren's team for a response to the media alert but has not received one at the time of publication.
American far-right conspiracy theorist and internet troll, Jacob Wohl, is wanted on a felony arrest warrant in California. Newsweek Video ScreenshotPosting the media alert on Twitter, NBC News reporter Ben Collins joked: "Congrats to Elizabeth Warren on rising so quickly in the polls she forced Jacob Wohl to write erotica about her."
"Jacob Wohl has misspelled the word 'conscience' on a press release," author and journalist Robert Evans noted.
Rick and Morty writer Siobhan Thompson mockingly said: "If I was a politician with steamy secrets I'd simply leak them all to Jacob Wohl. Problem solved."
"Jacob Wohl is is this curious combination of utter vileness tempered by hilarious incompetence and stupidity," said Jeet Heer, The Nation magazine's national affairs correspondent.
DPRK News Service, a parody account imitating North Korean state news, said it declined to published allegations by Wohl "citing unreliability of sources and slipshod reporting technique."
Mockery of Wohl's latest claims comes just days after he held a press conference with Burkman outside the lobbyist's home, saying he would name the whistleblower who raised concerns about President Trump's infamous call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The Washington Post reported that just a "half-dozen" of media staffers and hecklers attended the event.
Wohl has a history of peddling fake news stories, including an attempt to bring false sexual assault allegations against Mueller when he was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
A felony charge for the illicit sale of securities has also been leveled against Wohl in California, the Daily Beast first reported last month.
Wohl and Burkman's planned press conference Thursday is the latest attack on Warren from pro-Trump activists as the Massachusetts senator's 2020 primary campaign appears to be on the up.
Real Clear Politics polling numbers show support for Warren has risen sharply over the last few months, putting her almost on par with Democratic presidential frontrunner and former vice president Joe Biden.
Recent polling from YouGov and Monmouth have put her six points and three points ahead of Biden respectively.
How old is too old? White House hopefuls confront age debate
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., embrace after the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. October 04, 2019The hospitalization of 78-year-old Bernie Sanders to treat a blocked artery in his heart ensures that the question of how old is too old to be president moves to the forefront of the Democratic contest.
An uncomfortable fact for the party _ that three of its leading contenders are 70 or older _ will be impossible to ignore. If any of those candidates were to become the nominee, they wouldn't be able to use 73-year-old President Donald Trump's age against him. And perhaps most importantly to a party determined to defeat Trump, a septuagenarian nominee would have to work harder to present himself or herself as an agent of change, typically a key argument in any effort to defeat an incumbent president.
''It's a legitimate question to try to ascertain someone's health, especially knowing how grueling presidential campaigns can be,'' said Donna Brazile, a former Democratic National Committee chairwoman and a veteran of more than a half-dozen presidential campaigns. ''It doesn't slow down if you win.''
Beyond Sanders, Joe Biden is 76 and Elizabeth Warren is 70. If any of them won the nomination, the general election would feature two septuagenarians for the first time in U.S. history. Trump began his term in 2017 as the oldest newly sworn-in president _ about eight months older than Ronald Reagan, who left the White House at 77 years, 349 days. Any of the three Democrats, including Warren, would set a new mark as the oldest new president. But Biden and Sanders have a potential additional distinction: Both would be older on their first day in office than Reagan was on his last.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who turned 95 Tuesday, has suggested there's a point at which it would be difficult for someone to manage the presidency. He recently said he hoped there was ''an age limit'' for the job.
''If I were just 80 years old ... I don't believe I could undertake the duties,'' Carter said, pointing specifically to responsibilities surrounding foreign affairs. In the U.S., the current life expectancy is 76 for males, 81 for females _ though the expectancy is higher for married individuals and wealthier individuals, variables that apply to all the older 2020 candidates.
Some younger candidates, notably Pete Buttigieg, 37, have said it's time for a new generation to lead Democrats and the nation. Another hopeful, former Obama Housing Secretary Julin Castro, 45, took a swipe at Biden's age during last month's presidential debate.
In a sign that they're aware of the concerns, Biden, Sanders and Warren have pledged to release up-to-date medical records. They're also trying to project vitality. While Sanders recovered from his heart procedure Thursday, his aides insisted he would participate in the fourth Democratic presidential debate later this month, a televised event that will require a dozen candidates to stand on stage for nearly 2½ hours.
When asked about his age, Biden encourages voters to ''watch me'' and decide for themselves. He has said he'll get a physical before the Iowa caucuses, even jokingly asking a reporter recently, ''You wanna wrestle?''
The former vice president's aides bristle at questions about his fitness for office. They note he maintains a healthy diet, likes to jog in parades while campaigning and, like Trump, does not drink alcohol or smoke.
Warren has largely avoided age questions. She told reporters this week she tries to walk every day, sometimes while making phone calls or listening to audiobooks _ currently a Sean Duffy crime novel. ''I get out. I stretch out,'' she said. ''My goal is 7 miles a day, but I don't always hit it.''
The Massachusetts senator is the only one of the septuagenarian hopefuls who admits coloring her hair. Sanders and Biden are balding and white-topped. Trump insists his full crop is natural. The president, who does not vigorously exercise and is a proud fan of fast food, raised eyebrows during the 2016 campaign when his personal physician released a glowing assessment stating ''unequivocally'' that if Trump were elected, he'd be ''the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.'' Dr. Harold Bornstein later said Trump dictated the letter.
But Trump has family longevity on his side. His mother lived to age 88, his father to 93.
Associated Press writers Will Weissert in Carson City, Nev., and Thomas Beaumont in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.
Follow Bill Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP
A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick,[1] commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729. The essay suggests that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food to rich gentlemen and ladies. This satirical hyperbole mocked heartless attitudes towards the poor, as well as British policy toward the Irish in general.
In English writing, the phrase "a modest proposal" is now conventionally an allusion to this style of straight-faced satire.
Synopsis [ edit ] Swift's essay is widely held to be one of the greatest examples of sustained irony in the history of the English language. Much of its shock value derives from the fact that the first portion of the essay describes the plight of starving beggars in Ireland, so that the reader is unprepared for the surprise of Swift's solution when he states: "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."[1]
Swift goes to great lengths to support his argument, including a list of possible preparation styles for the children, and calculations showing the financial benefits of his suggestion. He uses methods of argument throughout his essay which lampoon the then-influential William Petty and the social engineering popular among followers of Francis Bacon. These lampoons include appealing to the authority of "a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London" and "the famous Psalmanazar, a native of the island Formosa" (who had already confessed to not being from Formosa in 1706).
In the tradition of Roman satire, Swift introduces the reforms he is actually suggesting by paralipsis:
Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither clothes, nor household furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.
Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.
Population solutions [ edit ] George Wittkowsky argued that Swift's main target in A Modest Proposal was not the conditions in Ireland, but rather the can-do spirit of the times that led people to devise a number of illogical schemes that would purportedly solve social and economic ills.[2] Swift was especially attacking projects that tried to fix population and labour issues with a simple cure-all solution.[3] A memorable example of these sorts of schemes "involved the idea of running the poor through a joint-stock company".[3] In response, Swift's Modest Proposal was "a burlesque of projects concerning the poor"[4] that were in vogue during the early 18th century.
A Modest Proposal also targets the calculating way people perceived the poor in designing their projects. The pamphlet targets reformers who "regard people as commodities".[5] In the piece, Swift adopts the "technique of a political arithmetician"[6] to show the utter ridiculousness of trying to prove any proposal with dispassionate statistics.
Critics differ about Swift's intentions in using this faux-mathematical philosophy. Edmund Wilson argues that statistically "the logic of the 'Modest proposal' can be compared with defence of crime (arrogated to Marx) in which he argues that crime takes care of the superfluous population".[6] Wittkowsky counters that Swift's satiric use of statistical analysis is an effort to enhance his satire that "springs from a spirit of bitter mockery, not from the delight in calculations for their own sake".[7]
Rhetoric [ edit ] Charles K. Smith argues that Swift's rhetorical style persuades the reader to detest the speaker and pity the Irish. Swift's specific strategy is twofold, using a "trap"[8] to create sympathy for the Irish and a dislike of the narrator who, in the span of one sentence, "details vividly and with rhetorical emphasis the grinding poverty" but feels emotion solely for members of his own class.[9] Swift's use of gripping details of poverty and his narrator's cool approach towards them create "two opposing points of view" that "alienate the reader, perhaps unconsciously, from a narrator who can view with 'melancholy' detachment a subject that Swift has directed us, rhetorically, to see in a much less detached way."[9]
Swift has his proposer further degrade the Irish by using language ordinarily reserved for animals. Lewis argues that the speaker uses "the vocabulary of animal husbandry"[10] to describe the Irish. Once the children have been commodified, Swift's rhetoric can easily turn "people into animals, then meat, and from meat, logically, into tonnage worth a price per pound".[10]
Swift uses the proposer's serious tone to highlight the absurdity of his proposal. In making his argument, the speaker uses the conventional, textbook-approved order of argument from Swift's time (which was derived from the Latin rhetorician Quintilian).[11] The contrast between the "careful control against the almost inconceivable perversion of his scheme" and "the ridiculousness of the proposal" create a situation in which the reader has "to consider just what perverted values and assumptions would allow such a diligent, thoughtful, and conventional man to propose so perverse a plan".[11]
Influences [ edit ] Scholars have speculated about which earlier works Swift may have had in mind when he wrote A Modest Proposal.
Tertullian's Apology [ edit ] James William Johnson argues that A Modest Proposal was largely influenced and inspired by Tertullian's Apology: a satirical attack against early Roman persecution of Christianity. Johnson believes that Swift saw major similarities between the two situations.[12] Johnson notes Swift's obvious affinity for Tertullian and the bold stylistic and structural similarities between the works A Modest Proposal and Apology.[13] In structure, Johnson points out the same central theme, that of cannibalism and the eating of babies as well as the same final argument, that "human depravity is such that men will attempt to justify their own cruelty by accusing their victims of being lower than human".[12] Stylistically, Swift and Tertullian share the same command of sarcasm and language.[12] In agreement with Johnson, Donald C. Baker points out the similarity between both authors' tones and use of irony. Baker notes the uncanny way that both authors imply an ironic "justification by ownership" over the subject of sacrificing children'--Tertullian while attacking pagan parents, and Swift while attacking the English mistreatment of the Irish poor.[14]
Defoe's The Generous Projector [ edit ] It has also been argued that A Modest Proposal was, at least in part, a response to the 1728 essay The Generous Projector or, A Friendly Proposal to Prevent Murder and Other Enormous Abuses, By Erecting an Hospital for Foundlings and Bastard Children by Swift's rival Daniel Defoe.[15]
Mandeville's Modest Defence of Publick Stews [ edit ] Bernard Mandeville's Modest Defence of Publick Stews asked to introduce public and state controlled bordellos. The 1726 paper acknowledges women's interests and '' while not being a completely satirical text '' has also been discussed as an inspiration for Jonathan Swift's title.[16][17] Mandeville had by 1705 already become famous for the Fable of The Bees and deliberations on private vices and public benefits.
John Locke's First Treatise of Government [ edit ] John Locke commented: "Be it then as Sir Robert says, that Anciently, it was usual for Men to sell and Castrate their Children. Let it be, that they exposed them; Add to it, if you please, for this is still greater Power, that they begat them for their Tables to fat and eat them: If this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same Argument, justifie Adultery, Incest and Sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both Ancient and Modern; Sins, which I suppose, have the Principle Aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of Nature, which willeth the increase of Mankind, and the continuation of the Species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of Families, with the Security of the Marriage Bed, as necessary thereunto". (First Treatise, sec. 59).
Economic themes [ edit ] Robert Phiddian's article "Have you eaten yet? The Reader in A Modest Proposal" focuses on two aspects of A Modest Proposal: the voice of Swift and the voice of the Proposer. Phiddian stresses that a reader of the pamphlet must learn to distinguish between the satirical voice of Jonathan Swift and the apparent economic projections of the Proposer. He reminds readers that "there is a gap between the narrator's meaning and the text's, and that a moral-political argument is being carried out by means of parody".[18]
While Swift's proposal is obviously not a serious economic proposal, George Wittkowsky, author of "Swift's Modest Proposal: The Biography of an Early Georgian Pamphlet", argues that to understand the piece fully it is important to understand the economics of Swift's time. Wittowsky argues that not enough critics have taken the time to focus directly on the mercantilism and theories of labour in 18th century England. "[I]f one regards the Modest Proposal simply as a criticism of condition, about all one can say is that conditions were bad and that Swift's irony brilliantly underscored this fact".[19]
"People are the riches of a nation" [ edit ] At the start of a new industrial age in the 18th century, it was believed that "people are the riches of the nation", and there was a general faith in an economy that paid its workers low wages because high wages meant workers would work less.[20] Furthermore, "in the mercantilist view no child was too young to go into industry". In those times, the "somewhat more humane attitudes of an earlier day had all but disappeared and the laborer had come to be regarded as a commodity".[18]
Landa composed a conducive analysis when he noted that it would have been healthier for the Irish economy to more appropriately utilize their human assets by giving the people an opportunity to "become a source of wealth to the nation" or else they "must turn to begging and thievery".[21] This opportunity may have included giving the farmers more coin to work for, diversifying their professions, or even consider enslaving their people to lower coin usage and build up financial stock in Ireland. Landa wrote that, "Swift is maintaining that the maxim'--people are the riches of a nation'--applies to Ireland only if Ireland is permitted slavery or cannibalism"[22]
Louis A. Landa presents Swift's A Modest Proposal as a critique of the popular and unjustified maxim of mercantilism in the 18th century that "people are the riches of a nation".[21] Swift presents the dire state of Ireland and shows that mere population itself, in Ireland's case, did not always mean greater wealth and economy.[22] The uncontrolled maxim fails to take into account that a person who does not produce in an economic or political way makes a country poorer, not richer.[22] Swift also recognises the implications of this fact in making mercantilist philosophy a paradox: the wealth of a country is based on the poverty of the majority of its citizens.[22] Swift however, Landa argues, is not merely criticising economic maxims but also addressing the fact that England was denying Irish citizens their natural rights and dehumanising them by viewing them as a mere commodity.[22]
[ edit ] Swift's writings created a backlash within the community after its publication. The work was aimed at the aristocracy, and they responded in turn. Several members of society wrote to Swift regarding the work. Lord Bathurst's letter intimated that he certainly understood the message, and interpreted it as a work of comedy:
February 12, 1729''30:
"I did immediately propose it to Lady Bathurst, as your advice, particularly for her last boy, which was born the plumpest, finest thing, that could be seen; but she fell in a passion, and bid me send you word, that she would not follow your direction, but that she would breed him up to be a parson, and he should live upon the fat of the land; or a lawyer, and then, instead of being eat himself, he should devour others. You know women in passion never mind what they say; but, as she is a very reasonable woman, I have almost brought her over now to your opinion; and having convinced her, that as matters stood, we could not possibly maintain all the nine, she does begin to think it reasonable the youngest should raise fortunes for the eldest: and upon that foot a man may perform family duty with more courage and zeal; for, if he should happen to get twins, the selling of one might provide for the other. Or if, by any accident, while his wife lies in with one child, he should get a second upon the body of another woman, he might dispose of the fattest of the two, and that would help to breed up the other.
The more I think upon this scheme, the more reasonable it appears to me; and it ought by no means to be confined to Ireland; for, in all probability, we shall, in a very little time, be altogether as poor here as you are there. I believe, indeed, we shall carry it farther, and not confine our luxury only to the eating of children; for I happened to peep the other day into a large assembly [Parliament] not far from Westminster-hall, and I found them roasting a great fat fellow, [Walpole again] For my own part, I had not the least inclination to a slice of him; but, if I guessed right, four or five of the company had a devilish mind to be at him. Well, adieu, you begin now to wish I had ended, when I might have done it so conveniently".[23]
Modern usage [ edit ] A Modest Proposal is included in many literature courses as an example of early modern western satire. It also serves as an exceptional introduction to the concept and use of argumentative language, lending itself well to secondary and post-secondary essay courses. Outside of the realm of English studies, A Modest Proposal is included in many comparative and global literature and history courses, as well as those of numerous other disciplines in the arts, humanities, and even the social sciences.
The essay's approach has been copied many times. In his book A Modest Proposal (1984), the evangelical author Frank Schaeffer emulated Swift's work in a social conservative polemic against abortion and euthanasia, imagining a future dystopia that advocates recycling of aborted embryos, fetuses, and some disabled infants with compound intellectual, physical and physiological difficulties. (Such Baby Doe Rules cases were then a major concern of the US pro-life movement of the early 1980s, which viewed selective treatment of those infants as disability discrimination.) In his book A Modest Proposal for America (2013), statistician Howard Friedman opens with a satirical reflection of the extreme drive to fiscal stability by ultra-conservatives.
In the 1998 edition of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood there is a quote from A Modest Proposal before the introduction.[24]
A Modest Video Game Proposal is the title of an open letter sent by activist/former attorney Jack Thompson on 10 October 2005. He proposed that someone should "create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game" that would allow players to act out a scenario in which the game character kills video game developers.[1]
Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in America: The Brutal Odyssey of an Outlaw Journalist includes a letter in which he uses Swift's approach in connection with the Vietnam War. Thompson writes a letter to a local Aspen newspaper informing them that, on Christmas Eve, he is going to use napalm to burn a number of dogs and hopefully any humans they find. The letter protests against the burning of Vietnamese people occurring overseas.
The 2012 film Butcher Boys, written by Kim Henkel, is said[by whom? ] to be loosely based on Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. The film's opening scene takes place in a restaurant named "J. Swift's".
On November 30, 2017, Jonathan Swift's 350th birthday, The Washington Post published a column entitled 'Why Alabamians should consider eating Democrats' babies", by Alexandra Petri.[25]
In July 2019, E. Jean Carroll published a book titled What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal, discussing problematic behaviour of male humans.[26][27]
On October 3, 2019, a satirist spoke up at an event for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, claiming that a solution to the climate crisis was "we need to eat the babies"[28][29]. The individual also wore a T-shirt saying "Save The Planet, Eat The Children". This stunt was understood by many[30] as a modern application of "A Modest Proposal".
Notes [ edit ] ^ a b A Modest Proposal, by Dr. Jonathan Swift. Project Gutenberg. 27 July 2008 . Retrieved 10 January 2012 . ^ Wittkowsky, Swift's Modest Proposal, p. 76 ^ a b Wittkowsky, Swift's Modest Proposal, p. 85 ^ Wittkowsky, Swift's Modest Proposal, p. 88 ^ Wittkowsky, Swift's Modest Proposal, p. 101 ^ a b Wittkowsky, Swift's Modest Proposal, p. 95 ^ Wittkowsky, Swift's Modest Proposal, p. 98 ^ Smith, Toward a Participatory Rhetoric, p. 135 ^ a b Smith, Toward a Participatory Rhetoric, p. 136 ^ a b Smith, Toward a Participatory Rhetoric, p. 138 ^ a b Smith, Toward a Participatory Rhetoric, p. 139 ^ a b c Johnson, Tertullian and A Modest Proposal, p. 563 ^ Johnson, Tertullian and A Modest Proposal, p. 562 ^ Baker, Tertullian and Swift's A Modest Proposal, p. 219 ^ Waters, Juliet (19 February 2009). "A modest but failed proposal". Montreal Mirror . Retrieved 10 January 2012 . ^ Eine Streitschrift'..., Essay von Ursula Pia Jauch. Carl Hanser Verlag, M¼nchen 2001. ^ Primer, I. (15 March 2006). Bernard Mandeville's "A Modest Defence of Publick Stews": Prostitution and Its Discontents in Early Georgian England. Springer. ISBN 9781403984609. ^ a b Phiddian, Have You Eaten Yet?, p. 6 ^ Phiddian, Have You Eaten Yet?, p. 3 ^ Phiddian, Have You Eaten Yet?, p. 4 ^ a b Landa, A Modest Proposal and Populousness, p. 161 ^ a b c d e Landa, A Modest Proposal and Populousness, p. 165 ^ Swift, Jonathan; Scott, Sir Walter (1814). The Works of Jonathan Swift: Containing Additional Letters, Tracts, and Poems Not Hitherto Published; with Notes and a Life of the Author. A. Constable. ^ "The Handmaid's Tale". www.goodreads.com. ^ Petri, Alexandra (30 November 2017). "Why Alabamians should consider eating Democrats' babies". The Washington Post . Retrieved 30 November 2017 . ^ Carroll, E. Jean (21 June 2019). "Donald Trump Assaulted Me, But He's Not Alone on My List of Hideous Men". The Cut . Retrieved 5 October 2019 . ^ "What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal | IndieBound.org". www.indiebound.org . Retrieved 5 October 2019 . ^ 'We Need to Eat the Babies!' Climate Activist Confronts AOC at New York Town Hall , retrieved 4 October 2019 ^ 'We Need to Eat the Babies!' Climate Activist Confronts AOC at New York Town Hall , retrieved 4 October 2019 ^ EDT, Marika Malaea On 10/4/19 at 12:24 AM (4 October 2019). " ' Eat the babies!': Twitter reacts to a surprise ending to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez town hall meeting". Newsweek . Retrieved 4 October 2019 . References [ edit ] Baker, Donald C (1957), "Tertullian and Swift's A Modest Proposal", The Classical Journal, 52: 219''220 Johnson, James William (1958), "Tertullian and A Modest Proposal", Modern Language Notes, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 73 (8): 561''563, doi:10.2307/3043246, JSTOR 3043246 (subscription needed)Landa, Louis A (1942), "A Modest Proposal and Populousness", Modern Philology, 40 (2): 161''170, doi:10.1086/388567 Phiddian, Robert (1996), "Have You Eaten Yet? The Reader in A Modest Proposal", SEL: Studies in English Literature 1500''1900, Rice University, 36 (3): 603''621, doi:10.2307/450801, hdl:2328/746 , JSTOR 450801 Smith, Charles Kay (1968), "Toward a Participatory Rhetoric: Teaching Swift's Modest Proposal", College English, National Council of Teachers of English, 30 (2): 135''149, doi:10.2307/374449, JSTOR 374449 Wittkowsky, George (1943), "Swift's Modest Proposal: The Biography of an Early Georgian Pamphlet", Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press, 4 (1): 75''104, doi:10.2307/2707237, JSTOR 2707237 External links [ edit ] A Modest Proposal (CELT)A Modest Proposal (Gutenberg)A Modest Proposal '' Annotated text aligned to Common Core StandardsA Modest Proposal public domain audiobook at LibriVoxA Modest Proposal BBC Radio 4 In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg'A modest proposal For preventing the children of poor people From being a Burthen to their Parents or the Country, And for making them Beneficial to the publick. The Third Edition, Dublin, Printed: And Reprinted at London, for Weaver Bickerton, in Devereux-Court near the Middle-Temple, 1730.' Proposal to eat the children' a short movie based upon Swift's novel.
Vaccines
''HPV-vaccin Gardasil wordt het grootste medische schandaal aller tijden'' | JDreport.com
HPV vaccinatie wel of niet? Dit is een lastige vraag om te beantwoorden lees eerst eens door.
Eind 2006 kondigde de farmaceutische reus Merck met luid tromgeroffel aan dat het eerste vaccin tegen kanker een feit was. Gardasil zou het opnemen tegen het humaan papillomavirus dat baarmoederhalskanker veroorzaakt.
Het vaccinatieprogramma was nog niet van start gegaan of de Amerikaanse overheid kreeg meldingen binnen over duizenden meisjes die ernstige bijwerkingen kregen, waaronder verlammingen, hartaanvallen en zelfs overlijdens.
Een arts die voor Merck heeft gewerkt voorspelt dat Gardasil 'het grootste medische schandaal aller tijden' zal worden. Dr. Bernard Dalbergue zei verleden jaar tegenover het Franse Principes de Sant(C) dat het vaccin gevaarlijk en 'nutteloos' is, terwijl het wel 'een fortuin kost'.
Lees verder via NineForNews.nl.Prof. F. van Leeuwen van het Nederlands Kanker Instituut is het oneens met de snelle invoering van het vaccin: ''We weten nog niet of het vaccin echt wel baarmoederhalskanker voorkomt, we weten niet of het vaccin ernstige bijwerkingen heeft en we weten ook niet of er herhaalvaccinaties nodig zijn.''
ExperimentHaar kritiek wordt gedeeld door Prof. H. Schellekens. Hij is lid van de commissie ter beoordeling van geneesmiddelen: ''Zolang niet is vastgesteld of het vaccin kanker voorkomt en wat de werking en de bijwerkingen zijn, heb je het eigenlijk over een experiment.''
Dat het een experiment is, erkennen alle deskundigen. De groep 12-jarigen, die straks massaal wordt gevaccineerd, is nooit grootschalig wetenschappelijk onderzocht.
Lees verder via ZEMBLADe volgende punten zijn goed om te weten v""r HPV-vaccinatie:
HPV-vaccinatie is losgebarsten in uitgerekend die landen waar baarmoederhalskanker een hekkensluiter is, dankzij uitstrijkjes binnen gestructureerd bevolkingsonderzoek. Maar let wel: met en zonder HPV-vaccins blijven deze uitstrijkjes altijd nodig! Het verband tussen een HPV-infectie en baarmoederhalskanker is een aanname. De vaak herhaalde term 'een noodzakelijke oorzaak' is geen wetenschappelijk bewijs. Dr. Elizabeth R. Unger, hoofd van de Papillomavirussectie van de Amerikaanse Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), gaf in een presentatie in 2001 kristalhelder aan: ''Een HPV-infectie is op zich onvoldoende voor de ontwikkeling tot baarmoederhalskanker.'' Ergens onderweg is dit in de tekst van Gardasil's FDA-goedkeuring in 2006 geruisloos veranderd in: ''HPV is de oorzaak van 70% van alle gevallen van baarmoederhalskanker'''... In de aankondiging van deze FDA-Gardasilgoedkeuring staat: ''Hoewel de studieperiode niet lang genoeg was voor het zich ontwikkelen tot baarmoederkanker, gelooft men dat het voork"men van deze voorloperlaesieshoogstwaarschijnlijk de preventie van baarmoederhalskanker tot gevolg heeft.'' Opnieuw een vaak herhaalde frase. In het advies van de Gezondheidsraad: ''Het vaccin is zeer effectief tegen de voorstadia van baarmoederhalskanker. Het is zeer aannemelijk dat daarmee baarmoederhalskanker ook wordt voorkomen.'' (RIVM, Vaste Prik, HPV-Special, dec.2008(04):4). Uit onderzoek is bekend dat een HPV-infectie meestal vanzelf weer verdwijnt. Waarom dat bij een heel enkele vrouw niet gebeurt, is onbekend. Een verrassende Gardasilstudie-uitkomst is: Meisjes/vrouwen, op het moment van vaccinatie met de HPV-vaccinstammen besmet, lopenmaar liefst 44,6% meer kans op het ontwikkelen van baarmoederhalskanker'... Voorafgaand aan de vaccinaties worden ontvangsters niet op aanwezigheid van deze HPV-stammen getest. De HPV-vaccins Gardasil (Merck)en Cervarix (GSK) zijn gebaseerd op genetisch gemanipuleerde virusonderdelen (virus gelijkende partikels, VLPs, manteleiweitten). De Amerikaanse arts dr. Bill Deagle zegt over deze nooit eerder in de natuur voorgekomen entiteiten: ''De DNA-inhoud voegt zich in in het gastheer-DNA, en in die zin is het vaccin dus levend. Het maakt genetisch gemodificeerde gastheren [lees: genetisch veranderde mensen]. Het is een gencassette met schakelgenen die epigenetisch [vanuit externe omstandigheden] genen kunnen aan- en uitzetten die onvruchtbaarheid teweegbrengen, auto-immuniteit, enkanker met abnormale orgaanontwikkeling.'' Het vaccin is dus gevaarlijker dan een infectie'... Een verrassende Gardasilstudie-uitkomst is: Meisjes/vrouwen, op het moment van vaccinatie met HPV-vaccinstammen besmet, lopen maar liefst44,6% meer kans op het ontwikkelen van baarmoederhalskanker'... Voorafgaand aan de vaccinaties worden ontvangsters niet op aanwezigheid van deze HPV-stammen getest.
Ook dr. Rebecca Carley benadrukt: ''We gaaneen enorme toename zienin onvruchtbaarheid en baarmoederhalskanker.'' En: ''Deze HPV-vaccins veranderen de menselijke genetische structuur.'' Behalve een gevaarlijke hoeveelheid van de zeer giftige stof aluminiumbevatten beide HPV-vaccins ook andere substanties die absoluut niet in het lichaam of de bloedstroom thuishoren. Zoals de vreemde eiwitten, afkomstig van het kweekmedium van de virusgelijkende partikels (VLPs) '' bij Gardasil gisteiwitten, bij Cervarix eiwitrestanten van insectencellen. Deze kunnen in het lichaam op korte termijn een anafylactische shockveroorzaken, en op de langere termijn uiteenlopende auto-immuunreacties. In de landen waar al eerder met HPV-vaccinaties werd begonnen, hebben vele, zeer ernstige negatieve effecten plaatsgevonden. Dat geldt zowel voor Gardasil (in Amerika, Australi, en bijvoorbeeld Spanje), als voor Cervarix (Groot-Brittanni). Een document van de Food and Drug Administration (FDA, lijkt op 'ons' RIVM) meldt dat sinds de invoering van het vaccin in Amerika in juni 2006, Gardasil gemiddeld (C)(C)n dode per maand heeft opgeleverd'... naast allerlei andere ernstige gevolgen, zoals de verlammingsziekte Guillain-Barr(C), een polioachtig verschijnsel, ook voorkomend na toediening van andere vaccins. (Controversial HPV Vaccine Causing One Death Per Month: FDA Report. Melding tot januari 2008 van 140 'serieuze' negatieve reacties, waaronder 27 'levensbedreigende' gevallen, 10 spontane abortussen, en 6 gevallen van de slopende verlammingsziekte Guillain-Barr(C) Syndroom. KLIK HIER VOOR INFO. Het Amerikaanse National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) heeft de negatieve effecten door Gardasil vergeleken met die van het meningitisvaccin Menactra. Gardasilinjecties leverden 30 maal meer meldingen op, waaronder 3 maal meer Eerste Hulp bezoeken (ruim 5.000) . Mede-NVIC-oprichter Barbara Loe Fisher: ''Dankzij dit rapport weten we nu dat er meer reacties en sterfgevallen in verband staan met Gardasil, dan met welk ander vaccin dan ook, gegeven in dezelfde leeftijdsgroep.'' KLIK HIER. Het NVIC heeft daarom in februari 2009 de handtekeningenactie gestart voor een petitie die de President en het Congres verzoekt om een officieel onderzoek naar de Gardasildoden. KLIK HIER In februari 2009 haalde Spanje 76.000 doses Gardasil van de markt nadat twee meisjes in Valencia enkele uren na hun HPV-vaccinatie in de intensive care waren beland. HPV-vaccins zijn bedoeld voor een ziekte die feitelijk 10 tot 35 jaar na infectie verschijnt. De bescherming die de HPV-vaccins zouden bieden, houdt hooguit 5,5 jaar aan (=de duur van de gedane studies). Herhalingsinjecties zullen dus nodig zijn '' met alle risico's van dien. Herb Newborg, The Tragic Truth behind the Gardasil Nightmare, KLIK HIER VOOR INFO Lees verder via WantToKnow.nlEn nog wat meer info bij argusoog te lezen.
Kortom er bestaat veel leed en het vaccin is niet getest voor het in gebruik nemen, in de pdf voor artsen valt te lezen dat pas over 30 jaar mogelijk is om een conclusie te trekken of het vaccin werkt. Het lijkt meer op een grote trial onder de wereldbevolking.
UPDATE
Lees even mee met professional Sander Giebels van (M)Ach(t)mea voor n²g meer info
Toch knap dat je met een diploma (neem aan dat hij deze gehaald heeft) HTS Bouwkunde als projectleider IT aan de gang kan bij de Achmea club. Weet je wat het is gewoon iedereen in zijn waarde laten en zelf dingen gaan uitzoeken zou de wereld een stukje beter maken.
Het is jammer dat hij zijn mening niet gewoon in de comments baggert maar een draadje opent op facebook'... waar ik dan op gewezen moet worden, helaas doet ik niet aan facebook dus van mij geen reactie'....
Via youtube https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hpv+vaccine ook het een en ander terug te vinden'... De keuze is aan jullie zelf, denk er logisch over na en ga een discussie aan met de kinderen zelf. Over alles zijn voors en tegens'...
UPDATE:
video is verwijderdUPDATE 2
Dr. Diane Harper van de Universiteit van Louisville is gespecialiseerd in het humaan papillomavirus (HPV) en de ziektes die ermee worden geassocieerd. Ze zette de klinische onderzoeken op die moesten gaan bepalen of Gardasil en Cervarix, vaccins tegen HPV, veilig zijn.
Harper werd door Merck ingehuurd als adviseur en spreker. Onderstaand fragment is afkomstig uit de documentaire 'One More Girl', waarin vraagtekens worden gezet bij de veiligheid van Gardasil en vaccins in het algemeen.
Dr. Harper benadrukt dat de HPV-vaccins niet veilig of effectief zijn. De vaccins werken volgens haar niet lang genoeg om baarmoederhalskanker te kunnen voorkomen. Ze legt uit dat deze ziekte zich over een periode van tientallen jaren kan ontwikkelen. Harper stelt voorts dat het aantal gevallen van baarmoederhalskanker niet zal dalen door vaccinatie.
Lees verder via: Health BytesToen Caron Ryalls haar 13-jarige dochter Emily liet vaccineren tegen baarmoederhalskanker, dacht ze dat het de beste manier was om de gezondheid van Emily te beschermen. De afgelopen vier jaar zijn echter een hel geweest voor het gezin. Twee weken na het de eerste HPV-injectie begon Emily duizelig en misselijk te worden.
De symptomen werden na de tweede en derde inenting steeds erger. Emily werd een aantal keren opgenomen met borst- en buikpijn en ademhalingsproblemen. ''E(C)n keer kon ik de ene kant van mijn lichaam niet meer bewegen,'' aldus de inmiddels 17-jarige Emily. ''Ik wist niet wat er gebeurde.''
Emily is (C)(C)n van de vele duizenden tienermeisjes die sinds een routinevaccinatie aan een slopende ziekte lijden. V""r de inentingen was Emily uit West Yorkshire kerngezond. Ze deed aan hockey, atletiek en was goed in dansen. Ze haalde goede cijfers en had een mooie toekomst voor zich.
Emily's aandoening werd gemeld bij de Britse toezichthouder op het gebruik van medicijnen MHRA, waar in de afgelopen 10 jaar liefst 22.000 bijwerkingen van 13 verschillende routinevaccinaties tegen griep, BMR, tetanus, difterie en polio zijn gemeld.
Tienduizenden
In totaal traden bij 8228 meisjes bijwerkingen op na het HPV-vaccin, waarvan 2587 waren aangemerkt als 'serieus'. De waakhond zei dat het in werkelijkheid gaat om veel meer bijwerkingen omdat veel gevallen niet worden gemeld.
De MHRA schat 10 procent van alle meldingen binnen te krijgen, waardoor het aantal meisjes met bijwerkingen als gevolg van het HPV-vaccin gemakkelijk kan oplopen naar enkele tienduizenden. Desalniettemin is het instituut van mening dat de risico's van het vaccin niet opwegen tegen de voordelen.
Bij ieder doktersbezoek werd het gezin Ryalls raar aangekeken. Elke keer dat het HPV-vaccin ter sprake kwam, nam de huisarts een vijandige houding aan. ''We zijn 's morgens allemaal moe Emily,'' kreeg ze te horen toen ze klaagde dat ze vaak compleet uitgeput is.
Denemarken en JapanOp de Deense tv was eerder dit jaar een documentaire te zien over het grote aantal meisjes dat blijvende schade heeft overgehouden aan het vaccin. Sommige van die meisjes zitten in een rolstoel. Afgelopen jaar besloot de Japanse overheid het HPV-vaccin niet langer aan te raden vanwege de mogelijke bijwerkingen.
In een artikel in het tijdschrift Clinical Rheumatology schreef dr. Manuel Martinez-Lavin, die al 30 jaar mensen met chronische pijn behandelt, dat artsen moeten weten dat er een mogelijk verband is tussen HPV-vaccinatie en aandoeningen als posturale orthostatische tachycardie syndroom (POTS) en fibromyalgie.
Lees verder via: Health BytesUpdate 6 februari 2016
Een vaccinatie tegen baarmoederhalskanker is mogelijk gelinkt aan een zeldzame maar serieuze aandoening, namelijk prematuur ovarieel falen (POF). Bij deze aandoening stopt een vrouw voor haar veertigste met menstrueren. Er is dan sprake van een vroege overgang.
Er zijn sinds 2013 twee publicaties verschenen over zes gevallen waarbij tienermeisjes binnen enkele weken tot enkele jaren na het HPV-vaccin Gardasil POF ontwikkelden, meldt het American College of Pediatricians.
Volgens de organisatie gaan artsen ervan uit dat bijwerkingen niet worden veroorzaakt door het vaccin omdat ze in de meeste gevallen waarschijnlijk niet op de hoogte zijn van een mogelijk verband tussen het HPV-vaccin en POF.
88 procentEerdere onderzoeken hebben al aangetoond dat een stof in het vaccin, polysorbaat 80, een schadelijke invloed heeft op de eierstokken van ratten.
Sinds Gardasil in 2006 op de markt is gekomen, zijn er bij de Amerikaanse gezondheidsdienst CDC 213 gevallen gemeld van amenorroe, POF of vervroegde menopauze. 88 procent van de gevallen is in verband gebracht met Gardasil.
OnderzoekHet vaccin Cervarix, dat sinds 2009 wordt verkocht, blijkt verantwoordelijk voor 4,7 procent van de gevallen van amenorroe (de afwezigheid van tenminste drie menstruele perioden in de vruchtbare leeftijd). In de periode voordat het HPV-vaccin op de markt kwam (1990-2006), zijn er geen gevallen van POF gemeld bij de CDC.
De CDC gaat onderzoeken of er een verband kan worden gevonden tussen vaccins en POF, maar het American College of Pediatricians waarschuwt dat het nog jaren kan duren voordat de onderzoeksresultaten naar buiten zullen worden gebracht.
Hoewel sterk bewijs voor een verband op dit moment ontbreekt, moet deze informatie bekend worden gemaakt aan artsen en patinten die overwegen te vaccineren, besluit de organisatie.
Zou je het doen?
Wil jij, mij meehelpen om de mensen te informeren?!Dat kan door berichten te delen of een donatie te doen. Tikkie | iDeal | PayPal
Unhoused
Homelessness white guilt systemic racism
Hot Springs will pay panhandlers minimum wage for work
HOT SPRINGS, Ark. (AP) '-- Six months after a judge struck down a Hot Springs ordinance that would have restricted panhandling, the city is rolling out a new program that will offer work to the homeless and panhandlers.
The Hope Works Initiative announced Tuesday will pay participants minimum wage to pick up litter from roads and public areas. It's expected to start by the month's end, The Sentinel-Record reported.
City Manager Bill Burrough told the Hot Springs Board of Directors that the program will help people connect to other support services offered by nonprofits and local churches. It will also direct participants to resources such as substance abuse treatment and mental health services.
''Hopefully we'll be able to break this cycle of poverty by getting people connected into resources that can help them break the poverty chain. We can also beautify the city. We're very proud of this program,'' Burrough said.
Burrough said participants will work four to five hours for three days a week, focusing on state and federal highways inside the city.
The city is partnering with Jackson House, a local crisis center that will staff and oversee the program.
Giving money to panhandlers is a waste, Janie Smith, the executive director of the Jackson House, said. ''I think there's a better solution, like the one we're going to start where people work and earn money. There's a certain sense of pride you get from earning money. It's totally different from just standing there and hoping someone will give you something.''
Little Rock adopted a similar program this year.
''Just giving someone a job is not going to solve all their problems,'' Smith said. ''You have to transition them from homelessness to a sense of self-worth, responsibility, working on a schedule and in a team environment.''
___
Information from: The Sentinel-Record, http://www.hotsr.com
War on Guns
Police inflate firearms offences by a factor of 10 in legislation impact report '' Corruption Free NZ
The Arms Amendment Bill is in the process of being pushed through parliament, and as part of that the Police have issued an ''impact statement'' claiming that there will be no unintended side effects, which is unfortunately far from the truth. But that's not all '' under a section of the impact report we are informed that firearm-related offences make up almost 11% of violent offences. Wow! that is really high! but is it true? not in the least.
The table from the Regulatory Impact AnalysisAs you can see, the percentages are rather alarming in the table, though when compared against the counts something looks a little fishy. They do make some claim about ''3 strikes provisions'' for the total figure, which is our first hint they are cherry-picking data.
Take ''Other acts intended to cause injury'' for the 2018 financial year '' the 36 cases apparently make up 43.3% of the total, meaning that there were only 83 cases in 2018! But, wait a minute, according to police data there there 46,051 acts intended to cause injury in 2018.
source: https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publications-statistics/data-and-statistics/policedatanz/victimisations-demographicsAnd the Crime at a glance report published by the police shows that in the year ending august 2019 there are 14,171 Serious Assaults not resulting in injury and 16,439 Serious Assaults resulting in injury. That's a total of 30,610 ''serious assaults'' in 2019! According to the crime at a glance report serious assaults are up 36% on the year before, which would suggest the total for ''serious'' assault in 2018 is actually 22,441.
So on one hand the Police claim there were over 22,000 serious assaults in 2018 and then expect us to believe that the 292 cases where firearms were involved somehow make up over ten percent of that.
Let me bust out my calculator real quick, and, ah, yes '' the real number is more like 1.3% of serious assaults in 2018, roughly one-tenth of what the Police are telling our MPs. And the percentages plummet if you take all assaults or a wider range of offences into account.
And then once you take the rate of firearms offences committed by firearms licence holders, which is around 1%, you end up with about 0.01% of serious violent crimes involving firearms being committed by licence holders. The Arms Legislation Bill almost exclusively focuses on regulation of licences, dealers, clubs, and ranges, and ignores the other (literally) 99.99% of violent crime involving firearms.
If there was any shred of credibility remaining in the NZ Police they just flushed it away.
There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.
You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage - in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.
The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.
What is portrayed as an "impeachment inquiry" is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.
The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same "impeachment inquiry" House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.
Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.
The Democrats, of course, hope you don't notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees - Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means - whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.
But standing committees do have subpoena power, so why not use it? Well, because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show - um, inquiry - on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court.
They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats' media scribes note the chairmen's admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply "shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry." What a crock.
In criminal proceedings, prosecutors demand information all the time and witnesses often resist - just as congressional Democrats encouraged the Justice Department and FBI to resist when Republican-controlled committees were trying to investigate such matters as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse. Presumptively, resisting an information request is not evidence of obstruction. It is evidence that the recipient of the demand believes he or she has a legal privilege that excuses compliance. The recipient can be wrong about that without being guilty of obstruction.
Congressional Democrats know this, of course - many of them are lawyers. They are issuing partisan letters that pose legally offensive threats, rather than subpoenas, because this is a show, not an impeachment inquiry. Subpoenas don't require chest-beating about obstruction. Everyone knows they are compulsory, but everyone also knows they may be challenged in court. Such challenges take time, though, and Democrats are in a hurry to close this show after a short run.
To be sure, the Constitution vests the House alone with the power of impeachment (as opposed to impeachment trials, which are the sole responsibility of the Senate). The judiciary has no authority to tell the House how to conduct impeachment proceedings. And the House is a "majority rules" institution, so if Speaker Pelosi and her partisans want to ipse dixit their way to impeachment articles, no one can stop them.
That said, the courts maintain their authority to protect the legal rights of persons and institutions ensnared in kangaroo tribunals. The fact that House Democrats invite you to their circus does not require you to beclown yourself.
Any competent court asked to evaluate a demand for information under the rubric of impeachment will observe that the process has a history. When the Framers debated whether to include an impeachment clause in the Constitution, they had serious concerns. They were designing a separation-of-powers system that endowed the coordinate branches with checks and balances to police each other. They understood that impeachment authority was necessary, but feared it would give the legislature too much power over the executive.
They also worried that impeachment could be politicized. If it were too easy to do procedurally, or it could be resorted to for trifling acts of maladministration, factions opposed to the president would be tempted to try to overturn elections and grind the government to a halt.
To address these concerns, the Framers adopted a burdensome standard - high crimes and misdemeanors (in addition to treason and bribery) - that would restrict impeachable offenses to truly egregious abuses of power. Then they erected an even higher bar: a two-thirds supermajority requirement for conviction in the Senate.
All this was to ensure that the electoral will of the people must never be overturned in the absence of misconduct so severe that it results in a broad consensus that the nation's well-being requires removing the president from power.
Although the House has the raw power to file articles of impeachment based on frivolous allegations and minor abuses, the Senate supermajority requirement for removal is designed to have a sobering effect on the lower chamber. Impeachment should not be sought out of partisanship. There must be misconduct that would convince objective Americans, regardless of their politics, that the president must be ousted - not merely criticized or censured, but stripped of authority.
In defending against any congressional demand for information, the president has various privileges against disclosure. Executive components such as the State Department are also repositories of highly sensitive information involving national security and foreign relations - conduct of the latter being a nearly plenary executive authority. The judiciary is generally deferential toward the executive's claims of privilege. But Congress is given wider latitude to probe in a real impeachment inquiry. When the House, as an institution, endorses such an inquiry in a formal vote, the courts must presume the inquiry is based on a reasonable suspicion of grievous misconduct.
By contrast, any reasonable judge asked to weigh the demands for information presented to Pompeo would not give them the time of day. They do not reflect the judgment of the House. They are reflective, instead, of partisan House leadership that realizes it does not have impeachable offenses - so much so that Pelosi & Co. fear the wrath of voters if Democrats in districts friendly to President Trump are put to the test of voting to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry.
Every presidential impeachment inquiry, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, has been the subject of bipartisan consultation and debate. The House has recognized that its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its most solemn actions, must be based on the consideration of the whole body, not the diktat of a few partisan bosses.
Not this one. This one is a misadventure in exactly the bare-knuckles partisanship the Framers feared. To be sure, no one has the power to prevent willful House leadership from misbehaving this way. But we're not required to pretend the charade is real.
Democrats are mulishly determined to ram through an article of impeachment or two, regardless of whether the State Department and other agencies cooperate in the farce. Their base wants the scarlet-letter "I" attached to Trump. The party hopes to rally the troops for the 2020 campaign against Trump (although smarter Democrats know it could boomerang on them).
If Democrats truly thought they had a case, they wouldn't be in such a rush - they'd want everyone to have time to study it. But they don't have a case, so instead they're giving us a show.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is "Ball of Collusion." Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.
VIDEO - (2) PragerU on Twitter: "Don't get science from movie stars. #climatechange https://t.co/ZkJIi5A4mD" / Twitter
Late Wednesday night, roughly 60 Amazon warehouse workers in yellow vests walked out of a delivery center in Eagan, Minnesota and stood outside in the near-freezing rain waving protest signs. The workers'--mostly women of Somali descent'--demanded increased wages on the night shift, weight restrictions on boxes, and the reversal of a 30-hour weekly workload cap from their managers.
The strike arrives during a period of increased worker activism at Amazon among both white and blue collar workers. On September 30, workers at an Amazon delivery center in Sacramento formed a group called Amazonians United Sacramento to protest the firing of an employee who went an hour over on her bereavement leave after her mother-in-law died. Two weeks ago, more than 1,000 Amazon employees staged the first white collar walkout in the company's history.
Striking workers at the Eagan plant also demanded an increase in their hourly wage, which currently sits at $16.25 an hour. They argue they should get paid more on the night shift.
The two-and-a-half hour strike in Eagan ended when an Amazon manager committed to resolving the issues in the morning, and all truck deliveries were cancelled for the night. The workers say they ''remain prepared to take action if no changes are made.''
This is the second strike at the Eagan plant in the last two months. In August, 80 employees walked out of the plant to protest parking conditions. Within two hours, management had agreed to expand off-site parking, repay workers for towed cars, and allow workers to clock-in off site so they aren't marked late.
''The workers are very excited because they got something they wanted and because they spoke up. The managers say they will do something, but they didn't say exactly what,'' Kadijo Mohamed, one of the walkout's organizers, told Motherboard. ''The managers were very angry, and afraid of what the workers did when they stopped stocking,'' she continued.
Fed up with their managers, Mohamed told Motherboard the workers had decided to strike because it was the best way to get their attention. ''The managers don't listen. They ignore complaints. Sometimes they say 'if you can't handle this job, you can quit,''' Mohamed said.
Most Amazon workers at delivery centers'--smaller warehouses for sorting packages before delivery'--do not receive health care benefits and can be fired for taking more time off than 20 hours every quarter. At the Amazon delivery center in Eagan, boxes can weigh up to 70 pounds and breaks on the nine-hour or longer night shift last 15 minutes, according to workers at the warehouse.
Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
VIDEO - PragerU on Twitter: "ððð Watch as Condoleezza Rice schools an NBC reporter on race relations in America. https://t.co/VdIYZRb2sh" / Twitter
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.
VIDEO - (2) Daniel Burke on Twitter: "EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH #EATTHEBABIES! SHARE! This is AOC's pet organization! https://t.co/vYgTI9md6P" / Twitter
Episode Info: Dave Kenney is a brain-health expert and life coach, dedicated to helping others recover from depression and anxiety through brain-first therapy. At a young age, Dave was told that his brain couldn't function normally. A few years later after working at a school, Dave became interested in working on the brain in order to help students get back on the path and alter their behaviors. Today, Dave is an expert in rewiring your brain and he joins us to tell us how it's done.
If you're interested in what Dave is doing and would like to find out more, head over to wwww.EmergoRecovery.com
Sponsors
I hope you will join us for The Architects of Reality in Nashville, 2020, for 2-days of connection, communication and collaboration with some of our favorite Unmistakable guests. The Early-bird tickets are already sold out and capacity for our venue is limited. Hurry on over to www.thearchitectsofreality.com to get on the list.
Dave Kenney is a brain-health expert and life coach, dedicated to helping others recover from depression and anxiety through brain-first therapy. At a young age, Dave was told that his brain couldn't function normally. A few years later after working at a school, Dave became interested in working on the brain in order to help students get back on the path and alter their behaviors. Today, Dave is an expert in rewiring your brain and he joins us to tell us how it's done.
If you're interested in what Dave is doing and would like to find out more, head over to wwww.EmergoRecovery.com
Sponsors
I hope you will join us for The Architects of Reality in Nashville, 2020, for 2-days of connection, communication and collaboration with some of our favorite Unmistakable guests. The Early-bird tickets are already sold out and capacity for our venue is limited. Hurry on over to www.thearchitectsofreality.com to get on the list.
Read more >>Episode Info: Dave Kenney is a brain-health expert and life coach, dedicated to helping others recover from depression and anxiety through brain-first therapy. At a young age, Dave was told that his brain couldn't function normally. A few years later after working at a school, Dave became interested in working on the brain in order to help students get back on the path and alter their behaviors. Today, Dave is an expert in rewiring your brain and he joins us to tell us how it's done.
If you're interested in what Dave is doing and would like to find out more, head over to wwww.EmergoRecovery.com
Sponsors
I hope you will join us for The Architects of Reality in Nashville, 2020, for 2-days of connection, communication and collaboration with some of our favorite Unmistakable guests. The Early-bird tickets are already sold out and capacity for our venue is limited. Hurry on over to www.thearchitectsofreality.com to get on the list.
Dave Kenney is a brain-health expert and life coach, dedicated to helping others recover from depression and anxiety through brain-first therapy. At a young age, Dave was told that his brain couldn't function normally. A few years later after working at a school, Dave became interested in working on the brain in order to help students get back on the path and alter their behaviors. Today, Dave is an expert in rewiring your brain and he joins us to tell us how it's done.
If you're interested in what Dave is doing and would like to find out more, head over to wwww.EmergoRecovery.com
Sponsors
I hope you will join us for The Architects of Reality in Nashville, 2020, for 2-days of connection, communication and collaboration with some of our favorite Unmistakable guests. The Early-bird tickets are already sold out and capacity for our venue is limited. Hurry on over to www.thearchitectsofreality.com to get on the list.
Read lessLike Stitcher On Facebook
VIDEO - (21) Mayor Bill de Blasio on Twitter: "I don't usually take guests from out of town to the dump, but Mayor Femke Halsema of Amsterdam knows how critical this garbage is. Plastic waste is poisoning our Earth '-- and cities have no choice but to lea
October 3, 2019 2019-10-03T17:49:22-04:00 https://images.c-span.org/Files/15b/20191003180553001_hd.jpg Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) held a town hall meeting in Corona, New York with constituents and supporters including a supporter of President Trump who challenged her on the impeachment inquiry. During the meeting she also outlined proposed legislation which consists of different bills that target poverty issues.Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) held a town hall meeting in Corona, New York with constituents and supporters including a supporter of'... read more
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) held a town hall meeting in Corona, New York with constituents and supporters including a supporter of President Trump who challenged her on the impeachment inquiry. During the meeting she also outlined proposed legislation which consists of different bills that target poverty issues. close
Report Video Issue";// $('div#video-embed').html(cookieMsg);// return;// }// });
Points of InterestFor quick viewing, C-SPAN provides Points of Interest markers for some events. Click the play button and tap the screen to see the at the bottom of the player. Tap the to see a complete list of all Points of Interest - click on any moment in the list and the video will play.
*This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
Points of InterestFor quick viewing, C-SPAN provides Points of Interest markers for some events. Click the play button and move your cursor over the video to see the . Click on the marker to see the description and watch.
You can also click the in the lower left of the video player to see a complete list of all Points of Interest from this program - click on any moment in the list and the video will play.
People in this video'; }, afterShow: function() { twttr.widgets.load(); }, helpers: { title: { type: 'inside' } } }); $('section.program-people ul li a.person-image').click(function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var personid = $(this).attr('id'); personid = personid.replace('-link', ''); $('div.person-images a#'+personid+'-image').click(); }); });
Hosting OrganizationU.S. House of Representatives | Ocasio-Cortez, A., (D-NY)U.S. House of Representatives | Ocasio-Cortez, A., (D-NY) More Videos From This EventRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Town Hall MeetingNews Conference with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
VIDEO - (5) Putin On Greta Thunberg's UN Rant: It's Deplorable That The Girl Is Being Used By Some Groups - YouTube
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.
VIDEO - Lucan Denfield on Twitter: "@adamcurry Jason Whitlock uses #noagenda logic to explain why California passed a law that allows California college athletes to receive endorsements - it's not about the players, but protecting the shoe companies https
VIDEO - Ryan Saavedra on Twitter: "Pelosi gets called out by former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos for falsely claiming that Schiff's fabricated quotes were Trump's words Stephanopoulos: ''Those weren't the President's words'' Pelosi doubles
Log in Sign up Ryan Saavedra @ RealSaavedra Pelosi gets called out by former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos for falsely claiming that Schiff's fabricated quotes were Trump's wordsStephanopoulos: ''Those weren't the President's words''Pelosi doubles down on her lie: ''He did not make it up''
pic.twitter.com/xaJTP0TMIj 11:23 AM - 3 Oct 2019 Twitter by: RNC Research @RNCResearch Jack Bowers @ jbowers10
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra Oh my.... I think it's time for an intervention on Pelosi
@RealSaavedra She is refusing to admit he made them up? But we have the audio
View conversation · Linda Ras... @ Lras4Y
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra She had no idea what he was talking about. Not a fan of George S, but at least he questioned her obvious wrong answer.. most MSM reporters just ignore them and move on.
View conversation · Ryan @ ryano3232_ryan
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra I honestly don't think she's even read the transcript. Because this isn't what this is about. It doesn't matter.
View conversation · Info-Babe @ iHomeSchoolNews
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra I think Nancy actually believed Schiff's 'stunt' was the REAL DEAL! Oh, my side hurting!!! ð¤£ð¤£ð¤£
#RetireSpeakerPelosi #DONOTHINGDEMS View conversation · Jack @ JMF808
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra pic.twitter.com/aN2CnnTI4M View conversation · P Mazz @ fdmazny
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra Her dementia is starting to overtake her
@RealSaavedra This is why the House Democrats haven't done anything for the people they represent; it's more important to gain power and control over everyone and everything.
View conversation · Debby Dyer @ DyerDebby
2h Replying to
@RealSaavedra Don't interrupt me. This is the story and I'm stickin to it. ð¤...''¸ð¤¥
