Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Tag: Trump

Is This The Future Of Healthcare In America?

Is this really the future of healthcare in America?

The Press25 Jul 2017NICK ALLEN

Future of America?

PHOTOS: REUTERS
People wait to receive medical and dental care at the Remote Area Medical Clinic in Wise, Virginia.
“This organisation was designed to parachute into the most God-awful places. I expected to see stuff like this in South Sudan and Haiti, but it’s right here in the United States of America.” Stan Brock, Remote Area Medical
As Republican politicians in Washington bickered over the fate of ObamaCare, hundreds of desperate people queued outside a county fairground 650km away over the weekend in the hope of receiving basic medical treatment. Teeth rotting, blood pressure soaring, some on crutches or with oxygen tanks, they limped in through the darkness. Some had camped in a field or slept in their cars to be first in line.
This massive free healthcare event, staffed by volunteer doctors and nurses, treated thousands of people over the weekend. Inside a barn, animal stalls were transformed into makeshift medical facilities. A team of optometrists tested for glaucoma in the chicken house. Mammograms and skin examinations took place in articulated lorries.
‘‘I just wish I could get President Trump to come and see this,’’ said Stan Brock, a British philanthropist and founder of Remote Area Medical, the charity behind it. ‘‘The people here are Mr Trump’s constituency, they’re his voters, and it drives me up the wall. If he saw what was happening I’m sure he’d do something about it. Unfortunately I can’t contact him because I don’t tweet.’’ Brock, 80, added: ‘‘This organisation was designed to parachute into the most God-awful places. I expected to see stuff like this in South Sudan and Haiti, but it’s right here in the United States of America.’’
Last week the Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare, a cornerstone pledge of Trump’s campaign, failed in the US Senate.
ObamaCare, the signature domestic policy legacy of his predecessor, led to 20 million more Americans getting health insurance. Repealing it became a cause celebre for Republicans who regard it as costly government overreach, and an unworkable system.
The Senate bill would not only dismantle ObamaCare, it would introduce swingeing US$800 billion cuts over the next decade to Medicaid, the social security healthcare subsidy programme for the unemployed.
As the unfortunate hobbled into the Wise fairground the headline on a morning paper screamed ‘‘32 million more to be uninsured under Republican plan’’. National polls also show ObamaCare is more popular than ever, with a majority of Americans in favour of it for the first time.
But, extraordinarily, many of those in direst need, and who could suffer most under the Trump-backed Senate bill, are still squarely behind the president. The Telegraph interviewed half a dozen Trump voters receiving healthcare at the fairground. Every one said ObamaCare should be repealed, and that they believed Trump would introduce something better.
Their reasons varied. Some had gained coverage under ObamaCare but were unable to meet the rising cost of monthly premiums. Others said they knew little of the detail of the Senate bill, simply pledging faith in Trump.
‘‘I love Trump,’’ said Margaret Harris, 54, shaking her head as she was told Trump backed massive cuts in healthcare spending. She added: ‘‘ObamaCare don’t pay for false teeth and glasses and I blame the Democrats. I’m diabetic and I can’t hardly see you. I need glasses but I ain’t got $400 to pay for them. I know Trump will get it done for us.’’ Similarly, Robert Hicks, 75, a former truck driver who has no insurance, added: ‘‘That’s not Trump, it’s the people in Congress.’’ Hicks, who was having five rotten teeth pulled from his mouth, added: ‘‘I know he’s trying to help us and I’m still with him. We need to vote out the people in Congress who aren’t helping him.’’
Terry Turner, 53, who suffered a broken neck in a factory accident, had much of his care covered by Medicaid, but seemed unconcerned at Trump-backed cuts to the programme.
‘‘I’m all in for Trump, he’s got a good heart,’’ he said, and added that there were ‘‘able-bodied people out there that won’t get out of bed’’ who were abusing Medicaid, who Trump would root out.
Buddy Howington, 48, who was having teeth pulled. His ObamaCare premiums rose to US$2500 a year, and he only earned US$7.25 an hour part-time in a supermarket, so he abandoned coverage. ‘‘Then they fined me $300 for not paying,’’ he said. ‘‘I couldn’t afford to pay for ObamaCare so they fine me. Makes no sense. I don’t know what’s going on in Washington but I think Trump will help eventually.’’ – Telegraph Group

“100k-ton message to the world’: The USS Gerald R. Ford

Darlen Superville Associated Press – Sunday, 23 July 2017

With praise and a blessing for the military, President Donald Trump helped hand over the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Navy on Saturday and said the state-of-the-art aircraft carrier will send a “100,000-ton message to the world” about America’s military might when it is ultimately deployed.
U.S. allies will rest easy, Trump said, but America’s enemies will “shake with fear” when they see the Ford cutting across the horizon.

The president and commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces likened the $12.9 billion warship to “an incredible work of art” and boasted about the American labor that went into building a vessel that eventually will house thousands of sailors and crew members.
Trump’s participation in the ceremony also capped “Made in America” week at the White House, during which the president and administration officials sought to draw attention to U.S. manufacturing.
“American steel and American hands have constructed this 100,000-ton message to the world,” Trump said of the Ford during a speech that praised the bravery and spirit of U.S. service members and referenced his desire for a buildup after years of spending restrictions.
“American might is second to none and we’re getting bigger and better and stronger every day of my administration. That I can tell you,” Trump told thousands of service members and guests, including former defense secretaries Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all packed into the steamy hangar bay on the main deck.

Cheney and Rumsfeld

“Wherever this vessel cuts through the horizon, our allies will rest easy and our enemies will shake with fear because everyone will know that America is coming, and America is coming strong,” Trump said.
After the speech, he put the Ford into commission and asked God to “bless and guide this warship and all who shall sail in her.” He was followed by Susan Ford Bales, the ship’s sponsor and daughter of the 38th president, whom the ship honors.
“There is no one, absolutely no one, who would be prouder of the commissioning of this mighty ship than the president of the United States, Gerald R. Ford,” she said. “I am honored to give the command: ‘Officers and crew of the United States Gerald R. Ford, man our ship and bring her to life.'”
“Anchors Aweigh” played as row after row of sailors in crisp, white uniforms who had been standing in formation began filing off to man their stations. Sirens and bells sounded, horns blared and the U.S. flag was hoisted high above the deck.
Soon after, the captain was informed that the “ship is manned and ready and reports for duty to the fleet.”
Trump, who visited the carrier in March, told Time magazine this year that the Navy should revert to using steam catapults to launch fighter jets because some of the USS Ford’s state-of-the-art systems and technology “costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”
Construction started in 2009 and was to be completed by September 2015 at a cost of $10.5 billion. The Navy has blamed the delays and budget overruns on the ship’s advanced systems and technology, including electromagnetic launch systems for jets and drones that will replace steam catapults.
The warship also has a smaller island that sits farther back on the ship to make it quicker to refuel, re-arm and relaunch planes, and a nuclear power plant designed to allow cruising speeds of more than 30 knots and operation for 20 years without refueling.

USS Gerald R. Ford
The vessel completed sea trials in April but still will go through a battery of tests and workups at sea before becoming ready for deployment, work that is expected to cost nearly $780 million and take more than four years to complete, congressional auditors said this month.
Docked at Naval Station Norfolk, the USS Ford eventually will house about 2,600 sailors, 600 fewer than the previous generation of aircraft carriers. The Navy says that will save more than $4 billion over the ship’s 50-year lifespan.
The air wing to support the Ford could add more personnel to the ship, which is designed to house more than 4,600 crew members.
The Ford was built at Newport News Shipbuilding, a giant Navy contractor in Virginia.
Trump used the appearance to prod Congress to approve his request for an additional $54 billion for the military next year. House lawmakers, at least, are working to up his request.
Trump called for an end to mandatory spending reductions that he said has led to deferred maintenance, insufficient spending on new equipment and technology, and a drop in military readiness. He said changes in the defense acquisition process are needed to make sure the U.S. gets the best equipment at the best prices.
“We want the best equipment, but we want it built ahead of schedule and we want it build under budget,” Trump said.

FAKE NEWS Is The Norm In Corporate Mainstream Media

FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT YOUR MSM NEWS SOURCES GUYS: THIS IS REAL NEWS!

CNN fake news

 

Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist resigns from CNN after being busted for Fabricating Fake News – Ethan Huff.
Following more than a years’ worth of binge-publishing of fake-news about the Trump campaign, CNN has announced the resignation of three of its top ‘journalists,’ including Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Eric Lichtblau. Along with Thomas Frank and Lex Haris, Lichtblau was found guilty of publishing false information about Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, a rumour that was apparently started by none other than failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The resignations came to a head after CNN carelessly published a story recently accusing entrepreneur Anthony Scaramucci, an ally of President Trump and a member of his transition team, of colluding with Russia to get Mr. Trump elected.
These allegations centered around a delusion by these CNN reporters that Scaramucci was somehow connected to a Russian investment fund that’s currently under Congressional investigation, a rumour that has since proven to be completely false. There was never any proof to support these allegations, other than a single “anonymous source” that CNN and many other mainstream ‘news’ outlets grabbed onto as “evidence” that President Trump had worked with the Russians to cause Clinton to lose the election.
When it became undeniable that the whole thing was completely made up, CNN had no choice but to do something – anything – to mitigate the damage to its already battered reputation. They chose to issue the following statement… “On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund. That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologises to Mr. Scaramucci.”
CNN got it wrong about Comey’s investigation of Trump, too. That CNN would claim to have “editorial standards” is rather humorous considering this isn’t the first time the network has published fake news about President Trump based on little more than wishful thinking. Back in June, the dying network reported that former FBI Director James Comey was going to dispute the claim that President Trump was not under investigation by the agency. The CNN article, which was titled Trum“Comey expected to refute Trump,” was once again based on ‘anonymous sources’ that apparently told the network Comey’s conversations with the President were “much more nuanced,” and that Mr. Trump had gotten things wrong in claiming that he was not under investigation.
Four CNN journalists – Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus – all compiled the story, with Borger, CNN’s chief political analyst, appearing on TV to state the following: “Comey is going to dispute the President on this point if he’s asked about it by Senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.” But that never happened, and CNN was forced to admit that the whole thing was simply untrue. CNN quickly changed the title of the article to “Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction,” issuing the following statement in a correction… “CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published.”
More and more Americans are learning the truth… and that it can’t be found at CNN.
Sources for this article include:
TheIntercept.com
NaturalNews.com
CNN.com
TheHill.com
http://newstarget.com/2017-07-20-pulitzer-prize-winning-cnn-journalist-busted-for-fabricating-fake-news-resigns-from-cnn.html

Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election: Jon Rappoport


Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election
by Jon Rappoport
July 18, 2017

Press outlets are now reminding us that President Bill Clinton interfered in the 1996 Russia election that brought Boris Yeltsin to power for a second term.
This is by way of saying, “Well, if Putin helped Trump win the 2017 election, so what? The US did the same thing in Russia.”

Clinton Russia election
That’s an interesting but not terribly strong argument. However, there is another piece to the 1996 Clinton op, and it is explosive and quite relevant.
Let’s start here, with the 1996 leak of a document detailing a meeting between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. Sean Guillory, writing at jacobinmag.com, states:
“According to a White House memo leaked to the Washington Times in March 1996, Clinton and Yeltsin had agreed to support each other in their respective reelection bids.”
We are talking about mutual interference. President Clinton helps President Yeltsin win, and President Yeltsin helps President Clinton win.
Bill Clinton asked the president of Russia to interfere in a US presidential election.
Digest that.
The Washington Post (2/26/96) reports on “…a memo written by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, according to White House press secretary Michael McCurry. It [the memo] recounted talks between Clinton and Yeltsin earlier this month when both leaders attended an anti-terrorism summit in Egypt.”
“The memo, as quoted in the [Washington] Times, said Clinton pledged to work with Yeltsin to maintain ‘positive’ relations with the United States as both men seek reelection this year. One way to do this, the memo quoted Clinton as saying, is for Yeltsin to stop restricting poultry imports. Clinton said ‘this is a big issue, especially since 40 percent of U.S. poultry is produced in Arkansas,’ the memo said.”
We had a US president, Bill Clinton, specifying HOW the Russian president could help him win a second term as US president.
Let that sink in.
The Associated Press reports, on March 28, 1996: “Citing a classified memo, the Washington Times reported yesterday that Clinton had promised Yeltsin to back his re-election bid by formulating “positive” policies toward Russia…On a matter important to his political supporters in Arkansas, Clinton asked Yeltsin to stop restricting poultry imports. ‘This is a big issue, especially since 40 percent of U.S. poultry is produced in Arkansas,’ Clinton said, according to the memo…On Monday, Vice President Al Gore announced Russia was lifting the ban, which was imposed because of the suspicion that U.S. chickens are not inspected sufficiently for salmonella, which causes illness.”
Clinton promises to back Yeltsin in his effort to win the presidency of Russia.
In return, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLINTON’S POLITICAL SUPPORTERS, Clinton asks Yeltsin to lift Russia’s ban on importing chickens, particularly since 40% of US poultry is produced in Arkansas, Clinton’s home state. And lo and behold, Yeltsin does comply with Clinton’s request for help in winning the 1996 US presidential election. Yeltsin lifts the ban on importing US poultry.
Both president agree to interfere in each other’s election.
And it gets worse. The major chicken producer in Arkansas is Tyson. The Fiscal Times reports, on 2/2/16: “…consider a largely forgotten financial scandal that directly involved Hillary Clinton during 1978 and 1979.”
“Under the guidance of an attorney representing Tyson Foods, Hillary Clinton made a $98,540 profit from a $1,000 initial investment in less than one year trading commodity futures. While $98,540 may not seem like much money relative to the Clinton family’s wealth today, it exceeded Bill and Hillary’s combined annual income at the time.”
“…Clinton’s initial trading also had a serious irregularity…her $1,000 initial investment was well below the $12,000 deposit required by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for the first trades she executed. So not only did Hillary make an extraordinary profit for a novice investor, she did so without following the rules applied to less well-connected traders.”
There is much more to say about the relationship between Tyson Chicken and the Clintons, but we’ll leave it there for now.
So there is a precedent of Russia interfering in a US presidential election (by stark invitation)—and nothing happened to the US president, Bill Clinton, who asked for the interference. Nothing.
Clinton was, of course, upset when the memo of his meeting with Yeltsin was leaked. But here is how he spun his objection:
Washington Post, 2/28/96: “[Clinton Press Secretary] McCurry said Clinton and [National Security Advisor] Lake considered the leak to be far more sensitive than the typical anonymous disclosure that is commonplace in Washington journalism. ‘The president feels like he ought to be able to sit down with the president of Russia and have a private conversation,’ McCurry said.”
Clinton and Yeltsin agreeing to interfere in each other’s presidential election was ignored, as if it were of no concern. The big issue was the leak of the memo. Private and highly felonious deals between two superpower chiefs of state? No problem.
To repeat: this 1996 memo-scandal of enormous proportions didn’t make a dent in Bill Clinton’s second term in office. After a brief press blast, and a round of “I’m shocked” within the Beltway, the roar died and vanished.
If a comparable memo were unearthed from the Trump team today, impeachment proceedings will begin in a matter of hours, and the press would be booking seats for the firing squad.
Soros-paid street soldiers would lift Barack Obamas up on their shoulders, break down barriers at the White House, and carry him into the Oval Office.
We need to revisit the old saying, “It’s not the conspiracy (that hurts a political criminal), it’s the cover-up (of the crime).”
There needs to be an addendum. “It’s not the conspiracy, it’s the coverage.” Meaning press coverage.
If a politician commits a major crime and the press coverage dies out, the politician gets away with it. If the press keeps hounding the politician endlessly, he doesn’t get away with it—even if there is no solid proof he committed a crime in the first place.

Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election

Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

Russia’s ultimatum to Trump before ‘counter actions’

Russia is demanding the immediate return of diplomatic properties seized by the Obama administration after claims Moscow hacked the US election.
The Kremlin has accused the United States of setting conditions on the return of the compounds in New York and Maryland.
Former president Barack Obama ordered their seizure in December as well as the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.
Russia has vehemently denied any involvement in election hacking.
Deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov will meet US undersecretary of state Thomas Shannon to try to thrash out a solution on Monday.
His boss, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, was also reported as saying on a visit to Belarus that “anti-Russian feeling” in the United States meant it was not certain that Moscow and Washington could agree on key global issues.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “We consider it absolutely unacceptable to place conditions on the return of diplomatic property, we consider that it must be returned without any conditions and talking.”

President Vladimir Putin raised the issue with Donald Trump when they met for the first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg this month.
Mr Obama said he was ordering the ban due to US intelligence reports of Russian hacking and an alleged influence campaign to sway the US presidential election in Mr Trump’s favour.
He said Moscow was using the compounds for “intelligence-related purposes”.
The Russian President held off from retaliating at the time and said he would wait to see how Mr Trump reacted after he came into the White House.
However, hopes that Mr Trump will soon act on his campaign pledges to boost relations have faded as any ties to Moscow have become toxic.
The White House has faced a maelstrom of US investigations into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Read The Rest:

https://news.sky.com/story/russia-demands-immediate-return-of-diplomatic-property-from-us-10951813

Trump’s lawyer insists nothing ‘nefarious’ in Trump Jr. Russia meeting

Trump LawyerA senior member of President Trump’s personal legal team said Sunday that there was nothing improper in the meeting that Donald Trump Jr., the president’s oldest son, took with a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.

“Well, I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in,” Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for the president, said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “The president had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me.”

 

It’s highly unlikely that the Secret Service, which is charged with protecting the president, his aides and his family from physical harm, would have any influence over who the president or his children chose to meet during a presidential campaign.

A Secret Service spokeswoman cast doubt on Sekulow’s claims.

“Donald Trump Jr. was not under Secret Service protection in June 2016,” said Cathy Milhoan, the director of communications for the protective agency.

The president, meanwhile, took to Twitter, where he once again portrayed the Russia investigations as a media fabrication and turned his fire on his old Democratic rival.

“Hillary Clinton can illegally get the questions to the Debate & delete 33,000 emails but my son Don is being scorned by the Fake News Media?” Trump tweeted Sunday morning.

The president’s tweets, however, did not address his son’s missteps and obfuscations regarding the Russia meeting, which have only served to feed suspicions.

Initially, Trump Jr. said the meeting focused on Russia’s moves to halt adoptions by American families, but he changed his story after new details emerged. Emails released last week show that Trump Jr. believed he was meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer with possible ties to the Kremlin, who would provide damaging information about Clinton as part of a Russian broader effort to assist his father’s presidential campaign. He was joined at the meeting by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law; Paul Manafort, then a top campaign aide; and Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist and possible intelligence agent in the former Soviet Union.

Trump Jr. has said that nothing came of the discussion.

Sekulow reiterated that he has seen no indication that the president is under investigation by either special counsel Robert S. Mueller III or by the House or Senate intelligence committees. Sekulow is part of a legal team headed by New York attorney Marc E. Kasowitz, and the White House said last week that Trump was adding veteran Washington lawyer Ty Cobb to handle the White House response to Russia-related investigations.

“We have had no notification,” Sekulow said on CBS’s “Face the Nation. “Nothing has changed since James Comey said three times that he wasn’t under investigation.”

Sekulow put the responsibility for the initial incomplete response regarding last summer’s meeting squarely on the shoulders of the president’s son.

“The president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement. It came from Donald Trump Jr.,” Sekulow said of the initial statement to the New York Times.

Sekulow also said that there was nothing illegal in the meeting with Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.

“Here is the reality: The meeting in and of itself, of course, as I’ve said before, is not a violation of the law,” Sekulow said on “This Week.” He added that “the president was not aware of the meeting and did not participate in it.”

The lawyer’s response was relatively muted compared with that of the president, who said that the media’s obsession with the Russia story was interfering with his ability to govern.

“With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country!” Trump tweeted Sunday morning.

Greg Jaffe

Glenn Greenwald: Donald Trump Jr.’s Emails Aren’t a “Smoking Gun” or Evidence of Criminal Collusion

Glenn Greenwald
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and one of the founding editors of The Intercept. His recent piece for The Intercept is headlined “As Momentum Grows to Remove Brazil’s President, New Pressure Campaign Sparks Rage.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. We’re speaking with Glenn Greenwald for the hour.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The White House remains in crisis mode following revelations that Donald Trump’s own son openly embraced an apparent effort by the Russian government to peddle information incriminating Hillary Clinton in an attempt to help Trump win the presidency. Emails show Trump Jr. was told Russia wanted to share incriminating information about Clinton as, quote, “part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. replied, quote, “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer,” end-quote. A week after receiving the email last June, Trump Jr., along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, met with someone described to them as a, quote, “Russian government attorney.” The meeting remained secret until Kushner mentioned it on a revised security clearance form.
AMY GOODMAN: In a new interview with Reuters, President Trump defended his oldest son. He said, quote, “I think many people would have held that meeting.” When asked if he knew about the meeting, Trump told Reuters, “No. That I didn’t know, until a couple of days ago, when I heard about this.”
Still with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept. Well, Glenn, as you look at this, as an American, but from your vantage point in Rio de Janeiro, your response to this latest development and the whole issue of Russiagate?
GLENN GREENWALD: So here’s what I don’t understand about this. Certainly, it’s an interesting email. I’m glad that it surfaced. It does lend some credence to the possibility that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians criminally, meaning with their hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, if in fact the Russians did that as the intelligence agencies claim, although they’ve produced no evidence for it. It is possible that the Trump administration or Trump officials colluded with the Russians to commit that crime. It’s possible they didn’t. We still haven’t seen any evidence that they have. Remember, this is not evidence suggesting that Trump officials actually colluded with the Russians to commit a crime—the hacking.
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, “moving the goalposts” by saying, “Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion.” To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats. The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, “Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it.” Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
And here’s what I don’t understand. The Steele dossier that everybody got excited about, that claimed that the Russians had incriminating videos of Trump in a Moscow hotel and other dirt on Trump, that came from somebody who was getting first paid by Republicans and then by Democrats, going to Moscow and getting dirt about Donald Trump from Kremlin-affiliated agents in Moscow. In other words, he went to Russia, talked to people affiliated with the Russian government and said, “Give me dirt about Donald Trump,” and then, presumably, got it and put it in the memo. Similarly, there’s an amazing Politico article from January of this year that describes how allies of the Clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the DNC, met with officials of the Ukrainian government, which was desperate to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose, and get information incriminating about Trump from Ukrainian officials. In other words, Ukraine was meddling in our election by giving Democrats incriminating information about Trump.
Now, I, personally, although it’s dirty, think all of these events are sort of the way politics works. Of course if you’re in an important campaign and someone offers you incriminating information about your opponent, you’re going to want it no matter where it comes from, whether it’s Ukrainian officials, whether it’s anti-Trump people in Moscow or whether it’s pro-Trump people in Moscow. So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.’s actions. Is it that it’s wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction. And so, for me, at least—
AMY GOODMAN: Well, lawyers—some lawyers are saying—
GLENN GREENWALD: —it’s an interesting—
AMY GOODMAN: Some lawyers are saying it has to do with—
GLENN GREENWALD: Go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: —breaking campaign finance laws or campaign laws that have to do with getting something of value, not necessarily financial, from a foreign entity, a state or nonstate actor.
GLENN GREENWALD: Right. And there’s, I think, a lot more lawyers and a lot more campaign finance lawyers who have said that just getting information about a candidate would not constitute something of value. But let’s assume that that’s true. Let’s take that theory as though it’s true. Why doesn’t it also apply then to the person working for Democrats who went to Moscow and got something of value, namely information about Trump, from Kremlin-connected people in Moscow, or Democrats, including someone working for the DNC, who got something of value from Ukrainian officials? Why isn’t that the same thing?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me go to what independent journalist Marcy Wheeler of EmptyWheel.net said about the significance of this week’s news. I talked to her yesterday.
MARCY WHEELER: The email adds a bunch of remarkable new details to what we know, most importantly, that the Trump campaign knew that Russia was trying to get Donald Trump elected probably before even the intelligence community. We had known that the CIA had gotten a tip from a foreign partner sometime in June that even today NSA still doesn’t think was that great a piece of intelligence. But, meanwhile, we learned that on—you know, in early June, Don Jr. was getting this email saying, “There is an effort on the part of Russia to get your father elected. And as part of that, we’re going to sent this lawyer to you with dirt on Hillary Clinton.” And Don Jr., having read that email, said, “Great! Bring it on! Give me that information.”
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Marcy Wheeler. And, Glenn, she wrote, just as you’re describing, the same thing over the weekend, said, “How does this differ, for example, a Democrat going to get information from the British spy Christopher Steele, who then got information from people in Russia?” But she said it all changed with seeing the actual emails.
GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Marcy to a large extent, but not fully, because, you know, I think that—first of all, you know, yesterday, Democrats attacked Bernie Sanders, because Bernie Sanders, when asked about the Donald Trump Jr. email, came out and said, “There are obviously significant questions raised by this, but we shouldn’t rush to judgment. We should wait to see all the evidence.” And part of my discomfort with this whole thing all along—and as a lawyer, I know this really well—is that when you get bits and pieces of information leaked through the media without the full context of what’s taking place, it’s very difficult to assess what it actually is. There’s an independent prosecutor, Robert Mueller, who everyone regards as independent and trustworthy, who has subpoena power, who is investigating this.
So, to me, what this email says is it’s from a British promoter who’s trying to lure Donald Trump Jr. into a meeting with someone who is his friend, saying, “The Russians want your father to win, and they’re willing to give you information to help.” I think it’s clear the Russian government wanted Donald Trump to win. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. Nor do I find it surprising that Donald Trump Jr., when told that the Russian government wants to give him information that can help his father shed a bad light on Hillary Clinton, he was willing to do that. Why do we consider that surprising, let alone criminal? Again, I do think it bolsters the Democrats’ view that the Russians—the theory that Russians wanted Trump to win and that the Trump campaign was willing to take help from the Russians. But that’s still—there’s still a lot more steps that need to be completed before we get to any kind of evidence of an actual crime being committed. And that’s why I don’t think that this revelation, interesting though it may be, is as significant or a smoking gun when it comes to the impeachment or the prosecution case.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Glenn, even though the Trump campaign has always denied collusion with the Russians in the 2016 presidential election, in his interview with Reuters yesterday, Trump suggested that there had been interference in last year’s election, saying, quote, “Something happened, and we have to find out what it is, because we can’t allow a thing like that to happen in our election process. So something happened, and we have to find out what it is.” So, could you respond to that, Glenn, and tell us what you think it is that he’s alluding to?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think there are two separate issues there that we shouldn’t conflate. One is the question of whether the Russians were behind the hacks. And when I say the Russians, I mean, was it just some group of Russians, Russian hackers or Russians acting in some rogue way, or was it actually—were they actually Kremlin officials ordered by Putin? We don’t know the answers to any of those questions, even though the intelligence agencies have said that it was Putin who ordered it. So that’s one question that I think, in that quote, Trump is talking about, which is, we have to get to the bottom of who actually hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails, and make the evidence public so that the public can see that these assertions that the intelligence community have been making actually have evidence behind them.
Then there’s a second question, which is independent, which is: If it’s true that the Russian government hacked John Podesta and the DNC’s emails and distributed what they got to WikiLeaks, did the Trump campaign participate in that crime, either by working with the Russians before the hack or working with them after the hack on how to get the information distributed in a way that would most hurt the Democrats? That, to me, is the core question that has been at the center of this controversy from the beginning. And we still don’t have evidence that the Trump administration participated in that part of the crime. Hopefully, we will learn, one way or the other, in a sober, rational, comprehensive way, not through bits and pieces being leaked by agenda-driven anonymous sources, but by an investigation laying forth the case in a way that we can all see the evidence.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, we’re going to continue this discussion after break. Coming up, we’ll look at how The Intercept’s parent company, First Look Media, is helping support the legal defense for the alleged NSA whistleblower Reality Winner. Stay with us.

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/glenn_greenwald_donald_trump_jrs_emails
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

 

Trump: I’ve ‘done more in five months than practically any president in history’

Trump Social Media

President Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that the current mood in the White House is “fantastic,” despite recent pressure following allegations surrounding his son’s involvement with Russia during last year’s election campaign.

In a wide ranging interview with Reuters, the president also claimed that his administration “had done more in five months than practically any president in history.”

“If you look at Iraq and if you look at Syria and you see the progress we’ve made with ISIS, it’s been almost complete,” he said, referring to militant and terrorist group Islamic State, according to a transcript of the interview posted on Reuters’ website.

“The White House is functioning beautifully. The stock market has hit a new high. Job numbers are the best they’ve been in 16 years. We have a Supreme Court judge already confirmed. Energy is doing levels that we’ve never done before. Our military is doing well. We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS, which Obama wasn’t. There’s not a thing that we’re not doing well in.”

Trump’s assertion about the current mood in the White House flies in the face of media reports this week. The Washington Post said Wednesday, citing officials and outside advisors, his team had been thrusted into “chaos” after revelations of a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a lawyer characterized as linked to the Russian government.

Trump continues to split opinion in the U.S, and around the globe, and many would also question his comments on his team’s achievements. Speaking to CNBC on Wednesday, Barry Diller, chairman of IAC, said Trump’s presidency has so far been a “joke.”

“He hasn’t done anything, really. I think it’s just a joke. Hopefully it will be over relatively soon,” Diller said. “It inexplicably began and it will inexplicably end.”

—Additional reporting by Anita Balakrishnan

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/13/trump-ive-done-more-in-five-months-than-practically-any-president-in-history.html

What do we think guys. Are Donald’s days numbered in the White House, as the mainstream media would have it, or has he just begun?