A study out of the University of Maryland suggests that despite the political divide in Washington over anti-poverty programs, support among the public is often broad and bipartisan.
Content originally published at iBankCoin.com
Last night President Trump typed in a word ‘covfefe’, which lit the internet ablaze. Obviously, we can’t have this man have access to the nuke codes.
Some believe Trump say on his phone in a drunken stupor and wrongly typed indiscernible words into this phone. Libshits were swinging from vines, attempting humor at the President’s expense. Since then, translations of the mysterious word have surfaced.
The White House said the word was typed on purpose and that they knew what it meant. Either way, this is juvenile horseshit.
Alas, Hillary Clinton attempts to capitalize on grande stupidity, taking her cool factor from -10 to -100.
People in covfefe houses shouldn’t throw covfefe. https://t.co/M7oK5Z6qwF
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 1, 2017
Don Trump Jr. checked and mated her. Game, set, match.
What house is he in again??? That’s what I thought. You’re trying too hard. https://t.co/9Yomz1Emb5
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 1, 2017
I knew because my definition of success isn’t reliant on one hit. I would never be happy knowing that I was only successful once – I always want the next thing, the more improved version, the best possible outcome.
The cost of political violence globally is running at more than $14 trillion a year.
Pay equity has become a top consideration for employers — and it’s not just for compliance reasons.
The reality TV star-turned-fashion entrepreneur gets her feet wet in the swimwear department.
Sectors from IT to energy say climate deal withdrawal would hit US jobs and growth
While it was not surprising that as part of the ongoing probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, the House Intel Committee issued a total of seven subpoenas on Wednesday as the WSJ reported, what was surprisng is that in addition to four subpoenas focusing purely on the Russia investigation, the Republican-led committee also issued three subpoenas focusing on “unmasking” questions, involving how and why the names of associates of President Donald Trump were unredacted and distributed within classified reports by Obama administration officials during the transition between administrations.
As part of the “unmasking” investigation, in addition to the NSA, the House committee also subpoeaned the FBI and the CIA for information on how and why Trump-linked names were exposed to the entire US intel community, and led to an avalanche of “unnamed sources” stories. Recall that typically information about Americans intercepted in foreign surveillance is redacted, even in classified reports distributed within the government, unless a compelling need exists to reveal them. Unmasking requests aren’t uncommon by top intelligence community officials but Republicans want to know whether any of the unmaskings of Trump campaign officials during the transition were politically motivated.
According to the WSJ, Republicans on the committee have been pushing for a thorough investigation of how the names of Trump campaign officials became exposed in classified intelligence reports based off intelligence community intercepts. Specifically, the three “unmaksing” subpoenas seek information on requests made by former national security adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power for names to be unmasked in classified material.
The name of Samantha Power hasn’t previously been reported as a potential witness in the probe, and her inclusion in the subpoenas means that Republicans are also broadening their areas of investigation, the WSJ reports.
The House Intelligence Committee is one of two bodies currently probing the question of whether Russian meddled in the 2016 election and whether anyone from Trump’s campaign played a role.
Concurrently, the Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting its own investigation and has already issued subpoenas to Flynn and his businesses. Trump has said there was no collusion with Russia and called the investigation a witch hunt.
* * *
In addition to the above three, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and one of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyers, Michael Cohen, were also subpoenaed Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee. Subpoenas were also approved by the committee for documents in possession of the Flynn Intel Group LLC, and Michael D. Cohen & Associates PC, Bloomberg reported.
“We approved subpoenas for several individuals for testimony, personal documents and business records,” Republican Mike Conaway of Texas, who is leading the probe, and Adam Schiff of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House panel, said in a joint statement. “We hope and expect that anyone called to testify or provide documents will comply with that request, so that we may gain all the information within the scope of our investigation.”
While Flynn has previously said he would invoke the Fifth to avoid testimony, Cohen dismissed any talk of collusion with Russia. “To date, there has not been a single witness, document or piece of evidence linking me to this fake Russian conspiracy,” Cohen said in a statement Tuesday. “This is not surprising to me because there is none.”
* * *
It would, of course, be quite ironic if as a result of all these various probe, investigations and “witch hunts”, Trump is cleared of all “collusion” allegations, while members of the previous administration end up facing civil or criminal charges.
As of late, the media has forgotten about tensions between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia. Crimea and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine have largely left the public’s awareness. However, that shouldn’t be the case, because this region is still a powder keg that could blow at any time. And if it does, it could easily result in another world war.
If you don’t think the situation in Ukraine could still explode into a wider conflict, take a look at what this member of Russia’s parliament recently said at an international security conference.
“On the issue of NATO expansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian military — and I think they are right — If U.S. forces, NATO forces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,” Russian parliamentarian Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov told attendees at the GLOBSEC 2017 forum in Bratislava, Slovakia.
Russian military leaders have discussed Moscow’s willingness to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with military leaders in NATO, as part of broader and increasingly contentious conversations about the alliance’s expansion, Nikonov later told Defense One.
That’s a startling admission when you think about it. It seems the Russian’s believe that if there is a war between Russia and the West, their conventional forces won’t be capable of defending Russian soil from NATO. They’re basically warning us that “if you bring a knife to this fight, we know we can’t win, so we’ll be bringing a gun.”
And there’s a good reason for them to believe that NATO poses a dire threat to their territory and interests.
“For us, [NATO] is a military alliance spanning three-quarters of the global defense money, now planning to expand that figure,” said Nikonov.
In the two years since Russia annexed Crimea, NATO’s Baltic members have doubled their defense budgets. In 2018, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are projected to spend nearly $670 million, up from $210 million in 2014. “This growth is faster than any other region globally,” Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane’s, remarked last October. “In 2005, the region’s total defence budget was $930 million. By 2020, the region’s defence budget will be $2.1 billion.”
NATO has been expanding its troop presence in Eastern Europe as well. In April 2016, during the Warsaw summit, NATO agreed to increase the size of the NATO force deployed to Baltics, a posture move sometimes called enhanced forward presence. In January, the U.S. deployed some 4,000 troops to Poland. The following month, Germany, announced that it will send some 1,000 troops to Lithuania.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has slowly but surely encircled Russia. Just last month NATO admitted another Eastern European nation into their alliance, and the current antagonism between West and Russia is being driven by NATO’s attempts to absorb Ukraine.
The West needs a reality check. The further we encroach into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, the closer we come to World War Three. And if Russia really is such a serious threat to us, as our government has claimed many times in recent years, is expanding NATO really going to guarantee our safety?
We were perfectly capable of protecting ourselves from the much more powerful Soviet Union, and we did so with a much smaller alliance. We’re expanding NATO to Russia’s doorstep, and all we’re receiving in return is the heightened risk of nuclear war.