GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Czer, Jun 30, 2017.

  1. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Judge Rules George Nader Is a Danger to the Community, Orders Him Jailed Ahead of Child Pornography Trial
    June 7th, 2019

    A U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday ordered 60-year-old George Nader to be detained ahead of trial. The defense hoped that Nader would be granted conditional release due to complications from a heart surgery, but the judge said Nader is a danger to the community.

    He has been “remanded to the custody of the [U.S. Marshals Service] due to safety of the community,” the docketed order from Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis said. The judge scheduled a preliminary hearing for Monday.

    Davis reportedly had a “litany” of concerns about releasing Nader from custody, including that Nader is a potential flight risk and worth roughly $3 million.

    Prosecutors called into question Nader’s health concerns in noticeable fashion. The reported quote: “When the government brought Mr. Nader to a doctor for evaluation on Monday, the doctor said: don’t bring healthy people in here.”

    Nader was arrested in New York City on Monday for allegedly “transporting visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” The charges stem from evidence the FBI found when agents seized three of Nader’s iPhones on an unrelated matter in January 2018, according to court documents. The FBI allegedly found dozens of pornographic videos of boys on one of Nader’s phones, as well as images depicting bestiality. Nader previously pleaded guilty to one count of transporting child pornography in 1991.

    Nader was a cooperating witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation into whether then-candidate Donald Trump‘s campaign coordinated with Russian effort to interfere in the 2016 election. Nader helped organized a controversial meeting in the Seychelles during which Erik Prince (Betsy DeVos‘s brother) and others–including Kirill Dmitriev, chief executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund–met with the United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed. Mueller’s report said this about the meeting:

    Nader informed Prince that the Russians were looking to build a link with the incoming Trump Administration…he told Prince that Dmitriev had been pushing Nader to introduce him to someone from the incoming Administration… Nader suggested, in light of Prince’s relationship with Transition Team officials, that Prince and Dmitriev meet to discuss issues of mutual concern.

    Dmitriev hesitated to meet with Prince, but Nader reassured him:

    This guy [Prince] is designated by Steve [Bannon] to meet you! I know him and he is very well connected and trusted by the New Team. His sister is now a Minister of Education.
  2. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
  3. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    House will call spy hunters to testify about Trump campaign, Russia contacts
    Intel Committee chair Adam Schiff said he wants "to explain to the American people the serious counterintelligence concerns raised by the Mueller Report."
    June 7, 2019

    WASHINGTON — The House Intelligence Committee will hold the first of a series of public hearings on the Mueller report next week — this one featuring former FBI spy hunters talking about the implications of the dozens of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    "As part of this series of hearings and testimony, the Committee plans to speak with fact witnesses, national security experts, and others connected to the Special Counsel's investigation to elucidate the issues and findings in the first volume of the report," a committee spokesman said in a statement.

    The first of the hearings is scheduled for 9 a.m. Wednesday, said spokesman Patrick Boland. The committee is slated to hear testimony from Stephanie Douglas and Robert Anderson, each of whom served as executive assistant directors of the National Security Branch of the FBI. That’s the group that conducts counterintelligence investigations, including tracking foreign spies in the United States and their efforts to recruit and coopt Americans.

    Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, said his goal is "to explain to the American people the serious counterintelligence concerns raised by the Mueller Report, examine the depth and breadth of the unethical and unpatriotic conduct it describes, and produce prescriptive remedies to ensure that this never happens again. That is a tall task, but it begins with a detailed focus on the facts laid out in the Special Counsel's report."

    The president and his allies have said that the line in the Mueller report saying that "the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" amounted to a finding of innocence. But Schiff and other Democrats point out that the counterintelligence questions raised by the Trump-Russia relationship, including whether the president himself is compromised or unduly influenced by Russia for financial or other reasons — was left out of the report.

    The Mueller report says FBI agents working in Mueller's office regularly sent counterintelligence reports back to headquarters, but it says nothing about the contents of those presumably classified reports.

    Trump tweeted Friday: "Nervous Nancy & Dems are getting Zero work done in Congress....and have no intention of doing anything other going on a fishing expedition to see if they can find anything on me — both illegal & unprecedented in U.S. history."
  4. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Barr compares being Trump’s attorney general to D-Day invasion
    Barr claims his return to the Justice Department was "like jumping into Sainte-Mère-Église on the morning of June 5."
    JUN 8, 2019

    A day after the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, Attorney General William Barr claimed that his return to the Justice Department bears similarities to the 1944 Battle of Normandy.

    During a speech at the FBI academy on Friday, Barr compared the scrutiny that he has received since becoming President Donald Trump’s attorney general to the Allies’ invasion of Europe — which is estimated to have claimed the lives of about 2,500 U.S. soldiers and nearly 2,000 soldiers from other Allied countries.

    “As we’ve been watching the coverage of June 6, 1944 — D-Day — I had the thought that my arrival this time felt a little bit, I think, like jumping into Sainte-Mère-Église on the morning of June 5, trying to figure out where you could land without getting shot,” said Barr.

    U.S. troops were airdropped into the French town of Sainte-Mère-Église in advance of the Allies’ amphibious June 1944 invasion in order to restrict German access to the nearby beaches.

    Barr — who was confirmed by the Senate in February after serving as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general from 1991 to 1993 — has faced intense criticism for his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

    Trump’s attorney general released a “summary” of Mueller’s report in March that claimed to exonerate the president of any wrongdoing. Barr made similar remarks at an April press conference on the release of Mueller’s redacted report.

    Mueller reportedly objected to Barr’s misleading summary of the special counsel’s investigation in a letter to the attorney general.

    Mueller also undercut the attorney general’s claims in a press conference last month, during which the former FBI director said he didn’t charge the president with obstruction of justice due to DOJ policy, but there were at least 10 cases of potential obstruction.

    Barr later admitted he had decided to clear Trump of any obstruction of justice charges before reading the special counsel’s report.

    Numerous congressional Democrats have called for Barr to be held in contempt for refusing to testify and share the unredacted version of Mueller’s report with lawmakers.
  5. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    Czer you comment on the dead senators right now
  6. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Tom Perez Defends DNC Not Holding Climate Change Debate: ‘It’s Just Not Practical’
    June 9, 2019

    Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez told environmental activists that it would be “impractical” for the party to host a primary debate on climate change, according to a Sunday Tampa Bay Times report.

    On Saturday, the activists confronted Perez at a gala in Orlando, Florida, and asked him about the party denying 2020 Democratic candidate and Washington governor Jay Inslee’s request to hold a debate for the candidates to discuss solutions to global warming.

    Perez told them that “once you have one single issue debate, then every debate leads to become a single issue debate in order to address the concerns.”

    “We will have issue areas in debates, including but not limited to climate, but it’s just not practical for us to have one debate on democracy reform, one debate on voting,” the chairman said. “And as someone who worked for Barack Obama, the most remarkable thing about him was his tenacity to multitask, and a president must be able to multitask.”

    Inslee, who’s made climate change a cornerstone of his campaign, expressed disappointment on Wednesday when he announced the DNC’s decision.

    “The DNC is silencing the voices of Democratic activists, many of our progressive partner organizations, and nearly half of the Democratic presidential field who want to debate the existential crisis of our time,” Inslee said. “The climate crisis merits a full discussion of our plans, not a short exchange of talking points.”


    Democratic National Committee Backtracks On Its Ban Of Fossil Fuel Donations

    The move comes just two months after the party adopted a resolution to prohibit oil, gas and coal company contributions.
    Aug 10, 2018

    The Democratic National Committee passed a resolution Friday afternoon that activists say effectively reverses a ban on fossil fuel company donations.

    The resolution introduced by DNC Chair Tom Perez states that the party “support fossil fuel workers” and will accept donations from “employers’ political action committees.” It was approved by a 30-2 vote just two months after the committee adopted another resolution prohibiting donations from fossil fuel companies by a unanimous vote.
  7. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Mexico Did Not Agree to Agricultural Deal Touted by President Trump, Officials Say
    JUNE 9, 2019

    President Donald Trump doubled down on his boast of “large” agricultural sales to Mexico as part of a deal on border security and illegal immigration that averted the threat of U.S. tariffs. But the deal as released had none, and three Mexican officials said they’re not aware of any side accord.

    Trump told his 61 million Twitter followers in an all-caps message on Saturday that Mexico had agreed to “immediately begin buying large quantities of agricultural product from our great patriot farmers.” He repeated the tweet shortly after midnight Sunday in Washington.

    But the communique issued late Friday by the State Department — the U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration — made no mention of agricultural trade as part of the agreement.

    The State Department didn’t respond to an inquiry made through its press department. The White House declined to comment or offer proof to back up Trump’s tweet. The Mexican foreign ministry’s press office declined to comment.

    President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said at a rally in Tijuana near the U.S. border that Mexico should celebrate the “important deal” with the U.S. that removed the threat of tariffs as it was preparing to retaliate. He didn’t mention agriculture in his speech attended by leading political figures in the country.

    If tariffs “had been applied it would’ve caused significant damage to both economies,” he said. “We were being put in a very difficult and uncomfortable position to have to apply the same measures that were going to be placed on Mexican exports.”

    Mexico is already a large buyer of U.S. farm goods, including corn, soybeans, pork and dairy products. It had given no indication of attempting to find alternative suppliers during the one-week standoff over Trump’s proposed steep tariffs on Mexican goods.

    Increasing Mexico’s purchases from the U.S. wasn’t discussed during the three days of talks in Washington that led up to Friday’s agreement, said the three people with knowledge of the deliberations who weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

    Mexico has no state-owned agricultural conglomerate to buy food products or handle distribution, or a government program that could buy farm equipment for delivery to producers.

    Trump earlier on Friday suggested the talks were covering trade in agriculture, and not just border security issues as members of his administration had said — and that the State Department communique listed. If a deal was made, Trump said at the time, “they will begin purchasing Farm & Agricultural products at very high levels.”

    Trump on Saturday was fund-raising on the back of the Mexican agreement. His campaign sent out a “donate now” email that read in part, “Art of the Deal! Mexico has agreed to help END ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Promises Made. Promises Kept.”

    Farm states, among the strongest of Trump’s supporters, have been hit hard by the president’s trade war against China, and the threat of additional action against Mexico had some farm-state senators up in arms. The president is expected to travel to the heartland to hold a private fund-raiser in West Des Moines on Tuesday.
  8. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Kavanaugh defender Amy Chua's daughter gets Supreme Court job with Kavanaugh
    June 10, 2019

    Chua, a member of the school’s clerkships committee, had placed eight women with Kavanaugh, including her daughter Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld, who had been accepted to serve with Kavanaugh, then a circuit court judge.

    Amy Chua, Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld and Brett Kavanaugh

    In her op-ed, Chua preemptively denied the claim, saying her daughter would “probably” look for a different clerkship if Kavanaugh landed on the nation’s highest court. (In a tweet, Sophia, who graduated from Yale Law in 2018, said she was planning to join the Army and would not be “applying to SCOTUS anytime soon.“)

    Neither Chua nor her daughter responded to requests from Yahoo News for comment.

    While the Senate weighed those allegations, the Guardian first reported that Chua and her husband, Jed Rubenfeld, advised female students that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and to project a “model-like” femininity if they wanted to clerk for him.
  9. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    The House just voted to hold Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in civil contempt
    • The House of Representatives voted to authorize committees to sue Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn to force their cooperation with multiple subpoenas using a civil-contempt resolution.
    • A civil-contempt resolution is different from criminal contempt of Congress, which can result in lofty fines and even jail time.
    • The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for a full, unredacted copy of the Mueller report and the underlying evidence, but Barr refused to comply. McGahn had been subpoenaed to testify, but the Trump administration directed him not to comply.
    • The Justice Department struck a last-minute deal on Monday with the House Judiciary Committee to provide certain documents and avoid harsher action from congressional Democrats.
    • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
    WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to allow a congressional committee to enforce subpoenas by taking uncooperative executive-branch officials to court using a civil-contempt resolution.

    A civil-contempt resolution is different from criminal contempt of Congress, which can result in lofty fines and even jail time.

    The move comes after the House Judiciary Committee advanced contempt of Congress resolutions for both Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn, marking the most severe congressional action against President Donald Trump's administration since Democrats reclaimed the chamber's majority.

    The 229-191 vote fell straight along party lines. The resolution required only a simple majority and needed to be passed in only one chamber of Congress. It came after the House Judiciary Committee hammered out the details of the contempt resolution in a marathon hearing.

    Democrats on the committee had issued a subpoena for Barr to hand over a full, unredacted copy of the special counsel report detailing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as the underlying evidence. But Barr refused to comply with the committee's demands.

    In McGahn's case, the White House instructed him to not testify before the committee, angering Democrats clamoring to haul in the central figure in Mueller's obstruction case and the one official named more times than anyone else in Mueller's report.

    On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler struck a deal with the Justice Department to avoid holding Barr in criminal contempt in exchange for certain documents relating to the now wrapped special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    The Justice Department agreed to turn over key evidence from Mueller's obstruction case to the judiciary committee, which lawmakers believe will significantly aid their investigation into whether Trump sought to illegally thwart Mueller's investigation.

    Before the vote, Nadler called the resolution necessary because of what he characterized as "unprecedented stonewalling" from the Trump administration.

    "The committees have a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight, to make recommendations to the House as necessary, and to craft legislation that will curb the waste, fraud, and abuse on full display in the Trump administration," Nadler said during a speech on the House floor. "This is why it is important that the Judiciary Committee be able to act in such matters using all of our Article 1 powers, as contemplated in this Resolution and described in both the Rules Committee Report and the House Judiciary Committee's Contempt Report."

    Mueller did not make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether Trump obstructed justice, citing Justice Department guidelines that say a sitting president cannot be indicted. But prosecutors emphasized that their report did not exonerate Trump, and that if they had confidence the president did not commit a crime, they would have said so.

    They also said a president is not immune from criminal prosecution once he leaves office and that the constitutional remedy for holding a sitting president accountable for wrongdoing lies with Congress. Mueller cited those two things as reasons why he investigated Trump despite knowing he was prohibited from charging him.

    Legal experts say the evidence the Justice Department turns over will likely include FBI notes of interviews with key witnesses in the obstruction case, such as McGahn, former FBI officials, and current and former White House staffers.

    "If the Department proceeds in good faith and we are able to obtain everything that we need, then there will be no need to take further steps," Nadler said in a statement after striking the deal. "If important information is held back, then we will have no choice but to enforce our subpoena in court and consider other remedies."

    Republicans vigorously opposed the contempt charges, echoing offers from Barr himself to allow a handful of Democrats to view a less-redacted report from Mueller.

    Being held in
    contempt of Congress is a rare but severe penalty, which has happened fewer than 30 times throughout US history. The most recent case of an attorney general being found in contempt was when Republicans went after Eric Holder during the Barack Obama administration in 2012.

    Holder had refused to turn over documents relating to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' gun-walking scandal known as "Fast and Furious." A federal judge ultimately tossed out the case in 2014.

    In Barr's case, he could face a lengthy legal battle like Holder did. Whether he will or not is up to the US attorneys, who could very well not pursue the criminal contempt of Congress.
  10. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Trump Administration to Use Former Japanese Internment Camp to House Migrant Children
    June 12, 2019

    President Donald Trump’s administration will use a military base in Oklahoma, once used as an internment camp for Japanese-Americans during World War II, as a temporary shelter for migrant children.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will operate the facility, said Fort Sill will be used to detain 1,400 migrant children. According to the agency, the base will be used “as a temporary emergency influx shelter.” The U.S. government already operates nearly 170 facilities and programs to house migrant children in 23 states.

    When reached for comment, an Administration for Children and Families spokesperson said that the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement “is legally required to provide for the care and custody of all [unaccompanied child migrants] referred to ORR until they are released to appropriate sponsors, usually a parent or relative, while their immigration cases proceed.”

    Fort Sill has long been used as an incarceration facility. In the late 1800s, Apache prisoners of war were moved to Fort Sill from other U.S. Army bases in Florida and Alabama. Native prisoners were told they would remain at Fort Sill indefinitely.

    The base was later used to incarcerate nearly 700 Japanese immigrants in 1942, according to the Densho Encyclopedia. Descriptions of conditions at the camp were gruesome. Japanese prisoners sometimes lived in 100-degree weather with no escape from the hot temperatures. Guard towers “were equipped with 30-caliber machine guns, shotguns, and searchlights,” the encyclopedia notes.

    In 2019, the Trump administration will use the base to house 1,400 migrant children starting as soon as July. The Obama administration used Fort Sill temporarily in 2014 for the same purposes after thousands of unaccompanied children crossed the border that year.

    The Trump administration first considered housing migrant children at military bases last year as Trump’s Department of Homeland Security enacted a policy of family separation at the border.

    HHS has already taken 40,900 migrant children into custody this year, a 57% increase from last year, the agency said in a statement. At least six migrant children have died in government custody or after being released from custody since last fall.

    Immigration rights advocates and Democratic representatives have blamed the Trump administration for its “cruel and inhumane” treatment of immigrants.
  11. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That's Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border
    "Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz."
    JUN 13, 2019

    Surely, the United States of America could not operate concentration camps. In the American consciousness, the term is synonymous with the Nazi death machines across the European continent that the Allies began the process of dismantling 75 years ago this month. But while the world-historical horrors of the Holocaust are unmatched, they are only the most extreme and inhuman manifestation of a concentration-camp system—which, according to Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, has a more global definition. There have been concentration camps in France, South Africa, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and—with Japanese internment—the United States. In fact, she contends we are operating such a system right now in response to a very real spike in arrivals at our southern border.

    “We have what I would call a concentration camp system,” Pitzer says, “and the definition of that in my book is, mass detention of civilians without trial.”

    Historians use a broader definition of concentration camps, as well.

    "What's required is a little bit of demystification of it," says Waitman Wade Beorn, a Holocaust and genocide studies historian and a lecturer at the University of Virginia. "Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. Concentration camps in general have always been designed—at the most basic level—to separate one group of people from another group. Usually, because the majority group, or the creators of the camp, deem the people they're putting in it to be dangerous or undesirable in some way."

    Not every concentration camp is a death camp—in fact, their primary purpose is rarely extermination, and never in the beginning. Often, much of the death and suffering is a result of insufficient resources, overcrowding, and deteriorating conditions. So far, 24 people have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Trump administration, while six children have died in the care of other agencies since September. Systems like these have emerged across the world for well over 100 years, and they've been established by putative liberal democracies—as with Britain's camps in South Africa during the Boer War—as well as authoritarian states like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Camps set up with one aim can be repurposed by new regimes, often with devastating consequences.

    History is banging down the door this week with the news the Trump administration will use Fort Sill, an Oklahoma military base that was used to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II, to house 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children captured at the border. Japanese internment certainly constituted a concentration-camp system, and the echoes of the past are growing louder. Of course, the Obama administration temporarily housed migrants at military bases, including Fort Sill, for four months in 2014, built many of the newer facilities to house migrants, and pioneered some of the tactics the Trump administration is now using to try to manage the situation at the border.

    The government of the United States would never call the sprawling network of facilities now in use across many states "concentration camps," of course. They’re referred to as "federal migrant shelters" or "temporary shelters for unaccompanied minors" or "detainment facilities" or the like. (The initial processing facilities are run by Border Patrol, and the system is primarily administered to by the Department of Homeland Security. Many adults are transferred to ICE, which now detains more than 52,000 people across 200 facilities on any given day—a record high. Unaccompanied minors are transferred to Department of Health and Human Services custody.) But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree.

    Many of the people housed in these facilities are not "illegal" immigrants. If you present yourself at the border seeking asylum, you have a legal right to a hearing under domestic and international law. They are, in another formulation, refugees—civilian non-combatants who have not committed a crime, and who say they are fleeing violence and persecution. Yet these human beings, who mostly hail from Central America's Northern Triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—a region ravaged by gang violence and poverty and corruption and what increasingly appears to be some of the first forced migrations due to climate change—are being detained on what increasingly seems to be an indefinite basis.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration continually seeks new ways to stop people from applying for asylum, and to discourage others from attempting to. The current regime has sought to restrict the asylum criteria to exclude the exact issues, like gang or domestic violence, that these desperate people often cite for why they fled their homes. The administration has sought to introduce application fees and work-permit restraints. They have tried to prohibit migrants from seeking asylum "if they have resided in a country other than their own before coming to the U.S.," which would essentially eliminate anyone who traveled to the border through Mexico. Much of this has been struck down in federal court.

    But most prominently, Trump's Department of Homeland Security has used "metering" at the border, where migrants are forced to wait for days or weeks on the Mexican side—often sleeping in makeshift shelters or fully exposed to the elements—until they are allowed across border checkpoints to make their asylum claims and be processed. That processing system is overwhelmed, and the Obama administration also used metering at various points, but it remains unclear whether the wait times need to be as long as they are. (DHS did not respond to a request for comment.) There are no guarantees on how long migrants will have to wait, and so they've increasingly turned to crossing illegally between checkpoints—which constitutes "illegal entry," a misdemeanor—in order to present themselves for asylum. This criminalizes them, and the Trump administration tried to make illegal entry a disqualifier for asylum claims. The overall effort appears to be to make it as difficult as possible to get a hearing to adjudicate those claims, raising the specter that people can be detained longer or indefinitely.

    All this has been achieved through two mechanisms: militarization and dehumanization. In her book, Pitzer describes camps as “a deliberate choice to inject the framework of war into society itself." These kinds of detention camps are a military endeavor: they are defensible in wartime, when enemy combatants must be detained, often for long periods without trial. They were a hallmark of World War I Europe. But inserting them into civil society, and using them to house civilians, is a materially different proposition. You are revoking the human and civil rights of non-combatants without legal justification.

    "In the origins of the camps, it's tied to the idea of martial law," says Jonathan Hyslop, author of "The Invention of the Concentration Camp: Cuba, Southern Africa and the Philippines, 1896–1907," and a professor of sociology and anthropology at Colgate University. "I mean, all four of the early instances—Americans in the Philippines, Spanish in Cuba, and British in South Africa, and Germans in Southwest Africa—they're all essentially overriding any sense of rights of the civilian population. And the idea is that you're able to suspend normal law because it's a war situation."

    This pairs well with the rhetoric that Trump deploys to justify the system and his unconstitutional power grabs, like the phony "national emergency": he describes the influx of asylum-seekers and other migrants as an "invasion," language his allies are mirroring with increasing extremism. If you're defending yourself from an invasion, anything is defensible.

    That goes hand-in-hand with the strategy of dehumanization. For decades, the right has referred to undocumented immigrants as "illegals," stripping them of any identity beyond an immigration status. Trump kicked off his formal political career by characterizing Hispanic immigrants as "rapists" and "drug-dealers" and "criminals," never once sharing, say, the story of a woman who came here with her son fleeing a gang's threats. It is always MS-13 and strong, scary young men. There's talk of "animals" and monsters, and suddenly anything is justifiable. In fact, it must be done. Trump's supporters have noticed. At a recent rally, someone in the crowd screamed out that people arriving at the border should be shot. In response, the president cracked a "joke."

    "It's important here to look at the language that people are using," Hyslop says. "As soon as you get people comparing other groups to animals or insects, or using language about advancing hordes, and we're being overrun and flooded and this sort of thing, it's creating the sense of this enormous threat. And that makes it much easier to sell to people on the idea we've got to do something drastic to control this population which going to destroy us."

    In a grotesque formulation of the chicken-and-the-egg conundrum, housing people in these camps furthers their dehumanization.

    "There's this crystallization that happens," Pitzer says. "The longer they're there, the worse conditions get. That's just a universal of camps. They're overcrowded. We already know from reports that they don't have enough beds for the numbers that they have. As you see mental health crises and contagious diseases begin to set in, they'll work to manage the worst of it. [But] then there will be the ability to tag these people as diseased, even if we created [those conditions]. Then we, by creating the camps, try to turn that population into the false image that we [used] to put them in the camps to start with. Over time, the camps will turn those people into what Trump was already saying they are."

    Make no mistake: the conditions are in decline. When I went down to see the detention facility in McAllen, Texas, last summer at the height of the "zero-tolerance" policy that led inevitably to family separation, Border Patrol agents were by all appearances doing the very best they could with limited resources. That includes the facilities themselves, which at that point were mostly built—by the Clinton administration in the '90s—to house single adult males who were crossing the border illegally to find work. By that point, Border Patrol was already forced to use them to hold families and other asylum-seekers, and agents told me the situation was untenable. They lacked requisite staff with the training to care for young children, and overcrowding was already an issue.

    But according to a report from Trump's own government—specifically, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security—the situation has deteriorated significantly even since then. The facilities are overcrowded, underfunded, and perhaps at a perilous inflection point. It found adult detainees are "being held in 'standing-room-only conditions' for days or weeks at a border patrol facility in Texas," Reuters reports. But it gets worse.

    Single adults were held in cells designed for one-fifth as many detainees as were housed there and were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks with limited access to showers, the report said. Pictures published with the report show women packed tightly together in a holding cell.“We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to toilets,” the watchdog wrote.
    This was at Paso del Norte, a facility near El Paso, which has a stated capacity of 125 detainees. But when DHS inspectors visited, it was holding 900. For a period, Border Patrol tried housing migrants in cage under a nearby bridge. It was ultimately scrapped amid public outcry. When migrants and asylum-seekers are transferred to ICE, things can get worse. Queer and trans migrants face exceptionally harsh treatment, with reports of high levels of physical and sexual abuse, and the use of solitary confinementconsidered torture by many psychologists—is widespread. As a reminder, by DHS's own assertion, these detainments are civil, not criminal, and are not meant to be punitive in the way of a prison. Many of these people have not even been accused of a crime.

    gain: these are inhuman conditions, and crystalize the dehumanization. So, too, does the Trump administration's decision, reported by The Washington Post, to cancel classes, recreational programs, and even legal aid for the children held at facilities for unaccompanied minors. Why should these kids get to play soccer or learn English? Why should they get legal assistance? They're detainees.

    The administration is citing "budget pressures" related to what is undoubtedly a dramatic spike in arrivals at the border last month: 144,000 people were detained in May. It remains unclear how much of this is tied to the Trump administration's border policies, like metering, which have severely slowed the process of declaring oneself for asylum and left people camped on the Mexican border for days or weeks after a thousand-mile trek through Mexico. Or Trump's recent all-out push to seize money for a border wall and declare "we're closed," which some speculate led to a surge of people trying to get over the line before that happened.

    It's also in dispute how many of these people actually need to be detained. Vox's Dara Lind suggests releasing migrants from Guatemala or Honduras isn't straightforward as "many newly arrived asylum seekers aren’t familiar with the US, often speak neither English nor Spanish, and may not have appropriate clothing or funds for bus fare." But release with ankle bracelets has proven very effective as an alternative to detention: 99 percent of immigrants enrolled in one such program showed up for their court dates, though ICE claims it's less effective when someone is set to be deported. Those subjected to the bracelets say they are uncomfortable and demeaning, but it's better than stuffing a detention cell to five-times capacity. Unless, of course, that's exactly what you want to happen.

    "At one point, [the administration] said that they were intentionally trying to split up families and make conditions unpleasant, so the people wouldn't come to the U.S.," Beorn, from UVA, says. "If you're doing that, then that's not a prison. That's not a holding area or a waiting area. That's a policy. I would argue, at least in the way that [the camps are] being used now, a significant portion of the mentality is [tied to] who the [detainees] are rather than what they did.

    "If these were Canadians flooding across the border, would they be treated in the same manner as the people from Mexico and from Central and South America? If the answer is yes, theoretically, then I would consider these places to be perhaps better described as transit camps or prison camps. But I suspect that's not how they'd be treated, which then makes it much more about who the people are that you're detaining, rather than what they did. The Canadian would have crossed the border just as illegally as the Mexican, but my suspicion is, would be treated in a different way."

    It was the revelation about school and soccer cuts that led Pitzer to fire off a tweet thread this week outlining the similarities between the U.S. camp system and those of other countries. The first examples of a concentration camp, in the modern sense, come from Cuba in the 1890s and South Africa during the Second Boer War.

    "What those camps had in common with what's going on today is they involved the wholesale detention of families, separate or together," Pitzer says. "There was very little in the way of targeted violence. Instead, people died from poor planning, overloaded facilities and unwillingness to reverse policy, even when it became apparent the policy wasn't working, inability to get medical care to detainees, poor food quality, contagious diseases, showing up in an environment where it became almost impossible to get control of them.

    "The point is that you don't have to intend to kill everybody. When people hear the phrase 'Oh, there's concentration camps on the southern border,' they think, 'Oh, it's not Auschwitz.' Of course, it's not those things, each camp system is different. But you don't have to intend to kill everyone to have really bad outcomes. In Cuba, well over 100,000 civilians died in these camps in just a period of a couple years. In Southern Africa during the Boer War, fatalities went into the tens of thousands. And the overwhelming majority of them were children. Fatalities in the camps ended up being more than twice the combat fatalities from the war itself."

    In-custody deaths have not reached their peak of a reported 32 people in 2004, but the current situation seems to be deteriorating. In just the last two weeks, three adults have died. And the Trump administration has not readily reported fatalities to the public. There could be more.

    "There's usually this crisis period that a camp system either survives or doesn't survive in the first three or four years. If it goes past that length of time, they tend to continue for a really long time. And I think we have entered that crisis period. I don't yet know if we're out of it."

    Camps often begin in wartime or a crisis point, and on a relatively small scale. There are then some in positions of power who want to escalate the program for political purposes, but who receive pushback from others in the regime. There's then a power struggle, and if the escalationists prevail over the other bureaucrats—as they appear to have here, with the supremacy of Stephen Miller over (the reliably pliant but less extreme) Kirstjen Nielsen—the camps will continue and grow. Almost by definition, the conditions will deteriorate, even despite the best intentions of those on the ground.

    "It's a negative trajectory in at least two ways," Beorn says. "One, I feel like these policies can snowball. We've already seen unintended consequences. If we follow the thread of the children, for example, the government wanted to make things more annoying, more painful. So they decided, We're going to separate the children from the families. But there was no infrastructure in place for that. You already have a scenario where even if you have the best intentions, the infrastructure doesn't exist to support it. That's a consequence of policy that hasn't been thought through. As you see the population begin to massively increase over time, you do start to see conditions diminishing.

    "The second piece is that the longer you establish this sort of extralegal, extrajudicial, somewhat-invisible no-man's land, the more you allow potentially a culture of abuse to develop within that place. Because the people who tend to become more violent, more prejudiced, whatever, have more and more free rein for that to become sort of the accepted behavior. Then, that also becomes a new norm that can spread throughout the system. There is sort of an escalation of individual initiative in violence. As it becomes clear that that is acceptable, then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy or a positive feedback loop that just keeps radicalizing the treatment as the policy itself becomes radicalizing."

    And for a variety of reasons, these facilities are incredibly hard to close. "Unless there's some really decisive turn away, we're going to be looking at having these camps for a long time," Pitzer says. It's particularly hard to engineer a decisive turn because these facilities are often remote, and hard to protest. They are not top-of-mind for most citizens, with plenty of other issues on the table. When Trump first instituted the Muslim Ban—now considered, in its third iteration, to be Definitely Not a Muslim Ban by the Supreme Court—there were mass demonstrations at U.S. airports because they were readily accessible by concerned citizens. These camps are not so easily reached, and that's a problem.

    "The more authoritarian the regime is, and the more people allow governments to get away with doing this sort of thing politically, the worse the conditions are likely to get," Hyslop says. "So, a lot of it depends on how much pushback there is. But when you get a totally authoritarian regime like Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, there's no control, or no countervailing force, the state can do what it likes, and certainly things will then tend to break down.

    "It's more of a political question, really. Are people prepared to tolerate the deteriorating conditions? And if public opinion isn't effective in a liberal democratic situation, things can still get pretty bad."

    Almost regardless, the camps will be difficult to dismantle by their very nature—that extrajudicial "no-man's land" Beorn mentioned. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example. It began in the early 1990s as a refugee camp for people fleeing Haiti and Cuba. The conditions were bad and legally questionable, Pitzer found, and eventually the courts stepped in to grant detainees some rights. In the process, however, they granted the camps tacit legitimacy—they were allowed to continue with the approval of the judiciary.

    Suddenly, they were enshrined in the law as a kind of gray area where detainees did not enjoy full human rights. That is actually why it was chosen by the Bush administration to house terror suspects: it was already rubber-stamped as a site for indefinite detention. By the time President Obama came into office with promises to close it, he found the task incredibly difficult, because it had been ingrained in the various institutions and branches of American constitutional government. He could not get rid of it. As courts continue to rule on the border camp system, the same issues are likely to take hold.

    Another issue is that these camp systems, no matter where they are in the world, tend to fall victim to expanding criteria. The longer they stay open, the more reasons a government finds to put people in them. That's particularly true if a new regime takes control of an existing system, as the Trump administration did with ours. The mass detention of asylum-seekers—who, again, have legal rights—on this scale is an expansion of the criteria from "illegal" immigrants, who were the main class of detainee in the '90s and early 2000s. Asylum seekers, particularly unaccompanied minors, began arriving in huge numbers and were detained under the Obama administration. But there has been an escalation, both because of a deteriorating situation in the Northern Triangle and the Trump administration's attempts to deter any and all migration. There is reason to believe the criteria will continue to expand.

    "We have border patrol agents that are sometimes arresting U.S. citizens," Pitzer says. "That's still very much a fringe activity. That doesn't seem to be a dedicated priority right now, but it's happening often enough. And they're held, sometimes, for three or four days. Even when there are clear reasons that people should be let go, that they have proof of their identity, you're seeing these detentions. You do start to worry about people who have legally immigrated and have finished paperwork, and maybe are naturalized. You worry about green-card holders."

    In most cases, these camps are not closed by the executive or the judiciary or even the legislature. It usually requires external intervention. (See: D-Day) That obviously will not be an option when it comes to the most powerful country in the history of the world, a country which, while it would never call them that, and would be loathe to admit it, is now running a system at the southern border that is rapidly coming to resemble the concentration camps that have sprung up all over the world in the last century. Every system is different. They don't always end in death machines. But they never end well.

    "Let's say there's 20 hurdles that we have to get over before we get to someplace really, really, really bad," Pitzer says. "I think we've knocked 10 of them down."
  12. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Ocasio-Cortez: People Are Trying To ‘Bribe’ Trump ‘Into War’
    Jun 9th 2019

    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez commented on the recent report of an Iraqi sheikh staying at President Trump’s Washington, D.C. hotel. That sheikh has reportedly expressed a desire for the U.S. to take military action against Iran.

    She wrote in a Friday tweet: “Sure looks like powerful people are trying to bribe the President into war.”

    The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the sheikh “named Nahro al-Kasnazan wrote letters to national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging them to forge closer ties with those seeking to overthrow the government of Iran.”

    “Four months later, he checked into Trump International Hotel in Washington and spent 26 nights in a suite on the eighth floor — a visit estimated to have cost tens of thousands of dollars,” the Post added.

    Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly taken to Twitter and spoken out against the Trump administration.

    “The President does not exist above Congress, he governs alongside us,” she tweeted last month. “That’s what co-equal means. If he prefers to rule by fiat, he’s welcome to resign and return to the Trump Org tax-fraud fiefdom in the private sector whenever he pleases.”
  13. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Mnuchin on solid ground in withholding Trump tax returns: Justice Department
    JUNE 14, 2019

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did not violate the law by refusing to provide President Donald Trump’s tax returns to Congress because the confidentiality of returns is protected under the law, the Justice Department said in a legal opinion released on Friday.

    Federal law “protecting confidentiality of tax returns prohibited the Department of the Treasury from complying with a request by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for the president’s tax returns,” a department official said in the opinion provided to the Treasury Department.

    The memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel, who heads the Office of Legal Counsel, supports the position already taken by the Treasury Department. It is likely to draw fire from Democrats in Congress who have argued the legal reasoning is misguided.

    House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal had issued a subpoena demanding the administration turn over six years of Trump’s returns. He has said he is likely to try to enforce the subpoena by going to court.

    The administration has been refusing to cooperate with a number of congressional probes of Trump, his family and his presidency, with the fight over his tax returns just one example.

    “While the Executive Branch should accord due deference and respect to congressional requests, Treasury was not obliged to accept the committee’s stated purpose without question, and based on all the facts and circumstances, we agreed that the committee lacked a legitimate legislative purpose for its request,” Engel wrote.

    A spokesman for Neal had no immediate comment on the opinion.
  14. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
  15. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Russia's Putin gives China's Xi ice cream on his 66th birthday
    JUNE 15, 2019

    Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) toasts with Chinese President Xi Jinping while congratulating him on his birthday before the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan June 15, 2019.

    BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping celebrated his 66th birthday on Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Xi considers a close friend and who gave Xi ice cream as a present, Chinese state media reported.

    The discussion of senior leaders’ private lives is extremely rare in China, and the exact birth dates of most of them are not revealed publicly, as they are considered a state secret.

    State television showed pictures of Xi and Putin holding up champagne glasses to toast Xi’s birthday at the hotel he is staying at in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, where they are both attending a regional summit.

    While Putin gave Xi Russian ice cream - the flavor was not mentioned - Xi gave Putin back some Chinese tea, the report said.

    Xi thanked Putin and said that in China Putin was extremely popular, it added.

    Pictures on Chinese state television’s website showed the two men inspecting a white cake decorated with red and blue confectionary flowers with the words written on it, in somewhat shaky red-colored Chinese characters, “good fortune double six”.

    It was not immediately clear if Xi ate any of the cake.
  16. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    "We sklounst the US and they are never going to recover"
  17. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    India announces retaliatory trade tariffs against the US

    India has said that, from Sunday, it will impose tariffs on 28 US products, including almonds and apples.

    The new duties, some as high as 70%, are in response to Washington's refusal to exempt Delhi from higher taxes on steel and aluminium imports.

    Earlier this month, US President Trump also announced the US was withdrawing India's preferential trade treatment.

    Tariffs of up to 120% were announced by India in June last year, but trade talks had delayed their implementation.

    In an announcement on Friday, India's Ministry of Finance said the decision was in the "public interest".

    An earlier list had also listed a 29th item - artemia, a type of shrimp - but this was removed.

    US-India bilateral trade was worth $142bn (£111bn) in 2018, a sevenfold increase since 2001, according to US figures.

    But $5.6n worth of Indian exports - previously duty-free in the US - will be hit now the country has lost preferential treatment under America's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).

    The move is the latest push by the Trump administration to redress what it considers to be unfair trading relationships with other countries.

    Tensions have since been rising between the two countries. Last year, India retaliated against US tariff hikes on aluminium and steel by raising its own import duties on a range of goods.

    President Trump has also threatened to impose sanctions if India purchases oil from Iran and if it goes ahead with plans to buy Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.

    The latest tariffs from India come just days before country's Foreign Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, is due to meet his US counterpart, Mike Pompeo, at a G20 summit in Japan. Mr Trump and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi are also expected to hold talks.
  18. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    the juden snake


  19. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    people can deny the jewish/israel angle, but you're wrong, and the world knows it
  20. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Nancy Pelosi tries to tamp down impeachment pressure, calling it 'divisive'
    June 16, 2019

    WASHINGTON — Despite rising pressure from within the House Democratic Caucus to start impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held firm on her position that the country is not yet ready for impeachment hearings, arguing that it would be too divisive.

    In a television interview on Sunday morning, Pelosi told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS that, “I don't think there's anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a President of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care. It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”

    “It should by no means be done politically. We shouldn't impeach politically, or you shouldn't not impeach politically,” she continued. “But you — we must always remember we have a responsibility for oneness because that is the strength of our — that is the strength of our country.”

    Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation sparked renewed calls for impeachment among House Democrats, who argued that Mueller’s findings showed that the president committed criminal obstruction of justice during the course of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    More recently, other Democrats have argued that beginning impeachment proceedings, though not impeachment itself, would help break through the Trump administration’s stonewalling of congressional oversight investigations on the Trump administration.

    In what appeared to be a reference to the congressional members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who have been more vocal about impeachment, Pelosi noted that “In our caucus, we are very diverse. Our diversity is our strength, but our unity is our power. That's what gives us leverage in the rest of the world that we are the United States of America.”

    In a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s This Week, Ocasio-Cortez argued that the growing amount of evidence justified impeachment, regardless of the political consequences.

    “I think every day that passes, the pressure to impeach grows and I think that it's justifiable, I think the evidence continues to come in,” she said.

    Ocasio-Cortez argued that impeachment was less an issue of “polls” and more about “doing our jobs.”

    “This is about us doing our jobs, and if we're talking about what's going to be a victory for Trump and what's not going to be a victory for Trump, then we are politicizing and we are tainting this process,” she explained.

    According to a USA TODAY analysis of congressional statements, over 60 members of Congress have signaled their support for impeachment or the beginning of impeachment proceedings. A majority of members on the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the process, support impeachment. Only one Republican member has signaled his support, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who has since drawn a strong primary challenger.

    Public opinion polling shows that Americans have not yet reached a consensus on impeachment. An NBC/WSJ poll released on Sunday shows that only 27% of Americans say that there is sufficient evidence to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump now. That's a 10 percentage point increase from May’s poll, but still not a majority. The divide is even starker between Democrats and Republicans. 48% of Democrats want impeachment hearings, but only 6% of Republicans support them.