About the dossier, Morell said, "Unless you know the
sources, and unless you know how a particular source acquired a
particular piece of information, you can’t judge the information — you
just can’t." The dossier "doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think," he said. He continued: "I had two questions when I first read it. One
was, How did Chris talk to these sources? I have subsequently learned
that he used intermediaries. "And then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this
information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that
he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the
intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a
little bit because if you’re paying somebody, particularly former FSB
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and
they’re going to call you up and say, ‘hey, let’s have another meeting, I
have more information for you,’ because they want to get paid some
more. "I think you’ve got to take all that into consideration when you consider the dossier." Another former CIA officer in the room pointed out that the CIA also pays its sources. "But we know who the source [i]s and we know how they got the information," Morell responded.
The left-wing standard for doubting the veracity of the claims continues to be the inability to find corroborating news accounts at the time of the alleged spitting incidents, as if Vietnam vets were such whiny weenies that they ran like babies to the papers to complain "that hippie spit on me!" See the 1998 book by Jerry Lembcke which depends on this line of reasoning to argue the spitting incidents are a myth.
In our own time there has been a virtual news blackout on assaults against Trump supporters, especially during 2015 and 2016, which partisans point to as evidence those also are myths.
The three-legged stool of "conservatism" in the age of Reagan consisted of a libertarian leg, a social conservative leg, and a foreign policy hawk leg. The libertarian leg came to dominate (the money interest), as is typical, which discarded the conservative leg except when it needed it, at election time (traditional values agenda), and put the foreign policy leg to work in its interests (global free trade).
This has happened before. The proponents of the professional, managerial state in the early 20th century similarly co-opted the rural Christian farming population to pass the "progressive" agenda, in the name of Christian fairness, of women's suffrage, popular election of senators, the corporate and income taxes to make business and the rich pay their fair share, and Prohibition, in exchange for political power.
The gulls in this game have always been the core Christian population. They are being replaced now, however, by a new class, the Latinos.
The 3-D chess masters will have to run the future scenarios. Yo no hablo espanol. But I expect them to be less charitable when jilted.
The Border Patrol has been facing a record influx of migrant families since fall, but in recent weeks the numbers have begun to escalate substantially, thanks to the annual surge before the arrival of the deadly summer heat.
For months, the federal authorities knew that this spring was likely to set records, but only now is it becoming apparent how big the numbers will be. Apprehensions already dwarf the numbers of five years ago and echo those of the spring of 2014, when the arrival of the first migrant families from Central America transformed the nature of immigration along the southern border.
“The current surge was totally predictable and the Trump administration chose not to prepare for it. Instead it launched a raft of harsh deterrence measures that were totally ineffective,” said Wayne Cornelius, a migration scholar at the University of California, San Diego. ...
In the 2018 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, nearly 400,000 migrants were apprehended at the border, a low figure compared with the peak of 1.6 million in 2000. But experts predict that arrivals this fiscal year could hit one million, a level not seen since the record numbers in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Border Patrol officials were on pace in March for more than 100,000 apprehensions and encounters with migrants – the highest monthly tally in over a decade, he said. Around 90 percent of those – or 90,000 – crossed the border between legal ports of entry. ... Increasingly, smugglers are bringing larger numbers of families together and delivering them across the Rio Grande, knowing they’ll overrun facilities and be released until their immigration court date, she said. Under U.S. law, Border Patrol is not supposed to hold any migrant for longer than 72 hours. Usually, Border Patrol hands them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which can detain families for up to 20 days. But all of those facilities are overcrowded, [Theresa] Brown [of the Bipartisan Policy Center] said, leading Border Patrol to skip the transfer to ICE and release migrants to shelters en masse. “This is a system-wide collapse,” she said.
Short for Change UK, formed on the day when Brexit was finally supposed to occur.
Apparently their idea of change is no change, as in no Brexit.
Looks like the woman in the center realizes their mistake, but that's probably just wishful thinking.
Any seat in Parliament kept by one of these in the next election one wag says will constitute a CUK-hold, but they all already have made cucks of the people of the UK they represent. It is an odd fetish, thankfully, enjoyed by but few, less than 2% of the UK's constituencies.
UCSF researchers estimate that half of the single homeless adults are age 50 or older, compared to 11 percent in the early 1990s — a 354 percent uptick. This data is emblematic of a graying homeless population across the nation: America’s homeless elderly population is projected to nearly triple by 2030, according to new research encompassing New York City, Boston and Los Angeles County. And this problem spans the globe: A 2017 report on the U.K.’s homeless population found that the population of homeless people over 60 had increased 111 percent since 2009, and for those over 75 it had increased by 155 percent — compared to an increase of 48 percent in the general population.
In late 2015, a small group of Ukrainian-American and Ukrainian civic leaders visiting Washington, D.C. told Chalupa they had heard Manafort’s former clients in Ukraine were remobilizing again, and that Manafort had made a fortune working in Kyiv. ...
It was around this time that Chalupa started to develop a gut feeling that Manafort was poised to help Trump’s bid for the White House. ...
By early 2016, Chalupa notified a senior DNC executive that a political spin doctor who had worked against America’s interests for the pro-Kremlin Yanukovych and was linked to some of the most powerful Russian oligarchs serving Putin was to play an important role in the effort to get Trump elected. ...
On March 28, The New York Times broke the story that Manafort had joined the Trump campaign.
The problem with this timeline and Chalupa's obsession with Manafort's Ukraine connection is that Manafort's overture to Trump to come on to the campaign didn't come until February 29, 2016, according to The New York Times. And the overture came at the urging of Trump's close friend Tom Barrack, who wanted Manafort to help a flailing and inexperienced Trump by managing successfully the potentially explosive upcoming Republican convention in Cleveland. Manafort's Republican political experience dating from 1976 onwards is well known.
Chalupa would have had no reason to believe Manafort would suddenly become active in the Trump campaign in late 2015 and early 2016, as she claims, when it wasn't until sometime in mid-February 2016 that Tom Barrack made his pitch to Manafort.
It is more likely that Manafort became the convenient focus for Chalupa after the fact when all along it was opposition to Trump's proposed opening to Russia which motivated her activism and overtures to the DNC long before Manafort came on the scene.
There is absolutely nothing in this puff piece in The Kyiv Post about Chalupa's longstanding loyalty to and work for the Clintons.
Alexandra Chalupa is at the nexus of what has become the criminalization of a foreign policy difference between Trump Republicans on the one hand and Democrats and NeverTrumpers on the other, like John McCain who was notably famous for his deep involvement in the political dispute in Ukraine.
George Washington tried to warn us about the consequences of entangling foreign alliances, and those have been Exhibit A for the last two years.
Of those 55 and older, 48 percent had nothing put away in a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan or an individual retirement account, according to a GAO estimate for 2016 that was released Tuesday. That’s an improvement from the 52 percent without retirement money in 2013.
Two in five of such households did have access to a traditional pension, also known as a defined benefit plan. However, 29 percent of older Americans had neither a pension nor any assets in a 401(k) or IRA account.
And notice how after Hillary's unexpected loss, Chalupa's sister, who admits Alexandra's role with the DNC, is suddenly deeply involved in the effort to spread the story that the Russkies hacked the voting totals of Election 2016.
Over the weekend, Wikileaks tweeted about how CNN had reported last year a denial by the Democratic National Committee and Hilary [sic] Clinton officials of illegal election collusion between the DNC and the government of Ukraine during the 2015 [sic] election. CNN’s conduct is a textbook example of smothering a story and leaving out relevant facts.
The story that CNN was trying to bury was published in Politico in January 2017 titled Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. That story was written by David Stern and Ken Vogel (who is now writing at the New York Times) detailed how a DNC operative named Alexander [sic] Chalupa worked closely with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, including Ukrainian Ambassador Chaly, to try and dig up dirt connecting Donald Trump and Paul Manafort to Russia. The story also mentions that Chalupa told people that the Democrats were planning to hold hearing connecting Trump to Russia in fall of 2016, just before the election.
It should be noted that this illegal attempt to gather information from the Democrats [sic] was underway by March, 2016…which is before the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC was detected as well before the Trump Tower meeting that are cited by the media as examples of Russian collusion. In other words, the DNC was actively working on a plan to connect Trump to Russia before the alleged collusion ever happened.
Here, where the exploits of one anti-Russian pro-Ukrainian Alexandra Chalupa may ultimately be the origin for the whole Trump-Russia collusion narrative of the last two years.
She really ought to be investigated and deposed. Maybe she knows more than she's letting on about how the New York Times got the information it published causing Manafort to resign from the Trump campaign.
In the article below John Solomon appears to be completely oblivious to this POLITICO article excerpted at the link above, which outlined how long time Clinton ally and Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa was instrumental in siccing Democrats on Paul Manafort for his alleged Russian ties immediately after Manafort became Trump's campaign manager in 2016. The DNC and Marcy Kaptur in particular are named as very interested parties who gave Chalupa a hearing, as were Ukrainian diplomats. Chalupa also notably claims to have been a major source on Ukraine for the reporter Michael Isikoff.
The upshot is that the Hillary campaign as the pro-Ukrainian in the 2016 race (along with John McCain!) was the intended principal beneficiary of the effort to destroy Manafort for his alleged pro-Russian activities.
Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.
Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign.
"So far, here in south Texas, we’ve apprehended folks from 44 different
countries. These are from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Yemen, Iraq,
Pakistan, Iran, you name it.” Although most illegal aliens hail from the Central American countries
of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, Ortiz estimates that by the
end of the year, Border Patrol will have apprehended people from 60
different countries. ... Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said
that although Border Patrol apprehended more than 1 million people in
the early- to mid-2000s, it was often the same people, from Mexico, and
it was easy to return them. ... “But now, that’s not what we’re dealing with. We’re on pace to have
about 900,000 arrests, but that’s 900,000 people that we’re dealing
with. Whereas back in the early-2000s, we were dealing with somewhere
around 500,000, 600,000 people. We were just arresting the same person
over and over and over again. So we’re dealing with something that’s
just never been dealt with before. And if we don’t get the support from
Congress, we’re going to fail. Period.”
In a better world, or if she were a
better person, she would apologize and publicly acknowledge Trump’s
legitimacy. I won’t hold my breath. But until she does, she should be shunned in public life. She has no
credibility to speak on any issue or endorse any candidate. She has put
the nation through hell all because she lost an election she should have
won. Let’s remember, too, that her campaign actually did work with
Russians, through FusionGPS and British agent Christopher Steele, to
create a fictional scenario about Trump being compromised. ...
was, after all, the Clinton-financed Russian dossier that formed the
basis of the FBI investigation launched by the disgraced James Comey
that summer. How did that happen? How did a partisan dirty trick result in an FBI probe of the other party’s presidential candidate? And how did so much classified information leak, including the names
of Trump associates picked up incidentally on wiretaps? Who in the Obama
White House broke the law?
Matt Taibbi knows better ("Russiagate is WMD times a million" is the original html), Axelrod's the hack:
I didn’t really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content
to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece of the
story seemed “solid,” but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered
since then, still based on an “assessment”
by those same intelligence services that always had issues, including
the use of things like RT’s “anti-American” coverage of fracking as part
of its case. The government didn’t even examine the DNC’s server, the
kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
As President Trump’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
Kevin Hassett pointed out in a 2013 paper for the American Enterprise
Institute, the United States could add half a percentage point to
economic growth by doubling the number of immigrants it lets into the
country, especially if they come on employer-sponsored visas. President
Trump’s chief economist continues to make the case that "for a country
that has long thought of itself as a nation of immigrants, the U.S.
falls far behind almost all the other countries in the number of
immigrants it admitted relative to its population size.”