June 30, 2017


News and Views


THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF EXAMINATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MAKING OF GOOD DECISIONS, WHETHER IN SCIENCE OR IN OTHER FIELDS. I HAVE PLACED THIS ARTICLE FIRST BECAUSE WHEN POLITICIANS, BY GUILE OR BY FORCE, TRY TO STAMP OUT A SOCIETY’S ABILITY TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION -- OR TO MANDATE ANY BELIEF AT ALL, WHETHER RELIGIOUS OR OTHER -- IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO STAND UP.

THE WAR ON SCIENCE BOTHERS ME MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE THING THAT HAS OCCURRED SINCE 1945, BECAUSE CONVINCING PEOPLE TO DENY REALITY IS A FORM OF KILLING THEM OUTRIGHT. IT KILLS THE MIND’S PRIMARY FUNCTION OF BASIC AND EFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE, AND THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL. SECONDLY, IT IS A NECESSARY STEP IN A NATION OF OUR SIZE AND COMPLEXITY TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD ALLOW DESPOTISM TO TAKE OVER. IT CONFUSES PERSONAL VIRTUE WITH SHEEPLIKE OBEDIENCE. BEING “IDEOLOGICALLY VULNERABLE” IS A DEADLY CHARACTERISTIC FOR A DEMOCRATIC CITIZEN, AND A DIRECT PATH TO AN ACQUIRED INABILITY TO TELL GOOD FROM EVIL.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sheeplike
“like or suggestive of a sheep in docility or stupidity or meekness or timidity”

Synonyms:
sheepish, docile
willing to be taught or led or supervised or directed

Usage Examples:
“It’s part of Yee’s precocity to realize that a population molded into sheeplike complaisance is ideologically vulnerable.”
The New Yorker Apr 10, 2015



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epa-accused-interfering-top-science-adviser-s-congressional-testimony-n777916
NEWS JUN 28 2017, 10:55 PM ET
EPA Accused of Interfering With Top Science Adviser’s Congressional Testimony
by ALEX JOHNSON

Congressional Democrats have demanded an independent investigation into allegations that a senior Environmental Protection Agency official interfered politically with congressional testimony by one of the agency's top scientific advisers.

In testimony before a House science subcommittee on May 23, the scientist, Deborah Swackhamer, chairwoman of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors, raised numerous concerns about what she saw as a political agenda at the EPA to "marginalize" and "politicize" scientific data used to shape agency policy since Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the agency's administrator in February.

Scientist Says EPA Pressured Her on Testimony Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Scientist Says EPA Pressured Her on Testimony 6:22

As attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt sued the agency he now heads several times, and he wrote in 2014 that the "debate" over global warming "is far from settled."

In both her written and her live testimony before the subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Swackhamer stressed that she was speaking as a private citizen and an independent scientific expert, not in her role as head of the EPA advisory committee.

But internal EPA emails published this week by Republicans on the committee show that before the hearing, Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, sent a memo saying, "I need to contact Ms. Swackhammer [sic] as soon as possible to get a copy of her testimony and discuss her question period before the Science Committee."

Swackhamer responded that she wouldn't be representing the EPA at the hearing and that she wouldn't "cross the line" by revealing any non-public information.

Then, the day before her committee appearance, Jackson sent Swackhamer two emails informing her that he'd obtained and reviewed her prepared testimony — even though it had already been submitted to the committee and was under embargo. An attachment to one of the emails included a list of official EPA "talking points" that she should adhere to. The attachment itself wasn't made public.

A spokesperson for the EPA told NBC News late Wednesday: "It is customary for the office of general counsel and the chief of staff to provide guidance to an EPA employee testifying in front of Congress, including the importance of providing factual information and to clarify if they are speaking as an individual, rather than on behalf of the agency."

Image: Scott Pruitt
Scott Pruitt, now administrator of the the Environmental Protection Agency, during a congressional meeting in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 4. Cliff Owen / AP

In a letter (PDF) to Arthur Elkins, the EPA's independent inspector general, the ranking Democrats on the full committee and on the Science subcommittee — Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, respectively — alleged this week that Jackson's emails "were inappropriate and may have violated federal regulations."

The letter was also signed by Don Beyer, D-Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the full committee's oversight subcommittee.

"The right to communicate with Congress is guaranteed," they wrote, adding: "Attempting to interfere with or obstruct the testimony of any individual to the U.S. Congress is a matter that should be taken extremely seriously and we trust that you will conduct a thorough investigation of the matter."

The specific point of contention involves the EPA's decision not to renew the terms of nine members of Swackhamer's advisory committee — half of the entire panel.

In response to questions from committee members, Swackhamer repeated several times that Pruitt had the "absolute right" to determine the makeup of the committee, but she said Wednesday night on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" that the decision was crippling in the meantime.

"We're sort of in suspended animation because all of our future meetings have been canceled," Swackhamer said. And the meetings were canceled, she said, because there aren't enough "warm bodies" left on the advisory board.

Image: Deborah Swackhamer
Deborah Swackhamer, chairwoman of the Environmental Protection Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors. Courtesy University of Minnesota

Swackhamer said she felt "intimidated" by the correspondence.

"I kept getting these emails, and then I got that final email: We want you to change your testimony," she said, asking: "Who are they to tell me about my testimony?"

In a statement releasing the correspondence, Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, accused Johnson, Bonamici and Beyer of seeking to "hijack committee hearings for their own politically motivated agenda."

Smith said the correspondence showed that Swackhamer "failed to adhere to EPA processes for reviewing testimony" and that Jackson "sought only to clarify a point in Swackhamer's testimony regarding Administrator Pruitt's decision to evaluate the [advisory council's] membership."

Swackhamer wrote in one of her replies that she had, in fact, cleared her testimony with the EPA's science office.

In her May testimony, Swackhamer — an emerita professor of science, technology and public policy and co-director of the Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota — lamented what she characterized as EPA leaders' campaign to skew raw science to push a political agenda.

"My concern is that the science that is needed to develop good environmental policy, whether it's done at the state or federal level, will simply not be available if the path that we're going down currently continues to be followed," she said.

"My personal fear is that the actions taken at the federal government [level] are, in fact, diminishing the role of science," she said. "Certainly, they're not celebrating the role of science."

CORRECTION (June 28, 2017, 9:20 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misidentified the legislators who released the emails between Swackhamer and Jackson. It was Republicans on the House science committee, not Democrats.

Alex Johnson ALEX JOHNSON



WILL REPUBLICANS ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH WITHOUT A HUGE FIGHT? I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE MOVEMENT HAS STARTED, WHATEVER HAPPENS. I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT ON YESTERDAY’S BLOG I CALLED FOR AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF SOME SORT TO SPOT PRESIDENTIAL DISABILITIES THAT WOULD PREVENT HIS PERFORMING THE JOB AT AN ACCEPTABLE AND NECESSARY LEVEL. THIS SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE NEED, ONLY I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE PERMANENT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR LEGAL SCHOLARS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL VOICES TO BE IN THE GROUP. I HAVE ALSO CALLED FOR PLACING A MUCH MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCEDURE THAN WHAT WE NOW HAVE ON THE METHOD OF ACTUALLY REMOVING HIM OR HER. WHAT WE HAVE IS TOO EASY TO BLOCK; AND WHILE I’M AT IT, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENCY SHOULD BE ULTIMATELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. WE ARE NOT A MONARCHY AND WE SHOULD ALLOW NO DESPOTS HERE.

I WANT TO SEE THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE, AS BRITAIN HAS, PUT INTO PLACE HERE, WITH TEETH. THE DESPOT WOULD BE REMOVED PHYSICALLY BY SOLDIERS IF NECESSARY, AND GIVEN A SPEEDY TRIAL (MORE SPEEDY THAN USUALLY HAPPENS), AND THEN PUT DIRECTLY INTO AN ASYLUM OR PRISON, IF NEED BE, TO AWAIT A HEARING. “I’M CONVINCED MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE WE ARE LIVING IN A VERY STRANGE REALITY.” SOMEHOW, I NOW NO LONGER HATE TRUMP. I FEEL A LITTLE SORRY FOR HIM. ON THE HUMAN LEVEL, THIS IS SAD. THIS IS DEFINITELY THE THING TO DO, THOUGH. NOW IF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WILL SIMPLY PUT STEEL INTO THEIR SPINES AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THE USA WILL HAVE PROVEN NOT ONLY HER GREATNESS, BUT HER FLEXIBILITY. THERE IS AN OLD ASIAN SAYING, OR PERHAPS IT’S FROM THE BIBLE, BUT IT SAYS THAT A WILLOW IS STRONGER THAN AN OAK. WHEN A FIERCE WIND COMES UP, IT BENDS TEMPORARILY, WHEREAS THE OAK WILL BREAK OR MORE OFTEN, BLOW TOTALLY OVER ONTO THE GROUND.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-create-panel-remove-trump-office-quietly-picks-democratic-support-124521145.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=60f73942-c8f9-11e5-bc86-fa163e798f6a&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Bill to create panel that could remove Trump from office quietly picks up Democratic support
Michael Isikoff Yahoo News June 30, 2017

Photograph -- President Trump (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

For months, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have privately counseled their more militant members to forswear talk of impeaching President Trump, telling them the political support for such a step simply doesn’t exist in the GOP-controlled Congress.

But 21 House Democrats, including the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, are now pushing an equally radical alternative: They are backing a bill that would create a congressional “oversight” commission that could declare the president incapacitated, leading to his removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

At 12:56 p.m. Thursday, barely four hours after Trump tweeted attacks against MSNBC cable host Mika Brzezinski in crude, personal terms, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the chief sponsor of the bill, sent out an email to his colleagues, urging them to get behind the measure, writing it was of “enduring importance to the security of our nation.”

“In case of emergency, break glass,” Raskin told Yahoo News in an interview. “If you look at the record of things that have happened since January, it is truly a bizarre litany of events and outbursts.” Asked if Trump’s latest tweets attacking Brzezinski and her co-host Joe Scarborough — which were roundly condemned by members of both parties as beneath the dignity of his office — strengthened the grounds for invoking the 25th Amendment, Raskin replied: “I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets. The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.” (Brzezinski and her Scarborough’s response to Trump’s tweets ran in today’s Washington Post under the headline, “The President is not well.” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump’s tweets Thursday, saying he “fights fire with fire.”)

To be sure, even Raskin acknowledges Congress and the country are in largely uncharted waters. The 25th Amendment was adopted in 1967 in response to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and past presidential medical crises — including the heart attacks of Dwight Eisenhower and the illnesses of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson — to deal with instances where presidents become incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of their office.

One of its provisions, known as Section 4, empowers the vice president along with a majority of the Cabinet to make a determination that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office, and then provide it in writing to Congress, resulting in the president’s removal. It’s a step that has never been taken.

But Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has seized on some largely overlooked language in Section 4 as the basis for his bill. It turns out it doesn’t only have to be the Cabinet that makes a finding of presidential incapacity. The section also permits “such other body as Congress may by law provide” — along with the vice president — to reach the same conclusion.

Yet in the 50 years since the 25th Amendment took effect, Congress has never set up such a body. Raskin’s bill would do so. It calls for the creation of an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity.” The commission would be a nonpartisan panel appointed by congressional leaders composed of four physicians, four psychiatrists and three others — such as former presidents, vice presidents or other former senior U.S. government officials. The commission, if directed by Congress through a concurrent resolution, would be empowered to conduct an examination of the president “to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks at the “March for Truth” protest in Washington, D.C.View photos
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks at the “March for Truth” protest in Washington, D.C., June 3. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

The 25th Amendment itself says nothing about the guidelines for making such a determination, much less what kinds of perceived mental illnesses would make a president unable to perform his duties. But Raskin, who first introduced his bill in April, said that he’s been getting increased interest in the legislation among colleagues, including Republicans who have privately approached him about it on the House floor. “I’ve had tons of inquiries and lots of colleagues have been talking to me about it,” he said. “I’m convinced most Americans believe we are living in a very strange reality. … The question is, what are the escape routes we have, and the 25th Amendment is one of them.”

Raskin’s bill so far has been quietly picking up support in the Democratic caucus. Among the co-sponsors who have signed are Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee (and the only member of Congress who was around when the 25th Amendment was enacted), and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the former chair of the Democratic National Committee.

But despite some talk of the 25th Amendment option in conservative circles — New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently urged that it be considered and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy tweeted about it Thursday — so far no Republican members of Congress have signed on to the idea. “It’s really a political decision,” said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who has also co-sponsored Raskin’s bill. While many of his GOP colleagues are, in the privacy of the House cloakroom, “shaking their heads” and “embarrassed” by the president, “they can’t say anything publicly” given the core support Trump has so far retained among their base, he said.

Indeed, in some respects, the political obstacles to executing the 25th Amendment are even greater than impeachment, notes Joel K. Goldstein, a professor of law at St. Louis University. Under its provisions, if a president challenged a finding of incapacity and demanded that he or she be reinstalled in office, it would require two-thirds of both chambers to block the commander in chief from doing so. (By contrast, it only takes a majority of the House to impeach a president, although two thirds of the Senate must vote to convict and remove the president.)

Moreover, as Goldstein notes, even if Congress were to create the body called for in Raskin’s bill, it couldn’t act to declare the president incapacitated without the concurrence of the vice president. That means Vice President Mike Pence could effectively block any move to invoke the 25th Amendment option. “The vice president is a necessary party. He effectively has a veto,” said Goldstein. “He’s a deal breaker.”

Still, Raskin is undeterred. “The question is, where are we going to be six months, 12 months, 18 months from now? The presidency is considered extremely stressful for people with the strongest mental health. We need to be prepared for all eventualities.”



IT ISN’T JUST THE LEGISLATURE WHO ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE PRESIDENT’S BIZARRE AND VERY UNSEEMLY BEHAVIOR. THE BELEAGUERED PRESS ARE FIGHTING BACK WITH BOTH FISTS. SEE BELOW.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-tv-host-tweet-targets-mika-brzezinski-and-joe-scarborough-fire-back/
CBS/AP June 30, 2017, 6:11 AM
TV hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough fire back after Trump's Twitter attack

WASHINGTON – TV news hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Friday responded to President Trump's crude Twitter attack on Brzezinski a day earlier that drew bipartisan howls of outrage and left fellow Republicans beseeching him: Stop, please just stop.

"We don't even know how to respond to this as a country. We don't know how to deal with this guy and we have friends inside the White House that have told us over the past month they're getting more concerned about his emotional state and also more concerned at the same time about what's happening across the world," Scarborough said on their MSNBC show, "Morning Joe."

Brzezinski added, "It's amazing how many lies he packed into two tweets." She then recounted their visit to Mar-a-Lago where she said she noticed facelifts everywhere.

"Talk about facelifts...whoa, Palm Beach," she said. Speaking of my face, while we're there, I had my chin tweaked -- the skin under my chin...I'm pretty transparent about what I do and I think it looks awesome."

Mr. Trump's tweets, aimed at Brzezinski and Scarborough, her "Morning Joe" co-host and fiancé, revived concerns about his views of women in a city where civility already is in short supply and he is struggling for any support he can get for his proposals on health care, immigration and other controversial issues.

"I heard poorly rated Morning Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore)," Mr. Trump tweeted to his nearly 33 million followers Thursday morning. "Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!"

In a Washington Post op-ed published Friday, the co-hosts wrote, "President Trump launched personal attacks against us Thursday, but our concerns about his unmoored behavior go far beyond the personal. America's leaders and allies are asking themselves yet again whether this man is fit to be president. We have our doubts, but we are both certain that the man is not mentally equipped to continue watching our show, 'Morning Joe."'

"The president's unhealthy obsession with our show has been in the public record for months, and we are seldom surprised by his posting nasty tweets about us. During the campaign, the Republican nominee called Mika 'neurotic' and promised to attack us personally after the campaign ended. This year, top White House staff members warned that the National Enquirer was planning to publish a negative article about us unless we begged the president to have the story spiked. We ignored their desperate pleas.

Trump's latest Twitter attack reverberates across Washington.
Play VIDEO
Trump's latest Twitter attack reverberates across Washington.

"The president's unhealthy obsession with 'Morning Joe' does not serve the best interests of either his mental state or the country he runs. Despite his constant claims that he no longer watches the show, the president's closest advisers tell us otherwise. That is unfortunate. We believe it would be better for America and the rest of the world if he would keep his 60-inch-plus flat-screen TV tuned to 'Fox & Friends."'

The tweets served to unite Democrats and Republicans for once in a chorus of protest that amounted to perhaps the loudest outcry since Mr. Trump took office.

"Obviously I don't see that as an appropriate comment," said Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called Mr. Trump's tweets, "blatantly sexist." The president, she added, "happens to disrespect women ... it's sad."

Republican Sen. James Lankford, of Oklahoma, even linked the president's harsh words to the June 14 shootings of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others.

"The president's tweets today don't help our political or national discourse and do not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue," Lankford said, noting that he had just chaired a hearing on the shootings.

The president's tweets even drew tough coverage at Fox News Channel, a usually friendly media outlet.

Anchor Shepard Smith led his afternoon newscast with Mr. Trump's actions, which he said "some critics are calling sexist cyberbullying."

On Mr. Trump's level of insult-trading, Brzezinski responded on Twitter by posting a photograph of a Cheerios box that included the phrase "made for little hands." People looking to get under the president's skin have long suggested that his hands appear small for his frame.

Mr. Trump's allies cast his outburst as positive, an example of his refusal to be bullied.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president was "pushing back against people who have attacked him day after day after day. Where is the outrage on that?"

"The American people elected a fighter; they didn't elect somebody to sit back and do nothing," she added.

First lady Melania Trump, who has vowed to fight cyberbullying while her husband is president, gave his tweets a pass.

"As the first lady has stated publicly in the past, when her husband gets attacked, he will punch back 10 times harder," her communications director, Stephanie Grisham, said in a statement.

As Mr. Trump welcomed South Korean President Moon Jae-in for a White House dinner Thursday evening, he didn't respond to shouted questions from reporters about whether he regretted the tweet.

Some of the administration's most high-profile women - daughter and presidential assistant Ivanka Mr. Trump, Counselor Kellyanne Conway and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell - did not respond to requests for comment.

The White House has shown increasing irritation over harsh coverage of the president on "Morning Joe," including commentary questioning Mr. Trump's mental state.

About two hours before his tweets, Brzezinski said on the show that "it's not normal behavior" for any leader to be tweeting about people's appearances or to be bullying, lying, undermining managers and throwing people under the bus. She said that if any business executive behaved the way Mr. Trump does, "there would be concern that perhaps the person who runs the company is out of his mind."

On Wednesday, she had mocked Mr. Trump after a story in The Washington Post said he had posted fake Time magazine covers of himself in some of his golf resorts.

"Nothing makes a man feel better than making a fake cover of a magazine about himself, lying every day and destroying the country," Brzezinski said.

Mr. Trump, who has a habit of throwing up distractions to deflect bad news, has been straining to advance his agenda lately, with the Senate this week coming up short in finding enough votes to begin debate on a bill to roll back President Obama's health care law.

His demeaning broadside against a woman raised new complaints among critics who have long accused him of sexism and inflaming tensions in a deeply polarized nation. Mr. Trump also has consistently stoked a long-running feud with the press that has not hurt him with his base of roughly a third of the electorate.

But one expert rejected the idea that Mr. Trump's tweets about the MSNBC hosts amounted to a calculated push-back against the media.

"It's not a critique of the press. It's a diatribe. It's a rant," said Theodore L. Glasser, professor emeritus at Stanford University and an expert in mass media.

It wasn't the first time Mr. Trump has assailed a television personality who is a woman. In 2015, he went after then-Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly when she questioned him at a debate. Mr. Trump said later that during the exchange, Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever."

It's also far from the only time he's raised eyebrows with remarks about the physical attributes of women.

Just this week in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump interrupted his phone conversation with the new prime minister of Ireland to remark on a "beautiful" Irish journalist in the room and take note of the "nice smile on her face." [NOTE: That isn’t all he said about her.]

The latest flare-up did nothing to improve Mr. Trump's chances of advancing the health care bill that formed a centerpiece of his campaign.

"This has to stop - we all have a job - 3 branches of gov't and media," tweeted Republican Susan Collins of Maine, a critic of the Senate GOP bill. "We don't have to get along, but we must show respect and civility."

Tweeted Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent Mr. Trump critic: "Please just stop. This isn't normal and it's beneath the dignity of your office." Agreed South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham: "Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America."

Brzezinski and Scarborough have known Mr. Trump for years and interviewed him numerous times during the campaign. But they have been highly critical of Mr. Trump since he took office.

They did meet with Mr. Trump at his Florida estate on New Year's Eve for what they described as a brief visit, and also spent time with the president and senior staff at the White House in February. But Brzezinski supporters disputed Mr. Trump's characterization of the Mar-a-Lago meeting, saying it was the president who repeatedly asked the couple to visit him. Brzezinski and Scarborough were staying in the area for the holidays.

NBC News spokeswoman Lorie Acio said in a statement, "It's a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job."


ON THE RETURNING ISIS RECRUITS: "WE WERE POOR AND HUNGRY," KHALAF SAID. "EITHER YOU JOIN ISIS AND EARN A SALARY OR YOU HAVE NOTHING." THIS IS ALMOST ALWAYS WHY THE POOR RESPOND THAT WAY TO SUCH A GROUP AS THE TALIBAN, OR NOW ISIS. WHY, EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY, WHERE THERE IS INDEED AN ACTIVE STRAIN OF PURE PATRIOTISM, MOST POOR YOUNG MEN JOIN IN ORDER TO GET WORK, A DECENT SALARY, HEALTH INSURANCE, ETC., ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT BRILLIANT OR ACADEMICALLY INCLINED. WE ALL NEED BASIC THINGS, THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T DOING MUCH TO HELP PROVIDE ALL OF OUR NEEDS, AND THE TALIBAN (OR DEAR OLD UNCLE SAM) SAYS THEY WILL.

ALSO, THOUGH I HATE TO BRING THIS UP, SOME CULTURES ARE SCRAPPIER THAN OTHERS – WARLIKE, AS IT IS MORE PROPERLY CALLED. DESPITE WHAT SOME PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THE LOVELY NATURE OF PIT BULLS, THEY WERE BRED NOT ONLY TO FIGHT, BUT TO KILL, AND I PERSONALLY WILL NEVER HAVE ONE. MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE AREN’T NECESSARILY LIKE THAT, OF COURSE, AND I DON’T FOR A MOMENT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP ISLAMIC PEOPLE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. I HAVE KNOWN FOUR ISLAMIC PEOPLE WELL AND THEY ARE WONDERFUL, SMART, WARM PEOPLE. A GOOD CITIZEN IS A GOOD CITIZEN, WHATEVER THEIR RELIGION AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND; BUT THE OPPOSITE IS ALSO TRUE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ANY INBORN TRAITS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS MODIFIED BY OUR INDIVIDUAL UPBRINGING. A PIT BULL IS A PIT BULL, BUT IF IN TRYING TO “MASTER IT,” YOU ABUSE IT, FRIGHTEN IT, AND ANGER IT, THEN YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET. I OFTEN THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE BABIES OR ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO DEEPLY STUPID. THEY SIMPLY CAN’T BE TAUGHT HOW TO TREAT THEM OR WHY ANY BEING EXCEPT THEMSELVES MATTERS IN LIFE. OF COURSE, IF WE HAD MANDATORY TRAINING FOR ALL PARENTS-TO-BE IN DEALING WITH CHILDREN, THAT MIGHT HELP OUR SOCIETY. I CAN JUST HEAR THE PUBLIC OUTCRY IF THAT WERE SUGGESTED IN THIS COUNTRY. “SHE’S MY CHILD, AND I DESERVE TO TREAT HER ANYWAY I WANT TO.” SO, OKAY, I AM VOICING A SATIRICAL AND PURPOSELY PROVOCATIVE STATEMENT HERE, AND I HOPE YOU WILL FORGIVE ME FOR THAT. IT’S JUST THAT I BELIEVE CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ARE LIMITED BY HUMAN NEEDS.

AS FOR THE ISLAMIC PEOPLE WHO COME HERE, WE DO NEED TO HELP THEM ADAPT HERE, RATHER THAN HARASSING AND SHUNNING THEM. FREQUENT MISTREATMENT CAUSES HATRED. HATRED IS NOT, IN MY BOOK, A SIN, SO MUCH AS A NORMAL HUMAN REACTION TO CERTAIN SITUATIONS. IF ANGER IS ONE OF THE HUMAN RACE’S PRIMARY ADAPTATIONS TO THE SITUATION IN THE WORLD, AND IT IS, AND OFTEN THE IMPETUS NECESSARY TO GIVE US THE PURE GRIT TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THEN IT ISN’T NECESSARILY THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD. HATRED IS A MUCH MORE HARDENED AND PSYCHIATRICALLY TWISTED FORM OF IT, OF COURSE. A MAN WHO SIMPLY CAN’T DEFEND HIMSELF OR HIS CHILD, WIFE, SISTER, FRIEND, IN MY VIEW, IS IN FACT A POOR EXCUSE FOR A MAN. OF COURSE, I DRAW THE LINE AT CONSTANT AND MINDLESS VIOLENCE, AS SOMETIMES SEEMS TO ME TO BE CASE IN PARTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

THE MOST AGGRESSIVE FORMS OF ISLAM, AND THERE ARE SOME, INVOLVE MORE THAN A NATURAL HUMAN REACTION. THEY’RE A CULTURALLY INDUCED “PHILOSOPHY” THAT IS, IN MY VIEW, EVIL. I PUT THOSE RABBLE ROUSERS IN VARIOUS FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHO INFLAME THE MINDS OF YOUNG MALES TO GO FIGHT FOR MOHAMMAD, OR HOWEVER THEY WOULD PHRASE THAT IDEA, IN A CLASS WITH ANY CRIMINAL. THEIR “RELIGION” SERVES NO GOOD PURPOSE AT ALL, AND YET IT IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DO GREAT HARM. I’VE ALWAYS ADMIRED THE QUAKERS. I’VE NEVER HEARD ANY EVIL AGAINST THEM.

WHENEVER ANY FAITH BECOMES NO LONGER A GENTLING INFLUENCE, BUT A GROUP-DRIVEN ATTEMPT AT CONQUEST, THEN IT BECOMES NO LONGER A RELIGION AT ALL; THEREFORE, IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN’T BE GIVEN FREEDOM FROM TAXATION AND UNQUESTIONING TOTAL RESPECT, AS WE FIND IN THIS COUNTRY; AND IF IT INDUCES VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, THE REWARD FOR THAT SHOULD BE PRISON. AN IMAM WHO PREACHES MURDEROUS BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE PUT INTO FEDERAL PRISON FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR HIM TO TRULY REPENT. I WOULD EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE RACKETEERING LAW (RICO) MAKES SENSE, HERE, BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE SIMPLY CRIMINALS. IT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING IDEA IF SUCH PEOPLE (CATHOLICS WHO SHOOT ABORTION DOCTORS, FOR INSTANCE) WERE AUTOMATICALLY AND PERMANENTLY DENIED ALL THE RELIGION-BASED PERQS THAT THEY GET IN A NATION LIKE OURS, THAT WOULD BE FAIR, AND MIGHT EVEN AFFECT HOW MEMBERS OF SUCH RELIGIONS COMPORT THEMSELVES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-isis-recruits-what-drove-them-to-join-terror-group-syria/
By HOLLY WILLIAMS CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 6:37 PM
"Poor and hungry": Ex-ISIS recruits on what drove them to join

AYN ISSA, Syria -- Eighty-one men and boys -- all accused of fighting for ISIS in Syria and now reformed after serving time in prison, according to America's Syrian allies -- have been reunited with their families.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his army of terrorists enforced a version of Islam unrecognizable to most Muslims, marked by vicious acts of violence.

williams-syria-split-frame-2134.jpg
Ezadeen Khalaf CBS NEWS

But Ezadeen Khalaf, a former shepherd, said he joined ISIS not because he wanted to kill in the name of his religion, but out of desperation.

"We were poor and hungry," Khalaf said. "Either you join ISIS and earn a salary or you have nothing."

He and most of the others have now signed up to fight against ISIS.

Thousands of other young Muslims joined ISIS for more complicated reasons. They came from Europe, rejecting the West and its values for extremism.

U.S. troops "just getting started good" in Raqqa

Some apparently were so alienated from their communities that they returned home to carry out terror attacks.

In a refugee camp in northern Syria, a group of Indonesian women told CBS News they were simply gullible, traveling 5,000 miles to the so-called Islamic State in 2015 because they believed ISIS propaganda.

ISIS leaves behind a deadly path of destruction in Syria
Play VIDEO
ISIS leaves behind a deadly path of destruction in Syria

"Best place in the world and the people in there very happy, no poor, no sad," one of the women said of what drew her.

In reality, they said they were abused and their menfolk imprisoned by the extremists because they refused to fight. They ran away two weeks ago, and are too frightened of retribution from ISIS to show their faces

"Not just naïve, we are stupid. We deceived very easily," another said.

ISIS tried to ignite a war between Islam and the West, and to do so it preyed on anger, poverty and ignorance.



IT IS CLEAR THAT, TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN JUST SIX MONTHS AGO, DONALD TRUMP IS UNDER REVIEW, AND HE SHOULD MIND HIS MANNERS. THE NON-VIOLENTLY INCLINED MEMBERS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS ARE GETTING IRRITATED WITH ALL THE BILGEWATER. I PRAY THAT THE POWERS FOR GOOD WILL HOLD STEADY AND BE STRONG. THE WAR HAS BEGUN. HOW APPROPRIATE THAT IN A FEW DAYS IT WILL BE JULY 4TH – A HOLIDAY THAT WE ALL, TO A MAN WOMAN AND CHILD, ENJOY WITH NATURAL PRIDE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-panel-approves-amendment-that-would-strip-trumps-war-authorization-powers/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 8:05 PM
Key House committee approves curbing Trump's war authorization powers

Photograph -- WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 28: US President Donald Trump speaks as he meets with immigration crime victims to urge passage of House legislation to save American lives, in the Cabinet Room at the White House on June 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. POOL / GETTY IMAGES

A key House committee on Thursday approved an amendment that could dramatically curb the president's ability to authorize military force without congressional approval.

The House Appropriations Committee voted to repeal the AUMF, or authorization of military force, which was set in motion after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. To become law, it would need to pass the full House, Senate and be signed by President Trump.

The Bush-era AUMF granted the president broad powers to retaliate against anyone who contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that authorization has provided the foundation for U.S. military intervention abroad ever since. It hasn't changed in more than 15 years.

The House panel on Thursday approved an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to sunset the AUMF as a part of the Department of Defense's budget for next year. If that amendment stays in the bill, and is approved by the House, Senate and signed by the president, it will drastically scale back Mr. Trump's ability -- and future presidents' ability -- to carry out military intervention without Congress' explicit OK. The committee's voice vote approving the amendment was nearly unanimous.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Rep. Barbara Lee ✔ @RepBarbaraLee
Whoa. My amdt to sunset 2001 AUMF was adopted in DOD Approps markup! GOP & Dems agree: a floor debate & vote on endless war is long overdue.
11:55 AM - 29 Jun 2017
5,575 5,575 Retweets 13,563 13,563 likes

The 2001 AUMF declares "the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Mr. Trump's administration has used those broad powers to do things like strike a Syrian airbase in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack believed to be perpetrated by Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad.

Behind the scenes of the U.S. Navy's Syria strike
Play VIDEO
Behind the scenes of the U.S. Navy's Syria strike

Lee's amendment -- something she has introduced every year -- would sunset the AUMF 240 days after the appropriations bill is signed into law, should the amendment stay in the bill. Congress would need new authorization to replace the AUMF, something it hasn't been able to pull off in the past.

The amendment is likely to face more of an uphill battle in future legislative battles, and backlash from the Trump administration, which is unlikely to welcome a move to curb the president's war powers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has not yet said whether House leadership wants to keep the amendment in the bill when it comes up for a vote on the House floor.

CBS News' Walt Cronkite contributed to this report.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tweets-mika-brzezinski-washington-women-react/
By NANCY CORDES CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 7:16 PM
Trump's comments about women under scrutiny for second time this week

WASHINGTON -- President Trump's tweets about Mika Brzezinski mark the second time this week that the president's comments about women have come under scrutiny -- an issue that also dogged him during the campaign.

What drew scrutiny earlier this week wasn't an insult, but a compliment: "Caitriona Perry, she has a nice smile on her face, so I bet she treats you well," Mr. Trump said.

White House aides said the president was just being friendly to an Irish reporter.

Critics say he has a history of honing in on women's looks, such as when Megyn Kelly said to him, "you've called women you don't like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs.'"

Trump's Twitter attack on "Morning Joe" hosts draws backlash
Play VIDEO
Trump's Twitter attack on "Morning Joe" hosts draws backlash

When Kelly asked him about it last year, candidate Trump trained his fire on her, saying, "there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

But now he inhabits the Oval Office.

A league of Democratic congresswomen on Thursday accused him of setting a bad example for young men.

"Stop the disrespect!" they said.

"This is not acceptable, Mr. President," said Michigan's Brenda Lawrence. "You do not have the right because you have a Twitter account to display behavior that I taught my son never to do. "

cordes-mika-tweet-reaction-2017-6-29.jpg
Michigan's Brenda Lawrence called on President Trump to "stop the disrespect" of women. CBS NEWS

They noted that Thursday's tweet is nothing new for a man with a history of crude comments -- such as when he said on "Access Hollywood, "You can grab 'em by the p****. You can do anything" -- and for a man who publicly mocked the appearance of both of his female opponents: First Carly Fiorina, then Hillary Clinton.

"When she walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn't impressed," Mr. Trump said about Clinton.

"When you become president of the United States, it's beneath your dignity to launch those kinds of attacks," said Maine Republican Susan Collins.

Collins has repeatedly implored her party's leader to tone down the rhetoric.

A number of female lawmakers have said that the president has a problem with sexism, but Collins say she has "not experienced that personally."

"What I think is the president has a problem with anyone who criticizes him or doesn't agree with him," Collins said.

Republicans have criticized the president's tweets many times before, but what was different on Thursday was their intensity, with many of them outright begging him to stop. But they're not optimistic he will listen because they realize some of these habits are ingrained.

The concern of people who want him to succeed is that his comments will hurt his political agenda. They fear that these comments further weaken his relationship with his own party's members and also reduce his influence over them on issues like health care. It also makes Republicans less likely to call on him as a messenger on these issues because they can never be quite sure about what he's going to say – and whether it's going to help or hurt their cause.



HERE IN NORTH FLORIDA WE HAVE HAD ALMOST A WHOLE MONTH OF AFTERNOON CLOUDS AND RAIN, WITH A SIDE DISH OF THRILLING LIGHTNING AND THUNDER. WE FLOOD NORMALLY WITH LESS WATER THAN THIS, MAINLY BECAUSE OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DOESN’T WORK WELL. THIS PART OF THE SOUTH IS ALMOST TOTALLY FLAT, AND THERE’S NO DOWNHILL FOR THE WATER TO RUN TO! SO, IT JUST FILLS THE STREET FOR MAYBE 30 MINUTES AND THEN DRAINS OFF. I DID DRIVE THROUGH IT A FEW DAYS AGO, ABOUT 4 INCHES DEEP, WHICH IS A NO-NO, BUT I WENT VERY SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY – UNDER 5 MILES AN HOUR OR SO, AND THE CAR DIDN’T START TO FLOAT, AS I HAVE SEEN THEM DO ON TV.

I HATE TO ADMIT THIS, BUT I AM LOSING MY FEAR ABOUT THE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE, BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE THE FORM OF MORE, AND MORE ACTIVE, STORMS. OF COURSE, IN SOME PLACES IT’S DROUGHT INSTEAD, WHICH IS MORE OF A PROBLEM. CROPS WILL NOT GROW WITHOUT WATER AND PEOPLE HAVE TO DRINK IT AND BATHE ALSO. I THINK THE WORST EFFECTS WILL (I PRAY) TAKE SOME YEARS TO DEVELOP; OF COURSE, WHO KNOWS. FOR THESE EFFECTS THAT WE ARE ALREADY HAVING TO EVEN BEGIN TO APPEAR WAS NOT PREDICTED FOR THIS EARLY, AND IT HASN’T BEEN AS GRADUAL AS I EXPECTED, EITHER. I EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN SOME THIRTY YEARS HENCE, AND IT HAS BEEN MORE LIKE TEN. IT IS LIKELY TO BECOME BACK TO BACK HURRICANES, OR WORSE, MORE TORNADOES. THEN THERE IS THE PLIGHT OF TOTALLY INNOCENT ANIMALS SUCH AS, IN THE ARCTIC, THE POLAR BEAR, WHICH DEPEND ON ICE FOR THEIR SEAL HUNTING TECHNIQUE.

GIVEN THE POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL STANCE OF OUR RULING PARTY, THERE IS NO WAY TO REALLY STOP THIS, I’M AFRAID. I WILL JUST WATCH IT AND WAIL FROM TIME TO TIME. IF YOU HEAR THAT ON THE WIND, IT ISN’T THE SIRENS. IT’S JUST ME. I’M GLAD I KNEW THE EARTH WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER AND INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL. I HAVE MY MEMORIES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-changes-economic-impact-income-inequality/
By SHANIKA GUNARATNA CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 7:49 PM
Here's where climate change will hit the U.S. the hardest

Photograph -- A vehicle drives through flooded streets caused by the combination of seasonal high tides and what many believe is the rising sea level due to climate change in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on September 30, 2015. JOE RAEDLE, GETTY IMAGES
35 Photos – go to website.

Communities across the U.S. should brace themselves for severe economic losses if climate change continues undeterred, according to a new analysis.

Every jump of 1 degree Celsius in temperature will cost the U.S. about 1.2 percent in gross domestic product, researchers said in a study that appears Friday in the journal Science. They also delivered a grim message: expect America's income inequality to get worse as the planet warms.

The researchers crunched numbers on how climate change will continue to impact the economy and society in a wide range of ways. They projected the impact on everything from agriculture yields and the labor supply to mortality rates and violent crime. They identified how different communities' energy expenditures will change, and mapped out the locations likely to take the greatest hit from coastal damage.

Most importantly, they broke their analysis down on a granular, county-by-county level, producing a vivid picture of which U.S. communities stand to lose the most as global warming accelerates.

In terms of overall economic losses, southern and midwestern communities are at the highest risk, in some extreme cases losing 20 percent of their local GDP by the end of the century:

climate-total-direct-damages.jpg
Here, researchers illustrate the median scenario for county-level annual damages due to climate change during the years 2080-2099. HSIANG, KOPP, JINA, RISING, ET AL. (SCIENCE, 2017)

Some northern and western communities may see slight economic gains over that time period, shifting the balance of economic power in the U.S, the researchers said. These communities may in fact see a boost in agriculture, thanks to milder northern winters, lower energy expenditure on home heating, and other factors. Still, these gains aren't enough to compensate for the negative trend nationwide.

Counties along the Atlantic coast are expected to suffer major losses as hurricanes intensify and sea levels rise, redrawing the maps of coastal areas.

stormsurge-miami-fl.jpg
A map illustrating areas of Miami, Florida, projected to be inundated by 1-in-100 year floods under median sea level rise, accounting for forecast changes in tropical cyclone activity. HSIANG, KOPP, JINA, RISING, ET AL. (SCIENCE, 2017)

The U.S. appears particularly vulnerable to sea level rise in the next century, according to research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. The latest study mapped out the areas of several major coastal cities, like Miami, seen here, which are most likely to be inundated by floods under median sea level rise in the coming decades.

Climate change and income inequality

According to the researchers, climate change is poised to disproportionately affect areas that already suffer from poverty, exacerbating America's economic inequality. By the late 21st century, the poorest third of U.S. counties are expected to experience losses between 2 and 20 percent of county income, according to the study.

"We've shown which U.S. regional economies are particularly vulnerable, which will help policymakers," co-author Solomon Hsiang, of the University of California, Berkeley, and the National Bureau of Economic Research, said in a statement. "If we are going to adapt, we need to know where to focus."

The data analysis comes from the Climate Impact Lab, a consortium of climate researchers from UC Berkeley, Rutgers, University of Chicago, and other institutions. The group also released an interactive tool for the public to engage with the data and explore the impact on different communities. To make their projections, the researchers assumed a "business as usual" framework for the next few decades — meaning, they assumed the U.S. would continue its heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

The recent shift in federal policy supports that assumption. President Trump has promised to end the supposed "war on coal" and pulled out of the Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. and more than 190 other nations to reducing carbon emissions. Under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency has moved into a new chapter of deregulation on industry.

Climate change and health

Continued climate change, by stretching natural resources to the breaking point and normalizing extreme weather events, is also expected to cause a worsening of physical and mental health problems.

Previous medical research has linked climate change to an increase in infectious diseases and conditions like heart and lung conditions associated with air pollution and wildfires.

The new study projects an increase in mortality rates resulting from climate change in southern and midwestern states and much of California over the rest of this century.

climate-mortality-map.jpg
Here, researchers illustrate the median scenario for county-level annual changes in all-cause mortality rates, across all age groups, due to climate change during the years 2080-2099. The southern U.S. is expected to be hit the hardest. HSIANG, KOPP, JINA, RISING, ET AL. (SCIENCE, 2017)

In 2013, researchers from Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley found that even slight spikes in temperature and precipitation have increased the risk of personal violence and social upheaval throughout human history.

Extreme weather events are also known to trigger mental health problems including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and substance abuse.



TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO WATCH THIS RACHEL MADDOW VIDEO ON THE SUBJECT OF TRUMP’S LITERALLY DISMANTLING THE EPA AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT WE, WHEN I WAS YOUNG, FOUGHT FOR SO HARD. THIS IS THE TRUMP EFFECT. IT’S LIKE A SNOWFLAKE ON THE HOOD OF A CAR THAT HAS BEEN DRIVEN 30 MILES. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL IS GONE. HOW COULD ONE MAN DO SO MUCH DAMAGE SO FAST?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 6/28/17
Scientist says EPA asked her to change testimony to Congress
Deborah Swackhamer, chair of the E.P.A.’s Board of Scientific Counselors, talks with Rachel Maddow about the pressure she received from an EPA official to change her congressional testimony and how the EPA's outside scientific review board has been "decimated." Duration: 6:22

June 29, 2017


News and Views


SEE THE CBS NEWS FOLLOWUP STORY AND THE SEVERAL OTHERS HERE. EVEN COMBINING THE INFORMATION IN ALL OF THESE, I STILL DON’T HAVE WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ONE WHOLE STORY. DISAPPOINTING. THE WSJ WOULDN’T LET ME COLLECT THEIR WHOLE STORY WITHOUT MY SUBSCRIBING, AND I’M NOT GOING TO DO THAT, SO I TOOK THE MOTHER JONES ARTICLE INSTEAD. PERSONALLY, I THINK THEY’RE A VERY GOOD NEWS SOURCE SINCE MY “BIAS” AGREES WITH THEIRS; AND THEY ARE KNOWN FOR TRUTHFUL WRITING. I DID FIND SMITH’S OBITUARY. HE DIED, FROM ALL I CAN TELL, PEACEFULLY AND NATURALLY. NO MURDER STORY HERE.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/the-wall-street-journal-just-published-a-bombshell-story-about-the-russia-scandal/
The Wall Street Journal Just Published a Bombshell Story About the Russia Scandal
BEN DREYFUSS JUN. 29, 2017 5:42 PM

The Wall Street Journal just dropped a bomb:

Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers.

In conversations with members of his circle and with others he tried to recruit to help him, the GOP operative, Peter W. Smith, implied he was working with retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, at the time a senior adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump.

“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?’” said Eric York, a computer-security expert from Atlanta who searched hacker forums on Mr. Smith’s behalf for people who might have access to the emails.

Emails written by Mr. Smith and one of his associates show that his small group considered Mr. Flynn and his consulting company, Flynn Intel Group, to be allies in their quest.

What role, if any, Mr. Flynn may have played in Mr. Smith’s project is unclear. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Smith said he knew Mr. Flynn, but he never stated that Mr. Flynn was involved.

Mr. Flynn didn’t respond to requests for comment.

A Trump campaign official said that Mr. Smith didn’t work for the campaign, and that if Mr. Flynn coordinated with him in any way, it would have been in his capacity as a private individual. The White House declined to comment.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-29/comey-friend-unveils-smoking-gun-story
Comey Friend Unveils "Smoking Gun" Story
Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Jun 29, 2017 6:49 PM

For about a week now, Benjamin Wittes, the Brookings Institution senior fellow and noted ally of former FBI Director James Comey, has been taunting the Trump administration with tweets suggesting that another 'bombshell' story, presumably related to the Russia investigation, was in the works and set to drop any minute (we covered it all here: "Tick, Tick, Tick" Comey Ally Scrambles To Explain Why "Next Trump Bombshell" Didn't Arrive Today).

Of course, people took notice of the warnings because Wittes posted similar tweets just before the New York Times published their now infamous story on Comey's memos.

23 Jun
Benjamin Wittes ✔ @benjaminwittes
#NotesFromUnderTrump, Day 154: In honor both of the President's "WITCH HUNT" tweet and of the expected magnitude of the detonation...
Follow
Benjamin Wittes ✔ @benjaminwittes
TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK pic.twitter.com/yuL0o0TBbT
10:42 AM - 23 Jun 2017

649 649 Retweets 1,546 1,546 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

So what was the "bombshell" story? It seems to have come in the form of a rather bizarre, and thoroughly difficult to follow, Wall Street Journal article entitled "GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn."

To summarize the 'bombshell', the story is about a long-time Republican opposition researcher, 81-year-old Peter W. Smith, who apparently set out on a mission to find Hillary's 30,000 emails which the FBI confirmed had gone missing. In his efforts to find those emails, he scoured hacking chat rooms looking for clues and/or hackers that might be able to help him. The WSJ alleges that Smith may or may not have been working with Michael Flynn but, in the end, they found absolutely nothing. To summarize even further, a guy tried to find Hillary's missing emails and failed...HALT THE PRESSES!

Of course, the goal of the story is to paint some sinister plot that involved Smith and Michael Flynn enlisting the help of some Russians to hack the 2016 election...thus 'proving' the collusion angle.

Unfortunately, the story seems to prove the exact opposite which is, if Flynn was really running around on some wild goose chase looking for Hillary's missing 30,000 emails by chatting up hackers on a message board then we have to assume that means he wasn't in any way connected to the original hack which ended up on WikiLeaks.

Flynn

In any event, here is the Wall Street Journal's take:

Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers.

In conversations with members of his circle and with others he tried to recruit to help him, the GOP operative, Peter W. Smith, implied he was working with retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, at the time a senior adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump.

“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?’” said Eric York, a computer-security expert from Atlanta who searched hacker forums on Mr. Smith’s behalf for people who might have access to the emails.

Emails written by Mr. Smith and one of his associates show that his small group considered Mr. Flynn and his consulting company, Flynn Intel Group, to be allies in their quest.

Of course, it's only deeper in the story that the WSJ admits they have no idea if Flynn was even involved with Smith...but no one reads an entire article so it's fairly irrelevant.

What role, if any, Mr. Flynn may have played in Mr. Smith’s project is unclear. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Smith said he knew Mr. Flynn, but he never stated that Mr. Flynn was involved.

And another irrelevant detail from the WSJ:

Mr. Smith said he worked independently and wasn’t part of the Trump campaign.

Finally, Smith apparently started his search for Hillary's emails over the Labor Day Weekend in 2016. His efforts to scour hacker forums ultimately yielded 5 groups who claimed to have the missing emails, 2 of which were Russian. However, Smith seemingly doubted the authenticity of the intelligence he received and, as a result, never leaked their contents.

His project began over Labor Day weekend 2016 when Mr. Smith, a private-equity executive from Chicago active in Republican politics, said he assembled a group of technology experts, lawyers and a Russian-speaking investigator based in Europe to acquire emails the group theorized might have been stolen from the private server Mrs. Clinton used as secretary of state.

[NOTE: LABOR DAY IN 2016 WAS SEPTEMBER 5, ACCORDING TO GOOD OLD TRUSTY WIKIPEDIA.]

In the interview with the Journal, Mr. Smith said he and his colleagues found five groups of hackers who claimed to possess Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails, including two groups he determined were Russians.

Mr. Smith said after vetting batches of emails offered to him by hacker groups last fall, he couldn’t be sure enough of their authenticity to leak them himself. “We told all the groups to give them to WikiLeaks,” he said. WikiLeaks has never published those emails or claimed to have them.

Meanwhile, the WSJ confirms that Smith died last month at the age of 81.

So there you have it...all the makings of another salacious, 'bombshell' story with multiple references to Russians, hackers, collusion, shady dealings with Michael Flynn, etc, etc, etc....yet still no evidence of pretty much anything.



PETER W SMITH OBITUARY
HTTP://WWW.LEGACY.COM/OBITUARIES/CHICAGOTRIBUNE/OBITUARY.ASPX?PID=185474380

Peter W. Smith, 81, of Lake Forest, Ill,, passed away on May 14, 2017. . . . For more than 40 years, Peter directed private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments. . . . . Peter's active involvement in public affairs spanned 60 years. A quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically secure world, he worked with the Atlantic Council of the United states for 12 years, as board vice chair, treasure and finance chairman. Other policy organizations in which Peter was active included the Heritage Foundation, Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Brookings Institution. He served as national chairman of the College Young Republicans and in later years was involved in fundraising for the Republican National Committee, GOPAC, and candidate and state party organizations. . . . . In business and political matters, he was adept at bringing people together and negotiating agreement. Among his guiding axioms: "What one says does not count; it's what the other person hears that counts." .


THIS STORY AND THE CBS ARTICLE JUST BELOW IT, SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT US INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS HAVE A CLEAR INDICATION – AN ORAL RECORDING I HOPE – OF A SPECIFIC AND HOPEFULLY PROVABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN RUSSIAN HACKERS AND THE SMITH/FLYNN GROUP, THROUGH A THIRD PARTY. THAT’S THE ONLY THING I SAW THAT LOOKS LIKE A SMOKING GUN TO ME.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4652840/Russian-hackers-spoke-Clinton-emails-Flynn.html
Russian hackers spoke about Clinton emails, Flynn
By Associated Press
PUBLISHED: 20:21 EDT, 29 June 2017 | UPDATED: 20:21 EDT, 29 June 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) - Russian hackers discussed during the 2016 presidential campaign whether they could obtain emails pilfered from Hillary Clinton and ultimately get them to an adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump, according to a report published Thursday by The Wall Street Journal.

The Journal said investigators probing Russian meddling in the election have examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton's server to an intermediary and then to Mike Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser. The newspaper also references a Republican operative who was convinced emails missing from Clinton's server were in the hands of Russian hackers, and who implied in conversations that he was working with Flynn.

The newspaper said it was not clear whether Flynn played any role in the quest of the operative, Peter W. Smith, who died shortly after speaking with the newspaper. The Journal said Flynn did not respond to requests, the White House declined comment, and the campaign said Smith never worked for it and that any such action undertaken by Flynn, if true, was not on its behalf.

Congressional committees and special counsel Robert Mueller are investigating Russian influence in the election and potential coordination with the Trump campaign. Russia has been blamed for pilfering emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and of the DNC.

But the newspaper said Smith and the hackers were focused on some 33,000 emails that Clinton said had been deleted and that Smith believed, with no proof, were acquired by hackers. Officials have said there is no evidence Clinton's private email server was hacked.

Smith told the newspaper that he was unsure of the authenticity of emails hackers eventually did send to him and he told them to pass them to WikiLeaks, the same outfit that published the emails taken from Podesta and the committee.

"We knew the people who had these were probably around the Russian government," Smith told the newspaper. He died on May 14 at 81, about less than two weeks after being interviewed.

In emails Smith sent to potential recruits for his project, and which the newspaper reviewed, he referenced Flynn and Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, several times.

Mike Flynn was fired after less than a month because of revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russia's ambassador to the United States.

Share or comment on this article



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-gop-operative-looked-to-get-clinton-emails-from-hacker-said-he-worked-with-flynn/
CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 7:39 PM
Report: GOP operative looked to get Clinton emails from hacker, said he worked with Flynn

Photograph -- White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn arrives prior to a joint news conference between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, on Feb. 13, 2017. REUTERS

A Republican opposition researcher, who implied he worked with Michael Flynn, launched an effort to obtain Hillary Clinton's emails that he believed were hacked by Russia, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Peter W. Smith, a GOP operative and private equity executive, launched the project over Labor Day weekend in 2016 according to the Journal. Smith told people he recruited to the effort that he was working with Flynn, who would later briefly serve as President Trump's National Security Adviser. Smith also said he was working with Flynn's son.

Smith would not tell the paper if Flynn was working with the group. However, the paper also reports that intelligence officials have obtained communications between Russian hackers in which they discuss how to obtain Clinton's emails and pass them along to Flynn through a third party.

White House tries to distance itself from former campaign chair with Russia ties
Play VIDEO
White House tries to distance itself from former campaign chair with Russia ties

Those intercepts of the hackers' conversations occurred while Smith's group was operating, intelligence officials told the paper, although they could not conclude that Smith or any members of his team were the supposed third party the Russians' discussed.

Smith's team included lawyers, technology experts, and an investigator in Europe who spoke Russian. He died ten days after he talked to the Journal, at age 81.

The team focused on obtaining the roughly 33,000 emails that had been deleted from Clinton's server – the same emails Mr. Trump had publicly encouraged Russia to find and leak last year, a comment the White House now insists was made in jest. Last year, then-FBI director James Comey said there was no evidence the server had ever been hacked, although he didn't rule out the possibility.

Clinton's private email server, which State Department watchdog ruled in 2016 violated email policy, was an issue that dogged her through the 2016 election campaign. In July 2016, Comey announced that he would not recommend charges be brought against Clinton in the matter. The State Department's inspector general said in May 2016 that hackers had tried to breach Clinton's email server

In May 2017, former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel by the Justice Department to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denied allegations that the Russian government interfered in the election to bolster his chances of winning, calling Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt."

Smith told the Journal that his team found five hacker groups that said they had possession of Clinton's emails, including two Russian ones. "We knew the people who had these were probably around the Russian government," Smith told the paper.

In one email sent entice experts to join his team, Smith said that he could introduce them to Flynn's son, and said that the son was helping with the effort. Flynn's son was at that time his father's chief of staff. Smith told other potential recruits that Flynn was working with the team.

Emails obtained by the Journal indicate that Smith and his team believed that Flynn and Flynn's consulting company were assisting their effort. Flynn was fired as National Security Adviser earlier this year for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about conversations he had had with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the U.S.

Smith said that he never intended to pay for any emails, and that while he believed the Russians had attempted to hack Clinton's email server, he said he did not think they were trying to help Mr. Trump win the election.



ANOTHER SET OF WILD AND HOSTILE TWEETS HAS COME OUT ABOUT AN APPARENTLY INNOCENT WOMAN WHO, WITH JOE SCARBOROUGH, WAS PERSONALLY KNOWN TO TRUMP. TRUMP CAME TO DISTRUST AND APPARENTLY HATE SCARBOROUGH AFTER THE LATTER BEGAN OPENLY COMMENTING AGAINST HIM. HOWEVER, ALL THESE TWEET STORMS ARE, AS ONE SENATOR SAID, “NOT NORMAL.”

DO WE, PERHAPS, NEED AN OFFICIAL BOARD OF PROFESSIONALS OVERSEEING THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH OF OUR PRESIDENTS AND OTHER OFFICE HOLDERS? I THINK THAT’S A GREAT IDEA, FROM BEFORE THEIR ELECTION AND AFTERWARD, AS MENTAL HEALTH CAN DECLINE OVER TIME. IF IT WERE INSTITUTED IN LAW AND RIGIDLY ADHERED TO, IT WOULDN’T BECOME A MATTER OF A PERSONAL INSULT, BUT, ONE OF RATIONALITY, WHEN THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVE THEIR BACKGROUND. AT ANOTHER ARTICLE BELOW I STATED THAT WE NEED A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND RESTRICTIVE SET OF STANDARDS ON WHOMEVER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, TO BE APPLIED EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE ELECTED, WHICH IS PART TWO OF THE ISSUE.

THE OVERSIGHT BOARD SHOULD, PERHAPS, BE SITUATED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, BECAUSE THAT’S THE KIND OF PROBLEM THAT IS CAUSED BY A MENTALLY UNBALANCED OR OTHERWISE INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT. IT COULD BE COMPOSED OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRISTS, LAWYERS, HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIALS, AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, SPECIFICALLY THE FBI. THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SHOULD BE AT LEAST 35 YEARS OLD, BE A NATURAL BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN, AND ONE WHO HAS LIVED AS LONG AS 14 YEARS IN THE USA. WE HAVE NO EDUCATIONAL OR ANY OTHER TRULY COMPETENCY RELATED REQUIREMENT, AND THAT IS A MISTAKE.

IT’S CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO SHORE UP THE GOOD INTENTIONS BEHIND THE WRITING OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH PRACTICALITY, ON THIS ISSUE AND SOME OTHERS AS WELL, IN MY OPINION. OF COURSE, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DEBATES, BUT THEY RARELY GO FAR ENOUGH. THEY’RE “SOFT BALL” QUESTIONS. IT SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE THAT AFTER SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS AS A NATION, THERE WOULD COME UP SOME LOGICAL ISSUES THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED FOR, OR EVEN “DREAMT OF IN [OUR] PHILOSOPHY.” NOW IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES.

I WOULD LIKE FOR THE MENTALLY DISTURBED OR THE BLATANTLY UNETHICAL PEOPLE TO BE DETECTED AND IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATED BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR OFFICE, AND NOT AFTER IT’S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO GET THEM OUT, AS IS THE CASE NOW. IN THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL, THE CLAIM WAS BROUGHT UP THAT IT (IN ESSENCE) DISTURBS THE POPULACE TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT. IT’S “UPSETTING.” WELL, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGE IT DOES TO FAIL TO IMPEACH IN SOME OF THESE CASES? THAT IS A GREATER DANGER.

IN THIS CASE, I WOULD RECOMMEND EXAMINATION BY A BOARD OF PSYCHIATRISTS, THREE WOULD BE A GOOD NUMBER FOR PRODUCING A RANGE OF IDEAS, AND HOPEFULLY THAT UNEVEN NUMBER WOULD PERFORM AS A TIE BREAKER AS WELL. UNDOUBTEDLY BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE 1700S, THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IS BASED MORE ON MORAL AND PHYSICAL ISSUES RATHER THAN ON THE PSYCHIATRIC. PRESIDENT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WAS CONSIDERED BY SOME TO BE UNQUALIFIED BECAUSE HE WAS PARALYZED AND IN A WHEEL CHAIR. WE NEED PSYCHIATRIC, PHYSICAL AND MORAL QUALIFICATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THESE CASES WHEN THE PRESIDENT MAY WELL BE DANGEROUS -- A SOCIOPATH, FOR INSTANCE. I THINK IT’S SAFE TO SAY THAT HITLER WAS A SOCIOPATH. THE CASE OF RONALD REAGAN WHO WAS WELL INTO DEMENTIA BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE IS A SIMILAR ISSUE. IN REAGAN’S CASE, NOTHING WAS EVEN MENTIONED ABOUT IT UNTIL MUCH LATER.

I AM PARTICULARLY INCENSED IN THIS GROUP OF TWEETS, BY HIS CHOOSING A BEAUTIFUL AND INTELLIGENT FEMALE NEWS COMMENTATOR ON AN, UNFORTUNATELY, LIBERAL NEWS SITE. THAT MAKES HER A FAIR VICTIM IN HIS EYES, THUS SHIELDING FROM HIS EYES THE IDEA THAT THE THINGS HE SO OFTEN SAYS ARE IMMORAL AND UNACCEPTABLE IN A PRESIDENT. I REMEMBER, TOO, THAT HE WENT AFTER MEGYN KELLY SOME MONTHS AGO IN THE SAME WAY. IN MY EYES, HE SHOULD HAVE NO “VICTIMS” AT ALL. BERNIE SANDERS CAN SAY SOME VERY SHARP THINGS, BUT HE HAS YET, THAT I HAVE SEEN, TO GO AFTER ANYONE IN SUCH A PURELY UNFAIR AND TOTALLY PERSONAL WAY. HE ALWAYS HAS A GOOD CAUSE AND A GOOD ARGUMENT.

OF COURSE, HE DID CALL TRUMP “A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,” AND “A BLATANT LIAR” SINCE THE ELECTION, BUT THAT’S THE SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS TRUTH. SANDERS, TO DEFEND HIS OCCASIONALLY RATHER HOT TEMPERAMENT, ALSO FOLLOWED UP HIS COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL WELL REASONED AND MODULATED STATEMENTS. HE IS ESSENTIALLY A GENTLEMAN. IN ALL THE PERRY MASON SHOWS, HE OR THE PROSECUTOR ALMOST ALWAYS DECLARES THAT SOMETHING IS “INCOMPETENT, IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.” I LOOKED THAT UP SOMETIME BACK AND IT IS A GENUINE LEGAL ARGUMENT, A SORT OF STANDARD LIKE “I FEARED FOR MY LIFE.” IT IS MY VIEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PERSONALLY “INCOMPETENT, IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.” IN COURT IT REFERS ONLY TO EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS, OF COURSE, BUT IT FITS HERE SO WELL THAT I JUST HAD TO USE IT.

I ALSO FAULT THESE CBS COMMENTATORS FOR TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE LATEST VICIOUS BOUT OF TWEETS “COMES AT A BAD TIME,” RATHER THAN THE ESSENTIAL QUALITY OF WHAT HE SAID. THAT KEEPS PUNDITS FROM BEING AS EFFECTIVE AS THEY WOULD BE IF THEY WERE TO USE A RATIONAL AND FULLER DISCUSSION AS A MEANS TO COMBAT HIM. SINCE TRUMP EMERGED ON THE SCENE EVERYBODY HAS TALKED ABOUT HIS OBSCENITY, AND IT IS A VERY DISGUSTING THING, BUT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT HIS DANGER TO DEMOCRACY EVEN MORE SO.

SEE THE CBS ARTICLE HERE AND THEN THE WIKIPEDIA BIOGRAPHY OF MIKA BRZEZINSKI BELOW. GO TO: HTTP://WWW.SMH.COM.AU/WORLD/BERNIE-SANDERS-CALLS-DONALD-TRUMP-A-PATHOLOGICAL-LIAR-20170212-GUB8VG.HTML; AND HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/MIKA_BRZEZINSKI. PATHOLOGICAL MEANS THAT HE IS UNABLE TO STOP HIMSELF FROM MAKING HARSH AND OFTEN RIDICULOUSLY UNTRUE STATEMENTS WITHOUT EVEN NEEDING TO DO SO, ESPECIALLY IN HIS SEEMINGLY SPONTANEOUS “TWEETING” FITS. I THOUGHT AT FIRST THAT IT WAS SHEER IGNORANCE, BUT I NOW BELIEVE IT TO BE MENTAL ILLNESS. IN SHORT, HE IS INCOMPETENT FOR THE JOB HE HAS COME INTO, AND WE ARE IN TROUBLE IF THIS CONTINUES. I WITH WE HAD THE LEGAL EXPEDIENCY OF A “VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE” IN THIS COUNTRY.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/us/politics/trumps-attack-on-mika-brzezinski-comes-at-a-tense-political-moment.html?mcubz=0&_r=0
Trump’s Attack on Mika Brzezinski Comes at a Tense Political Moment
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS JUNE 29, 2017

Photograph -- Mika Brzezinski, co-host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, at an event in New York in 2015. Credit Andrew Toth/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s Twitter outburst on Thursday — a highly personal attack on MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski — reignited the controversy over his crass comments about women that nearly immolated his candidacy last year, and it imperiled his legislative agenda by drawing condemnation from women he needs to enact it.

Mr. Trump described Ms. Brzezinski, the co-host of “Morning Joe,” as “low I.Q. Crazy Mika” and claimed she was “bleeding badly from a face-lift” during a social gathering at the president’s resort in Florida in the weeks after last year’s election.

Mr. Trump’s invective threatened to further erode his support from women and independents, both among voters and on Capitol Hill, where he is in need of negotiating leverage for the stalled Senate health care bill.

“This has to stop,” Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine who is a crucial vote on the legislation, posted in a Twitter message. She added, “We don’t have to get along, but we must show respect and civility.”

Ms. Collins is one of three female swing voters who expressed their distaste for the “Access Hollywood” tape released during the campaign showing Mr. Trump making lewd comments about women with whom he hoped to have an affair.

Christine Matthews, a Republican pollster who specializes in the views of female voters, said the president’s use of Twitter to target a prominent woman was particularly striking, noting that he used only one derogatory word — “psycho” — to describe the show’s co-host, Joe Scarborough, and the remainder of his limited characters to hit upon damaging stereotypes of women.

“He included dumb, crazy, old, unattractive and desperate,” Ms. Matthews said.

“The continued tweeting, the fact that he is so outrageous, so unpresidential, is becoming a huge problem for him,” she added. “And it is particularly unhelpful in terms of building relationships with female Republican members of Congress whose votes he needs for health care, tax reform, and infrastructure.”

Republican leaders have adopted a strategy after such comments of condemning Mr. Trump, then backing him politically. It was unclear whether the vehemence of the latest attack would embolden members of his party to turn disdain into defiance.

“The president’s tweets today don’t help our political or national discourse and do not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, a Republican.

“Please just stop,” Senator Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who opposed Mr. Trump’s nomination, wrote on Twitter. “This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.”

Senior Republican leaders, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate majority leader, cycled through what has become a familiar series of emotions and calculations after the Twitter post, according to staff members: a flash of anger, reckoning of possible damage and finally a determination to push past the controversy to pursue their agenda with all deliberate speed.

“Obviously, I don’t see that as an appropriate comment,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said during a Capitol Hill news conference.

Then he told reporters he wanted to talk about something else.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, demanded an apology, calling the president’s Twitter posts “sexist, an assault on the freedom of the press and an insult to all women.”

Ms. Brzezinski, who has questioned Mr. Trump’s competence and mental state, was stunned by the attack, telling a close friend that “I really don’t need this.” Ms. Brzezinski’s father, Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, died in May. Her mother, Emilie Benes Brzezinski, has suffered two heart attacks since he died, according to the friend.

The ties between Ms. Brzezinski, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Trump and his family are long and complicated. The president and Mr. Scarborough had a friendly, bantering relationship until this year when it soured as Mr. Scarborough started to regularly challenge Mr. Trump’s actions on air.


THESE NEWEST DISGUSTING COMMENTS CAUGHT ON VIDEO:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tweets-mika-brzezinski-washington-women-react/
Trump's Twitter attack on "Morning Joe" hosts draws backlash
Facebook
June 29, 2017, 10:52 PM

President Trump has turned "crossing the line" into a political art form. But when he lashed out at the hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," he may have ventured into new territory. Now, members of both parties are calling him out. Major Garrett reports.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-attack-on-tv-anchor-comes-at-a-bad-time-for-gop-brokering-health-care-deal/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 4:21 PM
Congress responds as Trump's attack on TV co-host distracts from health care, other business

Photograph -- U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before signing the "VA Accountability Act" in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., June 23, 2017. CARLOS BARRIA / REUTERS

As the U.S. Senate looked to a day of negotiating on health care legislation Thursday, President Donald Trump at 8:52 a.m. began unleashing tweets attacking the IQ, mental stability and physical appearance of MSNBC "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..
8:52 AM - 29 Jun 2017
16,041 16,041 Retweets 54,601 54,601 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!
8:58 AM - 29 Jun 2017
15,327 15,327 Retweets 52,166 52,166 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president's behavior in a Thursday afternoon press briefing, saying "the American people elected a fighter," and that's what they got.

But Republicans and Democrats criticized the president for his tweets -- shocking even for Mr. Trump's Twitter account -- as the Senate struggles to propose a passable bill on health care. Mr. Trump met Wednesday with senators earlier this week as he attempts to negotiate the bill, and Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday met one-on-one with senators on Capitol Hill.

The tweets also detracted from the White House's designated policy focus of the week -- energy -- and two bills expected to pass in the House Thursday to crack down on immigrants who commit crimes and attempt to re-enter the country illegally, and on "sanctuary cities" refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Mr. Trump made stricter stances on immigration -- a theme drowned out by his tweets Thursday -- a central message of his campaign.

Both Republicans and Democrats criticized the president Thursday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), who told CBS News' "Face the Nation" last month that the president is "his own worst enemy" with counterproductive tweets, said Mr. Trump behaved "beneath the office."

Follow
Lindsey Graham ✔ @LindseyGrahamSC
Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America.
10:15 AM - 29 Jun 2017
31,478 31,478 Retweets 89,867 89,867 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski told Mr. Trump to, "Stop it!"

Follow
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ✔ @lisamurkowski
Stop it! The Presidential platform should be used for more than bringing people down.
2:45 PM - 29 Jun 2017
2,898 2,898 Retweets 8,752 8,752 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Follow
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ✔ @lisamurkowski
@POTUS, do you want to be remembered for your tweets or your accomplishments?
2:47 PM - 29 Jun 2017
715 715 Retweets 1,982 1,982 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a Kansas Republican, said the president's Twitter outburst was, "not OK."

Follow
Lynn Jenkins ✔ @RepLynnJenkins
This is not okay. As a female in politics I am often criticized for my looks. We should be working to empower women. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880410114456465411 …
10:32 AM - 29 Jun 2017
2,678 2,678 Retweets 8,286 8,286 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) pointed out that the shooting at a congressional baseball practice -- after which Mr. Trump himself urged unity -- was just two weeks ago. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) is still in the hospital after he was seriously injured by a shot to the hip.

Follow
Carlos Curbelo ✔ @carloslcurbelo
Let's all remember the lessons from the Congressional shooting just a couple weeks ago. We must treat one another with decency & respect
11:41 AM - 29 Jun 2017
79 79 Retweets 269 269 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) urged "respect" and "civility."

Follow
Sen. Susan Collins ✔ @SenatorCollins
This has to stop – we all have a job – 3 branches of gov’t and media. We don’t have to get along, but we must show respect and civility.
11:18 AM - 29 Jun 2017
8,466 8,466 Retweets 27,410 27,410 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado) used the hashtag, "StopTheTwitterTantrums."

Follow
Rep. Mike Coffman ✔ @RepMikeCoffman
The President’s tweets are beneath the dignity of his office. It needs to stop. #StopTheTwitterTantrums
12:45 PM - 29 Jun 2017
731 731 Retweets 2,115 2,115 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Democrats were even more blunt.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) called Mr. Trump's tweets, "so blatantly sexist I don't even know that there's any question about it."

"I just don't know why the Republicans, they can tolerate almost anything: a candidate beating up a reporter and then cheering him on as he arrives in Congress, the tweets of the president of the United States," Pelosi added, referring to Montana Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte's assault on a reporter the night before he was elected to Congress.

Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Florida), in a press conference with more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress, called Mr. Trump the "cyber bully in chief."

"And once again, he is ... embarrassing our nation with what I call his bloody tweets," Frankel said.

Other Democrats pointed out that Mr. Trump is hurting legislative progress. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), called the president's attacks on the media a "constant distraction."

Follow
Chellie Pingree ✔ @chelliepingree
.@RealDonaldTrump's attacks on media have sunk to a new low. This constant distraction is hurting the ability of Rs & Ds to get work done.
11:59 AM - 29 Jun 2017
67 67 Retweets 261 261 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Rep. David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island) asked anyone to tell him how the president's tweets help "create jobs" or "make health care better," issues Mr. Trump has said are among his top priorities.

Follow
David Cicilline ✔ @davidcicilline
If anyone can tell me how these sexist attacks are going to create jobs or make health care better, let me know. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/880410114456465411 …
11:32 AM - 29 Jun 2017
94 94 Retweets 289 289 likes

Mr. Trump didn't stop criticizing the media Thursday. As the House and Senate wrapped up their legislative business before the July 4 holiday, Mr. Trump, at a Department of Energy event with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry Thursday afternoon, repeated his frequent line that CNN is "fake news."



MADDOW NEWS

THE FAR-RIGHT SENATE HEALTH CARE PLAN

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-ignorance-about-health-care-carries-real-consequences?cid=eml_mra_20170628
Trump’s ignorance about health care carries real consequences
06/28/17 08:00 AM—UPDATED 06/28/17 08:55 AM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- U.S. President Donald Trump hosts an event for military mothers on National Military Spouse Appreciation Day with is wife, first lady Melania Trump, in the East Room of the White Hosue [sic] May 12, 2017 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla

A few months ago, when the House was trying to pass its far-right health care plan, Donald Trump thought some presidential pressure could help seal the deal. The president’s ignorance about the basics of the debate, however, kept getting in the way.

Politico reported in March that when the president tried to lean on the far-right House Freedom Caucus, its members found Trump charming, but it became clear “that no serious changes were going to be made” during the conversations, because “the president didn’t have sufficient command of the policy details to negotiate.”

Trump has had ample time to get up to speed in recent months, but by all appearances, he doesn’t feel like it. The president hosted a meeting yesterday with Senate Republicans – after GOP leaders scrapped a scheduled vote on the party’s far-right plan – and some came away with the impression that Trump still doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The New York Times reports today:

A senator who supports the bill left the meeting at the White House with a sense that the president did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan – and seemed especially confused when a moderate Republican complained that opponents of the bill would cast it as a massive tax break for the wealthy, according to an aide who received a detailed readout of the exchange.

Mr. Trump said he planned to tackle tax reform later, ignoring the repeal’s tax implications, the staff member added.

This isn’t a point-and-laugh-at-the-amateur-president moment. There are practical consequences to Trump’s ignorance.

It matters, for example, that the president can’t engage in meaningful negotiations with members of Congress about the legislative details. The differences within the GOP are significant, and crafting a compromise requires a detailed understanding of how the pieces to the puzzle work together. Trump simply isn’t in a position to lead, not for lack of will, but because he simply doesn’t have the knowledge necessary to play a constructive role.

This dynamic also affects public opinion. The Republican plan is woefully unpopular, though the effort may have more support if Trump could use his high-profile platform to sell the bill’s virtues. But the president simply can’t play this role – because he doesn’t understand the proposal in any detail, and he doesn’t even try to defend the plan on the merits.

This is, not surprisingly, a point of some embarrassment for the unprepared president. Trump insisted on Twitter this morning that when it comes to health care, he “knows the subject well.” This follows his recent boast to Time magazine that he now knows “everything” there is to know about health care.

Even the most sycophantic Trump supporters probably find this hard to believe. After all, the president has literally never demonstrated any real familiarity with the details of the debate, and accounts of his private interactions with lawmakers bolster concerns that Trump simply has no idea what he’s talking about.

Either he’s ignorant about the substance of health care or he’s doing a remarkable imitation of someone who’s ignorant about the substance of health care.

Eight years ago this week, then-President Barack Obama hosted a 90-minute public forum exclusively on health care policy, fielding questions from doctors, reporters, and the public at large. Can anyone imagine Donald J. Trump doing something similar? Does anyone seriously believe he’d want to try?

It’s not too late for the president to start taking his responsibilities in this area more seriously, but I’d recommend keeping expectations low.


THE INTERESTING QUESTION OF WHY TRUMP’S SUPPORTER MANAFORT DECIDED NOW TO COME FORWARD WITH HIS SECRET, IS ONE THAT I HOPE WILL BE DISCOVERED AND PUBLICIZED SOON. IT SOUNDS EXCITING. I WILL CONTINUE TO WATCH THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOWS TO FIND OUT WHATEVER INFORMATION SHE HAS ON HIM.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/manafort-files-retroactively-as-foreign-agent-977602115791
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 6/27/17
Manafort files retroactively as foreign agent

Rachel Maddow relays reports that former Donald Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort has filed retroactively as an agent of a foreign government, the second top Trump aide to do so. Duration: 13:55


NOT SURPRISINGLY, THIS NEW DEUTSCHE BANK LAWYER IS ALSO LINKED FINANCIALLY WITH TRUMP AND KUSHNER. TRUMP HAS EVEN BEEN ALLOWED TO REFUSE SHOWING HIS TAX RETURNS, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO BARE SUCH CORRUPTION TO THE LIGHT OF DAY. WHY, OH WHY, DON’T WE DO A MANDATORY FBI, CIA, AND IRS CHECK ON THESE PEOPLE AND PUBLISH THE RESULTS IN ALL OF THE MAJOR NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS IF THEY DO DECIDE TO PROCEED FORWARD ON BEGINNING A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, WHICH SHOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO “THROW THEIR HAT INTO THE RING.” I’VE SAID IT BEFORE: WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT SORT OF PERSON IS ALLOWED TO BE PRESIDENT. WE NEED TO TREAT THE PRESIDENCY AS A SERIOUS POSITION OF POWER AND NOT AS THE RESULT OF A BEAUTY PAGEANT.

ONCE THE CAMPAIGNING AND THE VOTING HAPPENS, IT IS OFTEN TOO LATE TO FIND THAT THEY ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, FINANCIALLY UNPRINCIPLED, MENTALLY DISTURBED OR INCOMPETENT, OR LINKED IN ANY WAY WITH ORGANIZED CRIME FROM ANY NATION, BECAUSE THEY AND THEIR FOLLOWERS MAY WELL CAUSE GREAT TROUBLE. IN TRUMP’S CASE, IT’S A FOREIGN ADVERSARY, RUSSIA, OF COURSE, AND THEIR APPARENT GOAL WAS TO BOOST TRUMP INTO OFFICE SO THEY COULD HAVE HIS COOPERATION IN ANY AND ALL MATTERS. SINCE IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT HE KNOWINGLY WENT ALONG WITH THE SCHEME; SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE TRUE, IT’S TREASONOUS RATHER THAN MERELY CORRUPT. HE HAS ALREADY TRIED TO REMOVE THE OBAMA SANCTIONS ON THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR NOW UNDISPUTED HACK OF THE DNC. THE SENATE AND THE FBI ARE BULLDOGGING HIM, I NOTICE, AND IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD STEP IN FIRMLY AND NOISILY BEHIND THEM, I THINK THE TRUMP REGIME MAY COME TO A HALT. THE APPROPRIATE STEP SEEMS TO ME TO BE IMPEACHMENT AND A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/deutsche-bank-adds-lawyer-with-financial-crime-background-977619523525?cid=eml_mra_20170628
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 6/27/17
Deutsche Bank adds lawyer with financial crime background

Rachel Maddow reports that Deutsche Bank, at the center of a lot of questions about its business practices and loans made to both Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, has hired a new lawyer with a background in tax crimes and money laundering. Duration: 6:15



THIS MADDOW COMMENTARY FEATURES A SERIES OF EMPTY TRUMP THREATS TO WELL-KNOWN PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONFRONTED HIM ON VARIOUS ISSUES. IN NONE OF THOSE CASES DID TRUMP ACTUALLY SUE. HE BACKED DOWN EACH TIME. MY FAVORITE IN THE ARTICLE IS REPUBLICAN JOHN KASICH’S AD IN WHICH TRUMP IS DIRECTLY COMPARED TO HITLER, PARAPHRASING A FAMOUS AND EXCEPTIONALLY MOVING ANTI-NAZI POEM “FIRST THEY CAME...” BY A LUTHERAN PASTOR MARTIN NIEMOELLER. DO GO TO WIKIPEDIA FOR THE FULL TEXT. IF YOU HAVEN’T READ IT, YOU NEED TO. HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FIRST_THEY_CAME_...”

FOR ANY OF US WHO REMEMBER WHEN OUR FAMILY MEMBERS CAME BACK FROM WWII MISSING LIMBS OR “SHELL-SHOCKED,” THIS POEM HAS GREAT MEANING. FOR ANY OF US WHO ARE FASCINATED BY HISTORY FOR ITS’ OWN SAKE, AND WHO STUMBLED ACROSS A STORY MORE PROFOUND THAN ANY NOVEL, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A WORK OF FICTION, THE PATH OF CURRENT EVENTS IS ALARMING. FOR US, WE CONSIDER IT A DUTY TO SPEAK OUT, MARCH IN THE STREET, PETITION CONGRESS, AND READ THE REAL NEWS, WHICH IS PUBLISHED BY THE TRIED AND TRUE NEWS SOURCES THAT WE KNOW SO WELL: CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, AND OTHERS LESS WELL-KNOWN WHOSE STORIES DON’T HAVE THE TAINT OF HATRED OR TOADYING TO WHOEVER IS IN POWER TODAY, WE FEEL THE REQUIREMENT TO SPEAK UP.

I WAS READING ABOUT THE NEWS SITES WHICH RESEARCH SOURCES – SNOPES, FACTCHECK.ORG, ETC. IT WAS VERY INTERESTING, BUT IT ENDED WITH THE IDEA THAT WE STILL MUST DO RESEARCH FOR OURSELVES. THERE IS NO QUICK AND EASY PATH TO VERIFYING THINGS ON THE INTERNET, BECAUSE IT IS A TRUE JUNGLE, FULL OF DANGERS. WHEN I SEE SOME OF THE THINGS ON THE WEB, I SHOCKS ME THAT ANYONE COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THEM (MAN DIDN’T REALLY GO TO THE MOON), BUT OTHERS ARE MUCH MORE SUBTLE, AND THEREFORE MORE DANGEROUS. I READ THEM FOR THEIR PROPAGANDA VALUE, AND WHEN I SEE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE THE GOAL OF PUTTING ANY GROUP DOWN, I LOOK IT UP. SOME OF THE “SATIRE” IS ALSO AIMED AT CAUSING REAL HARM, SO SEARCH IT ON GOOGLE!

DEAR ONES, IT REALLY PAYS TO READ THE NEWS SO WE AREN’T SURPRISED, BUT MERELY HORRIFIED, WHEN A CHARACTER LIKE TRUMP IS ELECTED. IN 2016, SO MANY “MIDDLE OF THE ROAD” “GOOD CITIZENS” JUST LAUGHED AT TRUMP OR EVEN SAID “WE DON’T KNOW THAT THE STORIES AGAINST HIM ARE TRUE,” SO I WILL BE SOCIALLY SAFE AND GO ALONG WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING UNDER THE GUISE OF AN “ELECTION.” I AM PLEASED TO SEE THAT A REPUBLICAN NAMED JOHN KASICH SPOKE OUT TODAY AGAINST HIM FORCEFULLY, AS FROM THE BEGINNING. I HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR A REPUBLICAN, AND I REALLY DON’T LIKE THEIR TYPICAL ECONOMIC POLICIES, BUT IF KASICH RUNS I WILL DEFINITELY GIVE HIM DUE CONSIDERATION. HE DOESN’T SEEM TO BE RACIST OR “MEAN” IN DEALING WITH THE NEEDS OF THE POOR.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/another-empty-trump-lawsuit-threat-falls-flat-against-comey-978623555573
Another empty Trump threat falls flat against Comey

Rachel Maddow looks at evidence of Donald Trump's long history of trying to intimidate people he doesn't like with hollow threats of lawsuits, and notes the failure of his recent threat to file a complaint against James Comey as a setback in his attack on ... more Duration: 18:02

June 26, 27 and 28, 2017


News and Views


TRUMP BACKS OFF DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyers-fail-follow-threats-comey-165240367.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=dbb2094c-7d9a-37c0-96b9-7f844af62e78&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Trump’s lawyers fail to follow through on threats to Comey
Michael Isikoff Yahoo News
June 28, 2017

Photograph -- Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on “Russian Federation Efforts to Interfere in the 2016 U.S. Elections” on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. June 8, 2017. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

President Trump’s lawyers, after rethinking their legal strategy, have shelved plans for now to file complaints accusing former FBI director James Comey of leaking confidential information about his conversations with the president, according to two sources familiar with the lawyers’ plans.

The decision to back away from repeated public threats to launch an all out legal assault on Comey reflects a significant tactical retreat for Trump’s legal team. It was prompted by concerns that such a move might antagonize special counsel Robert Mueller as he gears up for his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to Trump’s presidential campaign, the sources said.

The public attacks on Comey began after the ex-FBI director’s testimony on June 8 that he authorized a friend to share with reporters portions of a memo with his account of a White House meeting at which President Trump allegedly asked him to go easy on former national security advisor Michael Flynn. The next day, Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s chief lawyer, accused the former FBI Director of “unilaterally and surreptitiously” making “unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president.”

“We will leave it to the appropriate authorities to determine whether these leaks should be investigated along with all the others being investigated,” Kasowitz said in a statement he read to the news media at the National Press Club.

After his press appearance, sources close to Kasowitz repeatedly promised that the president’s lawyers would file within days formal complaints with the Justice Department inspector general and the Senate Judiciary Committee seeking an investigation of Comey. One such story, published by CNN on June 9, said the lawyers planed to file the complaints “early next week.” Another story, on Fox News the same day, said the filings by “super attorney” Kasowitz would be part of a “three pronged legal attack” on Comey that “will likely be filed next week.”

But nearly three weeks later, no such filings have been made and it now appears they won’t be any time soon. The reason, sources said, is that Kastowitz—and his co-counsels Jay Sekulow and John Dowd—are concerned that such filings might antagonize Mueller and potentially backfire on the president.

The complaints have been put off “out of deference to Mueller to let him do his job,” said a source close to Trump’s legal team, who asked not to be identified by name. But, the source insisted, “it will be filed at some point.”

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz, speaks to the news media after the congressional testimony of former FBI Director James Comey, at the National Press Club in Washington, U.S. June 8, 2017. (Photos: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)View photos

Still, the tactical retreat seems likely to reinforce the impression that Trump and Kasowitz, his longtime personal lawyer, have a penchant for making intimidating legal threats that often don’t materialize.

During the campaign, Trump, at various points threatened to sue the Washington Post, the New York Times, Sen. Ted Cruz and multiple women who accused him of sexual misconduct—none of which he actually did. “Your article is reckless, defamatory and constitutes libel per se,” Kasowitz wrote Times executive editor Dean Baquet on Oct. 12, 2016, demanding that a story accusing Trump of inappropriately touching two women be retracted and removed from the paper’s website. “Failure to do will leave my client with no option but to pursue all available actions and remedies.”

The paper never retracted the story and it is still accessible on the Times website. Kasowitz has yet to take any action against the Times.

“This is consistent with Donald Trump’s style- making blustery attacks with no follow through and idle threats to intimidate with no substance,” said Mark Zaid, a veteran national security lawyer in Washington who often represents government officials facing investigations in security investigations.

One likely reason for he delay, according to Zaid and other national security lawyers, is that it is far from clear whether the Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz would even consider a request given that Comey is no longer a Justice Department employee. “Techncially, he doesn’t have any jurisdiction,” said Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general.

There is no evidence that any of the information Comey asked his friend to leak was classified. The only obvious legal issue would be whether Comey used a government computer to type up his contemporaneous account of his conversations with Trump (he testified he wrote one of them in his car immediately after meeting with the president) and, if so, did they constitute a government document that had been improperly removed from government records, according to Bromwich. Given that Horowitz already has an ongoing investigation into Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and the question of his use of the laptop raises issues of policy, Bromwich said it is likely Horowitz may ask him about the matter when he next interviews him as part of the probe. “I predict there will be a footnote in his report” about the issue, Bromwich said.

Read more from Yahoo News:
Alaska eyes Obamacare replacements with skepticism
School’s out, but universities are still fighting for their international students in wake of travel bans
Can Democratic pediatrician Mai-Khanh Tran unseat one of the most powerful House Republicans in 2018?
Reporter who exploded at Sarah Huckabee Sanders during White House briefing: ‘We can’t take the bullying anymore
Photos: Protesters across the country oppose GOP’s health care plan



A WOMAN, AN ASIAN, A DEMOCRAT, A MEDICAL DOCTOR AND A CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS – INTERESTING. THIS CONGRESSMAN WHOM SHE IS OPPOSING HAS HAD 12 TERMS ALREADY. THAT’S AT LEAST TEN TOO MANY IN MY VIEW. I HOPE WHEN THE MYTHICAL REPUBLICAN-LED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS HELD, WE WILL SHORTEN ALL TERM LENGTHS TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO FOR ALL POLITICAL OFFICES. FOR THE SUPREME COURT, A MAXIMUM OF TEN YEARS.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT OUR PARTIES (BOTH OF THEM) HAVE BECOME NOTICEABLY CORRUPTED IS BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE THERE WHO DON’T HAVE TO COMPETE FOR THEIR SEAT, WHO GET RELIABLE AND REPETITIVE GIFTS FROM DONORS FOR WHOM THEY DO FAVORS IN THEIR LEGISLATION, WHO CAN BUY JUDGES, ETC. WE NEED FRESH FACES AND NEW BLOOD, WITH MORE GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ETHNICITY VARIETY SO THAT THEY CAN BETTER REPRESENT THE ETHNICALLY VARYING POPULATION AND ECONOMIC BALANCES OF THIS COUNTRY.

THE MEAN OLD WHITE MEN DO NOT REFLECT THE CITIZENRY, AND HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO THE THINGS THAT THE REST OF US NEED TO HAVE DONE. THEY ONLY DESIRE TO MAKE ANOTHER BUCK, BECAUSE THE MILLIONAIRES IN THE LEGISLATURE JUST DON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. I HOPE THIS LADY DOC WILL WIN. BLESS HER FOR RUNNING, AS SANDERS AND OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED, TO PUT MORE PROGRESSIVES INTO THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SCENE, SO THOSE OF US WHO YEARN TO BE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RANKS AGAIN CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, REJOIN. WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO SEE, THOUGH, IS A NEW SPLINTER PARTY OF PROGRESSIVES WHO HAVE LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS TO BEAT THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMS BOTH. (I’M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH.) THAT IS BECAUSE SUCH CANDIDATES WOULD MAKE THE GRIP BY THE KOCH BROTHERS LOOSER, AND GIVE ME MORE REASONABLE CANDIDATES FROM WHOM TO CHOOSE.

BY THE WAY, THIS ARTICLE’S PUBLISHER “READERSUPPORTEDNEWS.ORG” WAS NEW TO ME, SO I GOOGLED IT. IN YET ANOTHER SITE, “REALORSATIRE.ORG,” IT SAYS THAT RSN IS – ACCORDING TO SNOPES -- IS “NEITHER REAL NOR SATIRE.” READING THAT SHORT ARTICLE, IT SAYS THAT THEIR OFFERINGS ARE “... A NEW SERVICE BY THE CREATOR OF TRUTHOUT, MARC ASH.” FROM THERE I GOOGLED SNOPES AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING INTERESTING DISCLAIMER: “A SNOPES PIECE OVER ON NETWORKWORLD.COM WROTE IT BEST:

[…T]HE MIKKELSONS [OF SNOPES] MAKE NO CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY AND INSIST THAT THEIR HIGHEST OBJECTIVE IS TO HELP CONVINCE PEOPLE TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT WHAT THEY HEAR AND READ … AND TO DO THEIR OWN FACT CHECKING.

IN THE END, THAT’S WHAT SITES LIKE SNOPES (AND ULTIMATELY REAL OR SATIRE) WANT READERS TO DO: THINK!” WELL, I HAVE THOUGHT, AND RESEARCHED AND I FOUND TWO THINGS. THE MAINSTREAM NEWS, SURE ENOUGH, DID NOT YET PUBLISH ANYTHING ABOUT HER AT ALL, MUCH LESS A RUN FOR OFFICE. THIS COULD BE BECAUSE: NOBODY ORDERED THEM TO RUN A STORY, NOR “PAID THEM UNDER THE TABLE.” THIS IS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HER MEDICAL, EDUCATIONAL AND WORK CAREER MAKE HER ONE OF THE BETTER QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FOR CONGRESS. SHE’S NOT A LAWYER, BUT SEVERAL MEMBERS IN CONGRESS OR THE SENATE ARE MEDICAL DOCTORS RATHER THAN LAWYERS. SHE GRADUATED IN SCIENCE AT HARVARD AND IN MEDICINE AT DARTMOUTH AND TOOK HER RESIDENCY AT UCLA. WHAT SHE DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT CONGRESS SHE CAN READ WELL ENOUGH TO LEARN.

FROM THE COMMENTS OF TRAN: “AND WHEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT REASONS — IF WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS NEEDED, ON BEHALF OF OTHERS — YOU WILL DO IT UNTIL YOU SUCCEED. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT.”

SO, UPON CONTINUING MY OWN RESEARCH ON HER, I CAME TO THE FOLLOWING SEVERAL ARTICLES – FEW IN NUMBER, BUT ALL RAVES. THERE IS NOTHING NEGATIVE AGAINST HER, BUT SHE HASN’T BEEN ON THE SCENE LONG ENOUGH FOR THE BIG CORPORATE MEDIA TO WRITE ABOUT HER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ATLANTIC AND THE LATIMES. SHE’S LIKE A YOUNG HOLLYWOOD ACTRESS WHO MAKES HER LIVING WAITING TABLES. SHE HASN’T BEEN “DISCOVERED” YET. SEE BELOW :


http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-orange-county-pediatrician-to-challenge-1496683864-htmlstory.html
JUNE 5, 2017, 11:36 A.M.
REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON
Orange County pediatrician to challenge Rep. Ed Royce in 2018
Sarah D. Wire

Pediatrician Mai Khanh Tran is entering the race to unseat Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton) in California’s 39th Congressional District.

Tran, 51, of Fountain Valley, said she was inspired to run by Royce's support for Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“I am absolutely incensed over what’s been happening,” she said by phone. “He was very callous and he did not vote for the needs of his constituents.”

Royce and the other 13 Republicans in California’s congressional delegation voted for the House Republican healthcare plan to replace Obamacare, and Democrats are expected to use the vote as an issue throughout the 2018 campaign.

Born in Vietnam, Tran and her three siblings came to the U.S. as refugees in 1975. Her parents fled the country after the fall of Saigon and they were reunited in Oregon, where the family spent summers picking strawberries with other immigrant laborers, Tran said.

Tran said she studied psychology and social relations at Harvard University, working her way through school in part by doing janitorial work. She then graduated from the Brown-Dartmouth medical program. She is a part of a private practice in Orange County.

Tran’s Fountain Valley home is in Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s district, where several Democrats have already announced plans to run. Members of Congress don’t have to live in the district they represent and at least a half dozen California members do not.

Still, the National Republican Congressional Committee jumped on the fact quickly.

“While Tran was district-shopping around Orange County, finally settling on one she doesn’t even live in, Ed Royce has been doing what he’s always done — working hard to keep Southern California families safe,” NRCC spokesman Jack Pandol said in an email.

Tran said 25 years of practicing medicine in Orange County means she’s familiar with the district.

“I don’t see this as a real issue,” she said. “I truly think Ed Royce needs to be challenged. I am the best person to take this fight to Ed Royce.”

Tran joins Democrat Phil Janowicz, a former chemistry professor at Cal State Fullerton who now runs an education consulting firm, in the uphill race to unseat Royce, who has represented the area since 1992. Independent Julio Castaneda is also running.

Democrats are targeting the district — which includes voters in northern Orange County, Diamond Bar and Chino Hills — in part because Hillary Clinton earned 51.5% of the vote there in the 2016 presidential race, compared with President Trump's 42.9%.

But Royce was easily reelected with 57% of the vote, and he starts off with $2.8 million tucked away for his next campaign.

“I’ve overcome pretty incredible odds, so I feel that I have the heart and the steel to make this happen,” Tran said.



https://foundasian.org/2017/06/05/pediatrician-mai-khanh-tran-announces-campaign-for-congress-against-ed-royce/
BLOG
Pediatrician Mai Khanh Tran Announces Campaign for Congress Against Ed Royce

doctran2018Mai Khanh Tran, MD kicked off her historic campaign for Congress (DocTran2018.com) on June 5 against twenty-four year incumbent Ed Royce, calling his vote for Trumpcare a giveaway to insurance companies and the wealthy, that will increase deductibles and co-pays even for those able to keep their insurance, and end guaranteed coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

“As a physician who has been treating under-served families for the past twenty-five years here in Orange County, I am saddened by Ed Royce’s callousness, and as a citizen I am angry. Americans deserve better and I want to do something about it,” said Mai Khanh Tran.

Congressman Ed Royce has failed the families of California’s 39th Congressional District on a whole range of critical issues. Ed Royce votes with Donald Trump ninety-six percent of the time, consistently receives A ratings from the NRA, and opposes women’s health rights and human rights.

He has taken millions of dollars from big corporate interests, while earning failing grades for protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Ed Royce also earns failing grades for his lack of support for our public schools, colleges and universities.

“In Ed Royce’s America, if you are not wealthy and can’t afford powerful lobbyists, your voice doesn’t count. I’m running for Congress because everyday working families deserve a voice and deserve better. Even though I’ve been an underdog throughout my life, I was given great opportunities to succeed in this country. America never once turned her back on me,” said Mai Khanh Tran.

When she was nine years old, Mai Khanh and her three siblings came to United States as refugees from Vietnam. Without speaking a word of English, the Tran siblings became farmworkers picking strawberries, working for years alongside other migrant families in rural Oregon.

After the fall of Saigon, her parents also escaped Vietnam. The Tran family continued as farmworkers, cramming into a small living room and renting their only bedroom to a stranger to help pay the rent.

With help of Pell Grants and scholarships, Mai Khanh worked her way through Harvard as a janitor cleaning bathrooms on campus. After graduating from Harvard, she spent nearly a year working as a healthcare analyst on Wall St., before attending Dartmouth\Brown Medical School and completing her residency in Pediatrics at UCLA.

“I overcame some pretty long odds in my life – including surviving breast cancer twice – and I feel privileged for the opportunity to give back and serve my community as a Physician. In Congress, I will fight to strengthen our healthcare laws and for every family to have the same opportunities I had to achieve the American Dream,” said Mai Khanh Tran.

Tran added, “The voices of working and middle class men and woman across California’s 39th Congressional District have been missing in Washington for too long. Our campaign will be about them.”

Visit DocTran2018.com to learn more.


https://edingermedicalgroup.com/project/tran/
MAI-KHANH TRAN, M.D.
Pediatrics

Education

Bachelor of Science, Summa Cum Laude, Harvard University
Medical Degree, Dartmouth University/Brown University Program in Medicine

Dr. Tran graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University. Following a brief stint as a financial analyst on Wall Street, she enrolled and received her medical degree from the Dartmouth University/Brown University Program in Medicine. She returned to the west coast where she completed her pediatrics residency training at UCLA. She is Board Certified in Pediatrics.

Dr Tran is the best. Would not trust anyone with my daughter. I am a physician and know all about beside manner and repoire [sic]. Knowledgeable, takes her time, [and is] always ready to answer questions. Highly recommend.

Michael N.
-Yelp


http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/44380-can-democratic-pediatrician-mai-khanh-tran-unseat-one-of-the-most-powerful-house-republicans-in-2018
Can Democratic Pediatrician Mai-Khanh Tran Unseat One of the Most Powerful House Republicans in 2018?
By Andrew Romano, Yahoo News
28 June 17 (June 28, 2017)

Dr. Mai-Khanh Tran currently works as a pediatrician in Orange County, California. (photo: Facebook)

In many ways, Dr. Mai-Khanh Tran isn’t all that different from millions of other Democrats who have been dismayed or depressed or indignant since Donald Trump was elected president.

On election night, Tran watched in shock as the returns rolled in. The next morning, she wept at work — Tran is a pediatrician — with her colleagues. Later, she joined the protesters shouting slogans and waving signs outside the Orange County offices of several Republican congressmen.

But Tran didn’t stop there. Last month, she actually decided to enter elected politics herself, launching a long-shot campaign to unseat 12-term Republican Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

While defeating Royce may seem like a tall order for a political novice, Tran, 51, has already spent her entire life overcoming impossible odds.

In 1975, Tran arrived in America as a 9-year-old refugee from war-torn Vietnam — without her parents. She spent her summers picking strawberries in rural Oregon, eventually working her way through college at Harvard as a janitor. And she survived two bouts of breast cancer and endured eight rounds of in vitro fertilization before finally getting pregnant at age 46.

“I think you’ve got to have total commitment to everything you do in life,” Tran said on a recent Thursday afternoon as she sipped from a bowl of bone-in kalbi soup on the patio of a new pan-Asian restaurant in Orange County’s Little Saigon. “You’ve got to do things for the right reasons. And when you have the right reasons — if what you’re doing is needed, on behalf of others — you will do it until you succeed. I truly believe that.”

Whether Tran can succeed her in [sic] mission to topple Royce remains to be seen. But if any place encapsulates the challenges facing Republicans in 2018, Orange County is it. And if any Democratic hopeful embodies the political crosscurrents that will likely define the coming midterms, Tran may be the one.

Topping the list of those forces? Health care.

The first patient Tran saw the morning after the election was a child with a brain tumor. The girl’s mother, a local nail salon worker, couldn’t get health insurance for her children until Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Realizing that her coverage might change under Republican rule — that “this was going to affect her daughter’s life soon” — the two women cried together in Tran’s examination room.

A few months later, the mother called Tran. The House had just passed the American Health Care Act — the GOP’s Obamacare repeal bill — and she was, according to Tran, “petrified.”

“It was the speed of that vote, the secret way it was done, that just pushed me,” Tran told Yahoo News, noting that she had spent the previous three months appearing on local Vietnamese-language TV to explain what was at stake. “I thought, ‘We can do all the prep work, all the work to inform the public, but when it comes down to it, their voice just isn’t there where it matters. On the floor. In the caucuses. All of the meetings.’ It just made me so angry. And I said, ‘You know what? We need to have people who really understand health care in Washington. We need to be in the game.’”

As the Republican Senate struggles to pass its own version of a bill to repeal Obamacare, health care is shaping up to be the central issue in 2018.

In part, that’s because 217 GOP House members — including all four Orange County Republicans — voted for the AHCA, a deeply unpopular measure that even President Trump has called “mean.” Democrats plan to spend millions of dollars between now and next November reminding voters of this fact.

The so-called resistance to Trump — and, more specifically, the resistance to his party’s Obamacare repeal push — has inspired newcomers like Tran, many of whom are also doctors or scientists or women, to get off the sidelines and run for office themselves.

The result is a rookie class of grassroots candidates rallying around a potent message. The question is whether fresh faces and passionate resistance will be enough to flip the 24 seats Democrats need to regain control of the House.

Opportunity in Orange County

Despite its conservative past — Orange County voted for the GOP candidate in every presidential election from 1936 to 2012 — the O.C. now overlaps with the districts of four of the 25 most vulnerable Republicans in Congress: Darrell Issa, Dana Rohrabacher, Mimi Walters and Ed Royce. Hillary Clinton captured all four of their districts in the 2016 presidential race — a first for a Democrat — and won the county as a whole by 9 percentage points. A growing minority population, a concentration of college-educated whites and a declining GOP registration advantage are making the area more and more treacherous for Republicans, especially with Trump in the White House. Democrats have taken notice, fielding several promising candidates, including multimillionaire stem-cell pioneer Hans Keirstead; real estate entrepreneur Harley Rouda; environmental activist Mike Levin; and retired U.S. Marine Col. Doug Applegate.

“It’s districts like these that will decide whether the Democrats can make a serious run at control of the House,” the New York Times’ Nate Cohn recently wrote.

Political novice

In person, Tran doesn’t seem like a politician. Petite, with a few gray hairs peeking through an otherwise black bob, she trembles slightly when she starts to answer a question, her soft voice starting and stopping and wavering as she struggles for the right words to express her views, none of which have yet been scripted for her by some cadre of consultants. She apologized for “not being good at this,” and teared up four times over the course of a two-hour conversation. At one point, she unleashes a few choice words about Donald Trump, then said, “This is off the record,” which prompts her sole campaign adviser to laugh and explain that “you have to say you’re off the record before you say something, Mai-Khanh.”

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” Tran said.

But Tran’s outward gentleness masks a fierce inner strength that has been fostered by decades of unimaginable hardship and improbable success.

Of her childhood in Vietnam, the things Tran remembers most are the near-constant explosions. “Every night, every other night, there would be bombs going off,” she said. “We’d all go into a little space under staircase. We’d hear the bomb go by — zoom! — and we’d run in there.”

One day in early 1975, Tran’s father, a prominent Saigon judge, took her and her three siblings, the youngest of whom was still wearing diapers, to a local Catholic orphanage, leaving them behind without any explanation. Tran recalls that her father was wearing sunglasses, but only later did she realize that he must have been crying.

“It was an act of total desperation on my dad’s part,” Tran said. “A lot of people were giving up their children so they could get them out. This was their last resort.”

The U.S. military airlifted Tran and her siblings to San Francisco, where “big Marines” carried each of them off the plane. “I tell you, even today, if I see a guy in uniform, I really do get so emotional,” Tran said. “I still am so grateful and humble.”

Eventually, the children ended up at a convent in Salem, Ore. Six months later, their parents, who escaped Vietnam during the fall of Saigon, joined them. In America, Tran’s father could no longer work as a judge; the closest he came was a gig cleaning the local courthouse. To make ends meet, the Trans rented out their apartment’s single bedroom to a college student while the six of them slept together in the living room.

“My first Fourth of July celebration was in 1976 — the bicentennial,” Tran said. “The fireworks were huge. And I was cowering in fear. It was so loud, like bombs. Even to this day, I don’t like fireworks.”

Inspired by her grandfather, a traditional medicine man, Tran decided early on that she wanted to be a doctor. Every moment she wasn’t working was spent reading. After four years at an inner-city high school in Portland — she and her friends were bused in from the Vietnamese “ghetto” — Tran graduated first in her class and was accepted by Harvard.

“Maybe because I am an immigrant, I feel like I need to know more,” Tran said. “I need to know more and do more.”

Tran loved her college experience, but it wasn’t exactly easy. Without money for a hotel, her father was forced to request Freshman Weekend accommodations from random Vietnamese locals, and Tran paid her way through school with three simultaneous jobs — janitor, security guard and reader for the blind.

“I cleaned the jocks’ dorm,” she said. “The rich kids’ dorm. And, you know, they throw out a lot of things. I remember picking up things that we could use. I don’t think I ever felt like I belonged there.”

A stint as a health care analyst on Wall Street followed, then medical school at Brown-Dartmouth. After her residency at UCLA, Tran started her own practice in Fountain Valley, where she has spent the last 25 years treating working-class immigrants, educating the community and leading thrice-yearly medical missions to hot spots around the world — leper colonies in the Vietnamese jungle, typhoon-ravaged villages in the Philippines, impoverished neighborhoods in Tijuana.

That experience, she says, is what has convinced her she’s ready for Congress.

“We have to figure out how we’re going to feed these people,” Tran explained. “We help them with job training. We set up farms for them. We set up revolving loans for them. We do clean water. We make sure their kids get the education they need. As a congresswoman, I plan to bring that sort of comprehensive approach to my community and my constituents.”

Tran’s successful battles with breast cancer and infertility have convinced those around her that she can succeed in the political arena as well.

“She’s like Wonder Woman,” said adviser Courtni Pugh, whose other clients include Kevin de Leon, California Senate president pro tempore. “Everything Mai-Khanh has overcome in her life? We need to create, like, a meme. We’ll put her in a red cape.”

Uphill climb

Wonder Woman or not, Tran is still a serious underdog in the race against Royce. If she wins the Democratic primary — her opponent is former chemistry professor Phil Janowicz — she’ll be facing off against a politician who’s been winning elections for as long as she’s been a pediatrician.

Incumbency isn’t Royce’s only advantage either. Even though Clinton won CA-39, Royce was easily reelected with 57 percent of the vote, and he’s the most popular of the four vulnerable Orange County Republicans. He’s also a prodigious fundraiser, with $2.8 million already stockpiled for 2018.

Tran believes the same demographic shifts that boosted Clinton to victory throughout Orange County could work in her favor. CA-39, for example, is more than 60 percent Asian and Hispanic — and only 34 percent white. Many of these whites are exactly the sort of college-educated suburbanites Trump lost in November, and while older Vietnamese-Americans have voted Republican for decades — like older Cuban-Americans, they tend to be staunch anti-Communists — their children have been registering as Democrats or independents.

For now, Tran is focused on getting her fledging campaign up and running. She’s talking to potential hires. She’s sounding out local politicos. And she’s spending hours every afternoon in her garage, dialing for dollars.

The work can be grueling. Devastated after one particularly fruitless fundraising session, Tran looked up to see her aging mother leaning over her. “Do you need me to give you my last gold nugget?” her mother said, referring to the small bars that she and other refugees had brought with them to America more than four decades ago, just in case. “You know, to help your campaign?”

Tran had to remind herself that the road ahead would be long — and that she was running for the right reasons.

“It was my mom who, throughout the years, said, ‘You’ve got to help people, you’ve got to speak for people,” Tran explained. “So if there’s an opportunity here, it is for a Democrat who resonates and listens. And so I go back to what makes me a good candidate: I’m a good listener. As a physician, that’s all I do. I listen to my patients. I listen to their pain, their suffering, their concerns. That’s what I’m good at. Then hopefully I’ll try to find a solution that might alleviate their pain, their suffering, their concerns.

“I don’t think that’s what people are doing in the political sphere right now,” Tran continued. “They have agendas. They have ideas they’re trying to push. But they’re not listening to their constituents. More and more, their constituents in these districts have changed so much; their needs have changed so much. And it’s just not connecting with the people who are currently representing them.”


WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS TALKS BACK TO POWER

https://www.yahoo.com/news/reporter-exploded-sarah-huckabee-sanders-white-house-briefing-cant-take-bullying-anymore-152127560.html
Reporter who exploded at Sarah Huckabee Sanders during White House briefing: ‘We can’t take the bullying anymore’
Dylan Stableford Yahoo News June 28, 2017

The reporter who unloaded on White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders during Tuesday’s briefing says that he’s “had enough” of being “bullied” by President Trump’s administration.

“We can’t take the bullying anymore,” Brian Karem, a reporter for the Sentinel Newspapers, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday. “We’ve been called the enemy of the people from that White House. We’ve been told that we’re fake news. We are bullied and browbeaten every day.”

Karem, who has worked for the Washington, D.C.-based news organization since 2004, said he’s been alarmed by the administration’s treatment of the press.

“For the government to sit there and undermine what is essentially checks and balances in the system, it’s disheartening,” he said. “It’s unnerving. I can’t take it anymore. It’s nuts.”

During Tuesday’s briefing, Sanders scolded reporters over the use of unnamed sources and complained about “the constant barrage of fake news” aimed at the administration.

“If we make the slightest mistake, if the slightest word is off, it’s just an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room,” she said. “But news outlets get to go on day after day and cite unnamed sources.”

The comments set off Karem, who was standing near the back of the briefing room.

“Come on — this administration has done this as well,” he told Sanders. “If any one of us doesn’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve four years at least — there’s no option other than that.”

Related: Reporter unloads on deputy press secretary at White House briefing

“We’re in here asking you questions,” Karem continued. “You’re here to provide the answers and what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, ‘See, once again, the president’s right, and everybody else out here is fake media.’ And everybody in this room is trying to do their job.”

“I disagree completely,” Sanders shot back. “I think if anything’s been inflamed, it’s often the dishonesty that takes in the news media. And I think it’s outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to [a] question.”
On Tuesday night, Karem wrote a blog post for Playboy magazine explaining his decision to lash out.

“The president has never admitted one mistake,” he wrote. “The current administration sells half-truths and lies like they’re day-old cookies at a bake sale.

“The fact is: I like Sarah Sanders. I like Sean Spicer. I like most of the people I’ve met who work in this administration. They’re personable and, as far as I can tell — with a few notable exceptions — decent people,” he added. “But I don’t like bullies and I don’t like the entire institution of the press and free speech being castigated for no other reason than we either get stories wrong — which happens, and it should be then responsibly corrected — or because we report news the president doesn’t like — which seems to happen even more often.”

Read more from Yahoo News:

Trump attacks ‘failing’ New York Times on Twitter
Trump fumes after NYT report on health care meeting
Trump promotes faulty White House math on health care
Trump’s lawyer: ‘I don’t tell him what to write’
White House adviser Ivanka Trump: ‘I try to stay out of politics’
Eric Trump on father’s critics: ‘To me, they’re not even people’


NOTE: “RUSSIA IS NOT AN ALLY.” THAT MAKES ME THINK, AGAIN, THAT IF ANY TRUMP CAMPAIGN MEMBERS WERE TO BE LINKED TO THE HACKS ON HILLARY AND THE VOTING DATA IN SOME VOTING DISTRICTS, THE PROPER NATURE OF THAT CRIME WOULD, INDEED, BE TREASON.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-joe-manchin-russia-is-not-our-ally-not-our-friend/
By EMILY TILLETT CBS NEWS June 25, 2017, 12:44 PM
Sen. Joe Manchin: Russia is not our ally, not our friend

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, said that as the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election continue, it's important to note that Russia is not an ally.

"Russia is not our friend. And to treat Putin as an ally and a friend is wrong. I don't look at him as a friend. I don't look at Russia. And I am very skeptical of what they're doing, their intentions. There are a lot of good people in Russia that don't have any say whatsoever," Manchin said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Manchin's comments come in the wake of a Washington Post report that detailed the Obama administration's approach to punishing the Russian government for its hacking and influence campaign intended to politically damage Hillary Clinton and swing the election in Donald Trump's favor.

President Trump addressed those reports on Twitter, appearing to acknowledge that Russia did indeed meddle in the election, but placing blame on the Obama administration for not doing enough to counter Russia's impact.

Did the Obama Administration respond forcefully enough to Russian meddling efforts?
Play VIDEO
Did the Obama Administration respond forcefully enough to Russian meddling efforts?

In a tweet Friday night, Mr. Trump wrote that Mr. Obama "knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia" and "did nothing about it."

The tweets came after Mr. Trump expressed similar criticism of his predecessor in an interview with Fox News.

"I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it," Mr. Trump said in the interview broadcast Sunday. "But nobody wants to talk about that."

Senator Joe Manchin says "Russia is not our friend"
Play VIDEO
Senator Joe Manchin says "Russia is not our friend"

"What was known back in August and once it was verified and cross-checked should have been made public. It should have been made public, OK? That wasn't done. I can't second-guess that. But I know that when-- at that time President Obama and his administration took action," said Manchin.

He added, "They took action basically on December the 29th and closed down two compounds, threw out 35 diplomats. We knew there was a serious problem. And it was verified."

Manchin applauded the work by the Senate in passing a bipartisan measure to impose further sanctions against the Russians, saying "we've got to make sure that we put the hurt on the oligarchs, all the money, the way the money flows through Russia, and the people that benefit by it."

Senator Joe Manchin on Senate health care bill
Play VIDEO
Senator Joe Manchin on Senate health care bill

Manchin, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says he continues to feel confident in the U.S. intelligence community.

"When they come and tell me something, whether it's the CIA., FBI., NSA., I take it as gospel truth because they're doing their job. And they have cross-checked it before they give it to us. I have never detected one ounce of politicism," said Manchin.

He added, "I don't know why there's so much skepticism, not believing what the intelligence community is telling you. I do, and I have found it to be extremely beneficial to me to make decisions with."


PRO-ISIS HACKS ON MULTIPLE US GOVERNMENT SITES

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-isis-rant-government-ohio-new-york-maryland/
AP June 25, 2017, 9:01 PM
U.S. government websites hacked with pro-ISIS rant, officials say

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Government websites, many of them in Ohio, were hacked Sunday with a message that purports to be supportive of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

A message posted on the website of Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich said, "You will be held accountable Trump, you and all your people for every drop of blood flowing in Muslim countries."

The message, left by "Team System Dz," also ended, "I love the Islamic state."

The same message also infiltrated government websites in the town of Brookhaven, New York, according to news reports in that state, as well as the website for Howard County, Maryland. In the past, the group also claimed responsibility for similar hacks in the past in Richland County, Wisconsin, and in places such as Aberdeen, Scotland, and Sweden.

FBI probes ISIS messages in CENTCOM social media hack
Play VIDEO
FBI probes ISIS messages in CENTCOM social media hack

Several other government websites were hacked in Ohio, including that of first lady Karen Kasich, Medicaid, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Casino Control Commission.

Tom Hoyt, chief communications officer for Ohio's Department of Administrative Services, was among Ohio officials who confirmed the hack.

"All affected servers have been taken offline and we are investigating how these hackers were able to deface these websites," he said. "We also are working with law enforcement to better understand what happened."

He said the hacking in Ohio happened at about 11 a.m. EDT. He hoped the websites would be up and running sometime Monday.

The websites in Brookhaven and Howard County also remained down on Sunday. When asked about the outage on the Brookhaven site, a spokeswoman who answered the phone at the New York town's police department simply offered a "no comment."

The hack is part of ongoing cyberterrorism that has impacted governments and corporations across the globe.

Some see these types of hacks -- sometimes called "defacement" -- as simply a nuisance, though in some instances, they have been disruptive to work and government life.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Josh Mandel ✔ @JoshMandelOhio
OH Dept of Corrections website right now, this is what you see. Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland.
12:18 PM - 25 Jun 2017
29 29 Retweets 23 23 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
But others see cause for alarm. "Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland," Josh Mandel, the Ohio treasurer and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, said in a tweet Sunday.

Authors of the website "Cryptosphere," which tracks hackers worldwide, have detailed dozens, if not hundreds, of similar hacks in recent years by the so-called Team System DZ, which they called a "pro-ISIS hacker crew" and claim are based in Algeria.

Impacted websites, they said, have included those for a synagogue in Florida, the student union at the University of New Brunswick in Canada, for U.K. Rugby and a number of websites on Wordpress.



WHAT’S SO DARNED GOOD ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN SENATE HEALTH PLAN? TOO BAD THEY HAD TO SHELVE IT, FOR AWHILE ANYWAY, DUE TO LACK OF POPULARITY AMONG REPUBLICANS. I FEEL SURE THAT’S BECAUSE MORE THAN A FEW HAVE BEEN GETTING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. IF THEY THINK THIS IS BAD, THEY SHOULD SEE WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE IF MEDICARE IS CUT, OR SOCIAL SECURITY.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-real-reason-republicans-to-pass-this-health-care-bill-so-much-has-little-to-do-with-health-care/?utm_term=.8a84c9154e7e
Wonkblog Perspective
The real reason Republicans want to pass this Obamacare bill so much
By Matt O'Brien June 26 at 11:01 AM

Photograph -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell crafted the Senate Republicans' health-care bill. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The Senate health-care plan isn't a health-care plan. It's a tax cut.

That's clear enough from how little thought it puts into actually stabilizing insurance markets versus how much it does into showering the rich with as much money as possible. Indeed, it would go so far as to retroactively cut the capital gains tax — something, remember, that's supposed to be about incentivizing future investment — in an apparent bid to get people to create jobs six months ago. The way it would slash Medicaid to pay for this tax-cutting largesse, though, is even more important. It would be more than just a transfer of wealth from the poor and sick to the rich and healthy. It would be a transfer of financial risk from the government to individuals.

This isn't about keeping taxes low for our time. This is about keeping taxes low for all time.

Wonkbook newsletter
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog. Sign up

The easiest way to think about all this is that Republicans are trying to solve two problems. The first is that they want to be able to say they did something to get rid of Obamacare, and the second is that they want to keep health-care spending from growing the government down the road. Viewed from this perspective, the Senate bill checks both boxes.

Video -- What's in the Senate health-care bill?

Video -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled the legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system on Thursday, June 22. Here's what we know about the bill. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

It isn't hard to tell, though, which one they care about more. Not when their plan for replacing Obamacare is about as desultory as it gets. It would keep the same basic structure in place — income-based subsidies that go up as the cost of plans do — but tweak it in such a way as to make it more stingy and less sturdy. How is that? Well, it would tie its subsidies to much skimpier plans than Obamacare does, so that people would get about 15 percent less money than they do now. That, in turn, would push a lot of them into low-cost, high-deductible plans that they couldn't afford to use, especially poorer people who under the Senate bill would also be losing so-called cost-sharing subsidies that had given them a little extra help. In the case of someone making up to $18,090 (150 percent of the federal poverty level), the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that their average deductible would go from $255 under Obamacare to $6,105 under the Senate plan.

This probably wouldn't bring premiums down either. If anything, the opposite. The problem is that the Senate bill would keep Obamacare's protections for people with preexisting conditions — at least, as we'll get to in a minute, in name — but not its penalties for people who don't buy insurance. This could very well lead to what's known as a death spiral: Premiums would shoot up because not enough healthy people had signed up, the healthy people who had signed up would drop their coverage because premiums had shot up so much, and this would repeat until eventually the insurance pool was entirely made up of sick people. This might be averted if, as is expected, Republicans add a six-month waiting period — the idea being that healthy people would be less likely to go uninsured if they knew they couldn't get a plan right away — for anyone who hasn't maintained continuous coverage. But, as the Brookings Institution's Matt Fiedler points out, it's not clear that that would be enough. In fact, it might even make things worse by adding a lot of red tape that healthy people might not have as much patience for.

But even if insurance markets didn't collapse, the markets for certain types of insurance might. In particular, for the kind of care that people with preexisting conditions need. That's because the Senate bill would make it easy for states to opt out of the rules requiring that every plan cover “essential health benefits” like mental health, maternity care and prescription drugs. This would probably create a two-tiered system that would quickly devolve into one. At first, healthy people who decided to get covered would probably go for bare-bones plans, and sick people who needed to get covered would be the ones getting more comprehensive care. But a plan that mostly sick people want is a plan that will become mostly unaffordable, until it might as well not be offered at all. A lot of sick people, then, would only be able to buy insurance that's no use if you are sick.

So if you think the problem with Obamacare is that deductibles aren't high enough, markets aren't wobbly enough, and sick people aren't on their own enough, well, the Senate bill is for you. That might be a small constituency, but a much bigger one is everyone who thinks that the problem with Obamacare is that a Democrat did it. That's who the Senate bill is really for. It lets Republicans say that they overturned Obamacare, which is all they actually seem to care about. Otherwise, they wouldn't be rushing to vote on a health-care plan that would make people pay more to get less. Campaign slogans — repeal and replace! — matter more than policy details.

Well, except when it comes to tax cuts. That's when Republicans get serious. They aren't content to just get rid of Obamacare's 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for couples making $250,000 or more — that's what the Senate bill is really about — but they also want to get rid of it yesterday, and stay rid of it tomorrow.

That last part, though, would take some doing. After all, there's a reason that Republicans talk about our fiscal future in quasi-apocalyptic terms. It's that it doesn't look conducive to tax-cutting. “A major debt crisis is inevitable,” now-Speaker of the House Paul D. Ryan wrote back in 2012, “if the U.S. government remains on its current unsustainable path” with “the ongoing sovereign debt crises in Greece and other highly-indebted European countries” providing “a cautionary tale for America.”

Now, this was never true — markets are still happy to lend to us for 30 years at a piddling 2.72 percent — but what was true was that health-care spending looked like it was going to make the GOP's brand of small-government conservatism untenable. The combination of the government having to pay for more people's care as the baby boomers hit retirement and that care costing a lot more as prices for it rise faster than almost anything else mean that the government is automatically set to grow over the next few decades — at which point taxes would have to go up.

Unless, of course, we cut Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan, for his part, prefers to do that by turning them from programs that guarantee people coverage into ones that merely contribute to it — which, when it comes to Medicaid, is exactly what both the House and Senate bills would do. Specifically, they would transform Medicaid from an open-ended program that grows as needed to one that's capped on a per-person basis and only grows according to inflation. The single difference between the two is that, starting in 2025, the Senate plan would pick a much lower rate of inflation for Medicaid to grow by. According to the Urban Institute, this would translate into cuts that are more than twice as big as the House's over the course of a decade — cuts that would not only preclude future tax increases but also make room for future tax cuts.

This isn't your father's social contract. It's your grandfather's. It would take us back to a time when the government didn't promise to take care of the sick and the needy, but only to help take care of them. There's a trillion-dollar difference between the two. A trillion-dollar difference that Republicans would plow into tax cuts for the rich. Now, normally they like to say that this would make the economy grow so much faster that everyone else would be better off, too, but they're not even bothering with that pretense today. Instead, they're just trying to give wealthy investors the biggest tax cut possible by having it apply to last year as well. Perhaps the idea is that that will incentivize people to invent time machines so they can create more jobs in the past.

It's an inspiring piece of legislation for everyone who thought Robin Hood was picking on the wrong people.


COMMENTARY ON TRUMP’S ATTACK BOTS AND PROPAGANDA SOURCES – FROM CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, THE HILL, AND THE WEEK

WHAT ARE TWITTER EGG ACCOUNTS? WHY DOES TRUMP HAVE SO MANY, AND WHAT THEHILL.COM SAYS ABOUT IT.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2017/0403/Twitter-drops-egg-avatar-hoping-to-make-life-more-uncomfortable-for-internet-trolls-video
Technology
Twitter drops egg avatar, hoping to make life more uncomfortable for internet trolls (+video)

The popular social media platform will change its default profile figure from a photo of an egg to a generic human head and torso, hoping to distance themselves from internet trolls who hide behind the egg avatar to harass fellow users. But will it be enough?


EGGS ARE BABY BIRDS (WHO "TWEET.") DON'T YOU EVER WONDER HOW THEY COME UP WITH THESE NEW "WORDS?" SEE BELOW.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335861-nearly-half-of-trumps-twitter-followers-are-fake-report
5/31/2017

Clinton questions Trump's 'fake' Twitter followers
Hillary Clinton resurrected debunked reports of President Trump's flood of "fake" followers on Twitter on Wednesday.

“Who is behind driving up Trump’s Twitter followers by the millions? We know they’re bots. Why? I assume there’s a reason for everything. Is it to make him look more popular than he is? Is it to try to influence others on Twitter about what the messaging is?” Clinton asked at a Recode event.

Clinton appeared to tie Trump's followers to investigations into Russia's possible ties to the Trump administration, saying the bot creators could be “sitting in Moscow or Macedonia or the White House."

Reports emerged earlier this week that millions of fake accounts followed Trump over the weekend, but Twitter disputed those claims, noting that the accounts that tweeted out the information were not verified and the user provided no evidence for the claim, Business Insider reported.

An account with a high percentage of fake followers does not necessarily mean the account owner bought those followers. Spam and fake accounts are a known issue on Twitter and better-known accounts are more likely to attract fake followers.

Nearly half of the followers of Trump's personal Twitter account are fake, according to a Newsweek report.

Newsweek plugged Trump's account, @realDonaldTrump, into Twitter Audit — a service that determines the authenticity of accounts — and found that 51 percent of Trump's followers are real.

Comparatively, about 79 percent of former President Barack Obama's Twitter followers are real, according to Newsweek. But Obama's personal account also has 89.3 million followers, compared with Trump's 31.1 million. Obama actually has more fake followers overall than the current president even though his percentage is lower.

Social Rank, a social media service, found that more than 900,000 "egg accounts," or accounts without profile pictures, followed Trump in May alone. They also found that there was a dramatic increase in those accounts since February, with an 8 percent increase in "egg followers."



IS ANOTHER OF TRUMP’S LITTLE ELVES HELPING HIM AGAIN? SO FAR, NO NAME HAS BEEN ASSIGNED, BUT ANALYSTS FROM THREE COMPANIES ARE SAYING THAT TRUMP’S “ARMY OF BOTS” IS “AMASSING” AS IT DID BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND HILLARY CLINTON HAS CALLED PUBLIC ATTENTION TO IT. IT COINCIDED WITH SOME OF THE “FAKE NEWS” STORIES AS WELL RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION. SO, WHAT ARE THEY UP TO?

http://theweek.com/speedreads/702682/something-strange-going-trumps-twitter-followers
Something strange is going on with Trump's Twitter followers
June 1, 2017

On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton told a tech conference that President Trump's victory over her in November came with a little help from an army of automated bots on Twitter, and alluded to reports that bots are once again amassing at Trump's Twitter fortress. "Who is behind driving up Trump's Twitter followers by the millions? We know they're bots," she said. "Is it to make him look more popular than he is? Is it to try to influence others on Twitter about what the messaging is so that people get caught up in it and lose sight of what they're trying to say?"

BuzzFeed News rated that assertion false, because Twitter had told BuzzFeed that Trump did not recently gain 5 million followers in three days, but researchers say there really is something fishy going on with Trump's Twitter numbers — which grew by 2.4 million in May, from 28.6 million to 31 million followers, or about one new follower a second. "In my expert opinion, something strange is going on," Samuel C. Woolley, research director for the Computational Propaganda project at Oxford University, tells The Washington Post. "It's consistent with other strange things that have gone on before with this politician's Twitter feed."

The numbers themselves aren't that shocking — he is president, and uses Twitter a lot — but there's "a strangely large percentage of Trump's followers — and especially his newest followers — that have only the most rudimentary account information, with no profile picture, few followers, and little sign that they have ever tweeted." These so-called "egg followers" are often, but not always, automated bots. According to analytics firm SocialRank, Trump has 9.1 million egg followers, up from 5 million in February. "The quality of the new followers is pretty bad," says Jonathan Albright at Columbia.

Some of Trump's new followers have just joined and haven't yet completed their profiles, experts say, but there's also evidence of a bot buildup. "It's probably a combination of both," SocialRank CEO Alexander Taub told the Post, "but there's something fishy." The reason people are paying attention is that Trump's bots outperformed Clinton's 5-to-1 in the days before the election, according to a study by Wooly and his Oxford colleagues. You can read more about what may be afoot at The Washington Post. Peter Weber


US.BLASTINGNEWS.COM IS ANOTHER VERY “FISHY” SOUNDING WEBSITE. THAT AND ANOTHER OF THEIR ARTICLES MAKES ME QUESTION WHETHER THIS IS ONE OF TRUMP’S OWN PROPAGANDA ARTICLES, OR RUSSIA’S. WASHINGTON POST DID DO A STORY ON IT, THOUGH, -- AND I FOUND VERIFICATION FOR THE “WALKING NEWBORN” PHENOMENON ITSELF. IT’S CALLED A “PRIMITIVE REFLEX,” AND WIKIPEDIA LISTS AROUND A DOZEN OF THOSE. THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO “PROVE” THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. GENETIC MATERIAL FROM THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD CAN BE INHERITED. THE HUMAN EMBRYO AT AN EARLY POINT OF DEVELOPMENT HAS “GILL SLITS,” AND SOME HUMAN BABIES HAVE A SMALL TAIL WHEN BORN. SHOCKING! THE DOCTORS CLIP IT OFF. ON THIS WALKING NEWBORN STORY, SEE BELOW.

THE ARTICLE THAT IS BLATANTLY A LIE IS THE FOLLOWING – OR SO I THOUGHT....

Baby walks minutes after birth video - 74 million viewed viral video in 3 ...
us.blastingnews.com › Curiosities › 2017 › 05

May 29, 2017 - A baby is born, it cries and wants to cuddle, but this baby wanted to go for a walk minus the stroller, leaving jaws dropped around the delivery ...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/30/newborn-baby-starts-walking-just-minutes-after-leaving-the-womb-6671306/
Newborn baby starts walking just minutes after leaving the womb
Richard Hartley-ParkinsonRichard Hartley-Parkinson for Metro.co.ukTuesday 30 May 2017 7:31 am

Photographs -- The baby did not like being in the bath

A baby in Brazil has been compared to Stewie from Family Guy after she appeared to start walking minutes after she was born.

Doctors were trying to bathe her, but she had other ideas and started to wriggle around to walk on her own.

Normally, babies don’t start walking until they are about 12 months old. One of the nurses said in Portuguese: ‘Oh my gosh, the girl is walking. Good gracious.’
Another colleague shouts ‘Ju, Ju, come and see this’.

A midwife said: ‘Merciful father. I was trying to wash her here and she keeps getting up to walk. She has walked from here to here.’

Brazilian baby starts walking minutes after birth
Play Video
Current Time 0:00/Duration Time 0:40

It is believed the footage was shot at Santa Cruz Hospital in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil.

One of the people in the hospital said: ‘Wow, she is so cute it’s amazing. If she’s like this now, I can just imagine how precocious she is going to be as she grows up.’

To which the midwife holding the baby girl says: ‘Heavens above. If you told people what has just happened no one would believe it unless they saw it with their own eyes.’

For the midwife, it is particularly surprising to hear this as it is not that uncommon in newborn babies – it’s actually something they often show naturally.

Known as the walking or stepping reflex, ‘if you hold the baby under the arms (being careful to support her head, as well) and let her soles touch a flat surface, she’ll place one foot in front of the other and “walk”,’ Healthy Children writes.

‘This reflex will disappear after two months, then recur as the learned voluntary behavior of walking toward the end of the first year.’

The walking reflex is part of what are known as ‘primitive reflexes’. It’s an infant’s nervous system kicking in before the mind or the body has grown to understand or cope with what is going on around them.



THE WALKING REFLEX—ONE OF THE MORE WELL-KNOWN PRIMITIVE REFLEXES IS THE FIERCE GRIP A VERY YOUNG BABY WILL PUT ON A FINGER, THE BLANKET, YOUR HAIR, YOUR NOSE, ETC. SEE THE LIST OF OTHERS IN THE ARTICLE UNDER “CONTENTS” BELOW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_reflexes

Primitive reflexes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primitive reflexes are reflex actions originating in the central nervous system that are exhibited by normal infants, but not neurologically intact adults, in response to particular stimuli. These reflexes are absent due to the development of the frontal lobes as a child transitions normally into child development.[1] These primitive reflexes are also called infantile, infant or newborn reflexes.

Older children and adults with atypical neurology (e.g., people with cerebral palsy) may retain these reflexes and primitive reflexes may reappear in adults. Reappearance may be attributed to certain neurological conditions including dementia (especially in a rare set of diseases called frontotemporal degenerations), traumatic lesions, and strokes.[2][3] An individual with cerebral palsy and typical intelligence can learn to suppress these reflexes, but the reflex might resurface under certain conditions (i.e., during extreme startle reaction). Reflexes may also be limited to those areas affected by the atypical neurology, (i.e., individuals with cerebral palsy that only affects their legs retaining the Babinski reflex but having normal speech); for those individuals with hemiplegia, the reflex may be seen in the foot on the affected side only.

Primitive reflexes are primarily tested with suspected brain injury or some dementias such as Parkinson's disease for the purpose of assessing frontal lobe functioning. If they are not being suppressed properly they are called frontal release signs. Atypical primitive reflexes are also being researched as potential early warning signs of autistic spectrum disorders.[4]

Primitive reflexes are mediated by extrapyramidal functions, many of which are already present at birth. They are lost as the pyramidal tracts gain functionality with progressive myelination. They may reappear in adults or children with loss of function of the pyramidal system due to a variety of reasons. However with the advent of Amiel Tison method of neurological assessment, the importance of assessment of such reflexes in paediatric population has come down.[5][6][7]

Contents [hide]
1 Adaptive value of reflexes
2 Moro reflex
3 Walking/stepping reflex
4 Rooting reflex
5 Sucking reflex
6 Asymmetrical tonic neck reflex
7 Symmetrical tonic neck reflex
8 Palmar grasp reflex
9 Plantar reflex
10 Galant reflex
11 Swimming reflex
12 Babkin reflex
13 Parachute reflex
14 Other primitive reflexes tested in adults
15 Primitive reflexes in high-risk newborns
16 References
17 External links



SO WHO’S BEEN BOOSTING TRUMP’S TWITTER DATA THIS TIME? THE RUSSIANS, PROBABLY, OR MAYBE TRUMP HIMSELF. HE'S AWFULLY ANXIOUS TO HAVE HIGH STATS. THE BOTS HAVE ALSO BEEN TROLLING PEOPLE, THOUGH, SO THEY'RE AREN'T JUST PRAISING TRUMP'S NAME. THEY'RE WORKING FOR HIM.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/05/trumps-twitter-has-something-fishy-happening-claims-researchers-001740515.html
Trump's Twitter has something 'fishy' happening claims researchers He's one popular guy, but something about the latest numbers Trump's accumulating have raised a red flag for a group of researchers.roz zurkoroz zurko FOLLOW Curated byTiffany BaileyUpdated on 2 June 2017, 10:16 Something 'fishy' going on with Trump's Twitter? Photo: Blasting News Library Something 'fishy' going on with Trump's Twitter? Photo: Blasting News Library

By all means, #trump has more #Twitter followers than most people in this world and that's to be expected with his Twitter account being a kind of hot-line to the president of this nation. When Trump was in the running for the president and then won the election, his Twitter followers were growing in leaps and bounds every day, but a sudden surge in followers have researchers puzzled.

Is odd stuff going on?

A surge in Twitter followers is deemed a rather mysterious event and it has researchers who study social media perking up and taking notice. According to The Washington Post, the reports cite Trump seeing a gain of 5 million Twitter followers happening in less than a week.

This same report also suggests that something "fishy" is going on with these new followers.

'Fishy'
This something "fishy" may be due to bot followers. According to the Washington Post, the term "bot" is used to describe automated accounts, not real people, just technology acting like real people. These automated accounts are what many of the websites are trying to keep out by having you write those cryptic looking words in a box before you hit "enter," "send," or "continue," when creating an account of some type online.

Is something off?

Twitter Counter, which is a tracking site, puts Trump's Twitter account as getting about 2.4 million new followers in May alone, when you break it down into time, this indicates that every second of the day throughout the month of May, a Twitter follower signed up to Trump's account.

Samuel C. Wooley is a research director out of Oxford University, who has seen the numbers of new followers. He offers up his opinion on this surge of followers on Trump's Twitter account.

An expert weighs in

Wooley is considered an expert in this field and he indicates that from what he is seeing, it seems rather odd. Unlike the others who are concerned with a large number of followers, the number of new people following Trump is not as concerning to Wooley as another trend that he is seeing.

Trump does have more people following him on Twitter than most people do in the world. Considering how Trump uses Twitter as a news channel for the scoop coming out of the White House, people flock to his Twitter for the first-hand news. This seems to be especially true after all the fake news coming from the mainstream media. Couple the news with the entertainment factor that Trump seems to provide with his tweets, people are going to want to follow this Twitter account. So what does Wooley find strange?

Twitter users without tweets

What Wooley does find strange is that there's a large number of Trump's new followers who carry very little information in their profile section.

Many don't have a profile picture and they also don't show a history of tweeting. It is almost as if these people were so generic they could be a bot account.

These are called "egg-followers." This name comes that egg image that shows up where the profile picture would normally go when there is no profile picture offered. Wooley is not alone with his thoughts. Jonathan Albright, who is the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, also sees the new followers on Trump's Twitter page as not having much quality to them.

The Washington Posts reports that while Twitter has stopped using that "egg" as a fill-in for a Twitter user's profile picture when there isn't one offered up by the Twitter user, the term "egg followers" is still used.

Growing, growing and growing

SocialRank, another analytics company that works with big businesses, reported on Trump's numbers this week. They note that Trump's followers went from 24.1 million in February to 31 million in May. Trump's "egg followers" also grew during this same time period. They went from 5 million to 9.1 million.

The SocialRank people also reported on Tuesday that "927,000 of Trump’s egg followers are new accounts from May." The lack of a profile picture doesn't deem the account fake in the eyes of the researchers, but a large number of them in a short period of time does make it a bit "fishy" looking.

Odd-looking followers

After all the debate over bot followers versus real folks signing up on Trump's Twitter account is said and done, the consensus coming from Alexander Taub, who is the chief executive of SocialRank, says it all. Taub said how Trump can still be drawing in a large number of real followers, while egg-followers could also be part of the surge in numbers seen. Apparently, Taub doesn't believe that the number surge would necessarily have to be one or the other, but it is more likely the numbers are coming from a combination of both. #Twitter Bots

Chosen For You On the same day, Eric Trump and father Donald hit the Democrats. Photo via @Erictrump, Twitter.Trump's go into Democrat attack modeVittorio HernandezDear Sean Hannity: Don't Blame Megyn Kelly, Blame Yourself - thelibertarianrepublic.com Sean Hannity loses it in wild tweetstorm, accuses Obama of colluding with Russia [VIDEO]Robert SobelPresident Donald Trump: Image credit: President Donald Trump Live Speech & News 2017 | YoutubeTrump says Obama did not investigate the Russia election interference properly [VIDEO]Obomski



THE SEVERAL WASHINGTON POST STORIES ON THE RUSSIAN HACKING ARE HERE. THIS IS MANY PAGES LONG, BUT AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE. I HAVEN’T READ IT ALL, BUT I’M WORKING ON IT PROGRESSIVELY. ACCORDING TO RACHEL MADDOW SEVERAL DOZEN US GOVERNMENT WORKERS GAVE THE POST INFORMATION FOR THIS. IT IS SET UP WITH CLICKABLE LINKS, SO GO TO THE SITE AND CLICK AS YOU WISH.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/russia-hacking-timeline/?utm_term=.65d069577d71
The Post’s new findings in Russia’s bold campaign to influence the U.S. election
EXCLUSIVE – HACKING DEMOCRACY
By Julie Vitkovskaya, Samuel Granados and John Muyskens
June 23, 2017



THIS IS, I GATHERED FROM A GLANCE, A FAKE FAKE NEWS LIST. TAKE A LOOK AT IT. IT’S FUNNY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ZIMFFF
Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia