Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday ahead of fired FBI director James Comey’s much-anticipated testimony Thursday.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) June 7, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Director of National Intelligence Director Dan Coats, National Security Agency Director Admiral Michael Rogers, and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified at a hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Barring congressional action, the act was set expire in December 2017. https://www.c-span.org/video/?429451-1/senators-express-frustration-national-security-officials-answers-russia-probe [video and transcript]
Wednesday, June 7th 2017[, with an appearance by Shiva Ayyadurai, and Roger Stone hosting the fourth hour]: NEXT: Comey Testimony - President Trump will likely live tweet Mystery Science Theatre 3000 style as former FBI Director James Comey begins his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Investigative journalist Michael Snyder breaks down what this all means. Alex Jones breaks down Eric Trump's appearance on Sean Hannity, and Infowars correspondent Jerome Corsi reveals new developments from inside the DC swamp as the elites do everything to stop Trump.
June 7, 2017 - Trump Ties To Russia Are Illegal Or Unethical, U.S. Voters Tell Quinnipiac University National Poll; Voters Disapprove 2-1 Of Pulling Out Of Paris Accord
President Donald Trump did something illegal in his relationship with Russia, 31 percent of American voters say, while another 29 percent say he did something unethical, but not illegal, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. The president did nothing wrong, 32 percent of voters say.
President Trump's campaign advisors did something illegal in dealing with Russia, 40 percent of voters say, as 25 percent say they did something unethical but not illegal and 24 percent say they did nothing wrong.
The president's job approval rating dips to a new low, a negative 34 - 57 percent, compared to a negative 37 - 55 percent in a May 24 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, and a negative 35 - 57 percent April 4, his lowest score so far.
Trump is too friendly to Russia, 54 percent of American voters say, while 3 percent say he is too unfriendly and 38 percent say he has the right attitude. A total of 68 percent of voters are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about Trump's relationship with Russia.
Russia is an adversary, 45 percent of voters say, while 8 percent say it is an ally.
Voters approve 73 - 15 percent of the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate possible links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"There is zero good news for President Donald Trump in this survey, just a continual slide into a chasm of doubt about his policies and his very fitness to serve," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"If this were a prize fight, some in his corner might be thinking about throwing in the towel. This is counter puncher Donald Trump's pivotal moment to get up off the mat.
"With a third of the members of his own party questioning his level headedness, this is clearly the moment the president needs to steady the ship."
American voters say 68 - 29 percent that President Trump is not level-headed, his worst grade on that quality. Republicans say 64 - 32 percent he is level-headed.
Voter opinions of most other Trump qualities are negative:
59 - 36 percent that he is not honest;
58 - 39 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
58 - 40 percent that he does not care about average Americans;
62 - 35 percent that he is a strong person;
57 - 40 percent that he is intelligent;
64 - 33 percent that he does not share their values.
Climate Change
American voters disapprove 62 - 32 percent of Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord. Republicans are the only listed group to approve, 72 - 20 percent.
A total of 76 percent of voters are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about climate change and 65 percent say the U.S. needs to do more to address climate change.
America can fight climate change and protect jobs at the same time, 73 percent of American voters, including 62 percent of Republicans, say.
Voters disapprove 63 - 30 percent of Trump's handling of the environment.
His approval ratings on handling other issues are:
Disapprove 53 - 39 percent of the way he is handling the economy, a new low;
46 percent approve of the way he is handling terrorism and 48 percent disapprove;
Disapprove 60 - 37 percent of the way he is handling immigration.
Trump and the Media
Trump has changed American attitudes towards the media "for the worse," 52 percent of voters say, while 22 percent say he has changed attitudes "for the better." Only 10 percent of voters are "enthusiastic" about the media, while 30 percent are "satisfied." Another 33 percent are "dissatisfied" and 26 percent of voters, including 46 percent of Republicans, are "angry."
President Donald Trump is launching a major push for a $1 trillion overhaul of the nation's roads and bridges, a key item on his domestic agenda that's gained little traction amid a slew of controversies that have engulfed the White House.
In a week filled with tweetstorms, a national security leak investigation and the Senate testimony of the FBI director he fired, President Trump is trying to turn public attention toward the nation's ailing infrastructure. After endorsing a plan to privatize the country’s air traffic control system, the President will focus on its roads and waterways in an appearance Wednesday alongside the Ohio River, one of the country’s most vital waterways. To those whose lives depend on the health of those systems, the White House spotlight is welcome—but the President's prescriptions less so.
GOP Rep.: Comey testimony doesn't describe a crime
All In with Chris Hayes 6/7/17
Congressman Francis Rooney (R-FL) says the president's conduct toward James Comey - as described in the former FBI director's written Senate testimony - doesn't amount to obstruction of justice. Duration: 6:24
Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump admin. 'like a mafia family'
All In with Chris Hayes 6/7/17
‘That’s essentially the way I view President Trump now – as a godfather,’ says the colonel and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Duration: 6:57
Someday you might be asked – where were you the morning that fired FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill? A slew of D.C. bars are opening their doors early for residents of the nation’s capitol who want to imbibe as they watch. Duration: 2:00
Trump officials refuse to answer Senate questions about Trump
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/7/17
Rachel Maddow shows how top Trump intelligence officials refused to answer questions about Donald Trump trying to stop the Mike Flynn investigation, even though they had no legal justification for refusing to answer. Duration: 16:59
Four key points in Comey's opening statement to Senate Intel
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/7/17
Rachel Maddow reviews some of the key points in former FBI Director James Comey's opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee before his testimony Thursday. Duration: 9:48
'Watergate-level': Sen Wyden on Trump actions in Comey testimony
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/7/17
Senator Ron Wyden, member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, calls James Comey's description Donald Trump's effort to quash the investigation into Mike Flynn "Watergate-level material." Duration: 8:00
Trump quick to spin Comey Senate statement as 'vindication'
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/7/17
Matt Miller, former chief spokesman for the Justice Department, talks with Rachel Maddow about how James Comey's opening statement to the Senate does not vindicate Donald Trump despite Trump's lawyer's claim to the contrary. Duration: 4:38
Case for Trump 'obstruction of justice' strengthens
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/7/17
Nancy Gertner, former U.S. federal judge, talks with Rachel Maddow about whether the pressure Donald Trump exerted to end the FBI investigation into Mike Flynn was merely awkward or actually illegal. Duration: 4:37
Lawrence: Comey will raise more questions than he can answer
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/7/17
James Comey's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee is likely to be one of the most consequential hearings ever. Lawrence O'Donnell explains what it means for Trump – including that it shows AG Jeff Sessions will face tough questions under oath. Duration: 9:20
Comey's testimony 'paints a very, very dark picture'
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/7/17
James Comey's opening statement before the Senate Intelligence Committee has been released, and it shows that Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn probe and demanded loyalty from Comey. Lawrence O'Donell discusses with Ron Klain and Nick Akerman. Duration: 6:25
Fmr. CIA Dir: Intel Chiefs 'misjudged gravity' of situation
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/7/17
Former CIA officials John McLaughlin and Ned Price join Lawrence O'Donnell to weigh in on how well the nation's Intelligence Chiefs answered questions about President Trump and the Russia probe at today's Senate Intelligence hearing. Duration: 10:08
Released Comey testimony details his unease with Trump
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/7/17
The Senate Intelligence Committee released the transcript of James Comey ahead of his appearance on Capitol Hill. MSNBC's Brian Williams shares the highlights of Comey's exhaustive timeline. Duration: 9:30
Our best legal & intel brains join MSNBC's Brian Williams to give their take on what questions senators should ask to Trump's fired FBI Director James Comey. Duration: 6:18
Senate Dem on influencing investigations: You just don't do that
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/7/17
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a former law school classmate of James Comey, reacts to the release of the Senate Intelligence Cmte. testimony from the former FBI Director. Duration: 4:23
Stephen Digs Into James Comey's Opening Statements
Published on Jun 8, 2017 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
James Comey's prepared statements were released Wednesday afternoon, just in time for Stephen to give some pregame coverage of Washington's Super Bowl.
Published on Jun 8, 2017 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
After reports surfaced that Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered to resign, Stephen gets his normal-sized hands on the former Alabama Senator's parting words.
Seth takes a closer look at the potentially damning information found in the opening statement of former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony about his relationship with President Trump.
Fired FBI Director James Comey's Full Testimony Before The Senate Intelligence Committee | TIME
Streamed live on Jun 8, 2017 by TIME
Former FBI Director James Comey spoke in public for the first time about his relationship with President Donald Trump and the circumstances that led to his firing. He called White House descriptions of his firing as "lies, plain and simple."
Watch Live: House hearing on Russia's involvement in the 2016 election
Streamed live on Mar 20, 2017 by PBS NewsHour
The House intelligence committee is to begin hearings Monday into Russia's role in cybersecurity breaches at the Democratic National Committee, as well as President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claim that his predecessor had authorized a wiretap of Trump Tower. FBI Director James Comey and Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, are slated to testify.
Comey Disputes New York Times Article About Russia Investigation
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testified Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. During the hearing, he disputed a New York Times article about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials: “in the main, it was not true.” Al Drago/The New York Times
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO JUNE 8, 2017
Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”
The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of F.B.I. and congressional investigations. Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.
Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.
One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”
But several former American intelligence and law enforcement officials have said that other American agencies have a broader definition, especially when it comes to Russia. They said that President Vladimir V. Putin uses an extensive network of government officials and private citizens with deep links to Russian spy services who supplement the intelligence apparatus and report back to the Kremlin. At least some of the contacts, they said, involved Russians who fit into this category.
In testimony last month before the House Intelligence Committee, John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, said he became concerned last year about direct attempts by the Russian government to recruit members of Mr. Trump’s campaign.
“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,” he told lawmakers. “And it raised questions in my mind again whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”
Based on his answers to one Republican senator on Thursday, it also seemed that Mr. Comey may have disagreed with The Times’s description of the evidence for such contacts. The Times article said that American authorities had relied on “phone records and intercepted calls” to amass evidence of the contacts between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians. But Mr. Comey offered no elaboration on this point.
The Feb. 14 story said that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump advisers and Russia’s campaign to disrupt last year’s presidential election, a fact that officials have since said publicly. The F.B.I. declined to address Mr. Comey’s comments about the article.
Since that article was published, there have been revelations in The Times and other news outlets reporting that Mr. Trump’s advisers were in contact with Russian intelligence.
Last year, for example, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the communications of Carter Page [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/carter-page-fisa-warrant-russia-trump.html ], a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. Law enforcement officials believed the Russian government was trying to recruit Mr. Page as a foreign agent.
A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met with at least one suspected intelligence officer during two trips he took to Russia last year, although it is unclear whether Mr. Page knew about the identity or the motivations of the Russian.
Mr. Page has repeatedly declined to say whom he met and spoke with during one of the trips, to Moscow last summer. He has described them only as “mostly scholars.”
During the transition, Jared Kushner, a senior aide, met privately with the head of a Russian bank with deep ties to Russian intelligence [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation.html ], seeking a direct line of communication to the Kremlin. The banker, Sergey N. Gorkov, is a graduate of Russia’s spy school.
During the hearing, Mr. Comey said there were inaccuracies in many articles about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, a problem he attributed in part to anonymous sources discussing classified information.
President Trump's lawyer responds to Comey testimony
Streamed live on Jun 8, 2017 by PBS NewsHour
President Trump's lawyer Marc Kasowitz holds a press conference following the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
President Trump's Lawyer Made a Mistake in Describing James Comey's Testimony Jun 08, 2017 President Trump [ http://time.com/4811108/paul-ryan-james-comey-president-donald-trump/ ]'s private attorney incorrectly described the timeline of reporting while criticizing former FBI Director James Comey's congressional testimony Thursday. Speaking from prepared remarks at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., attorney Marc Kasowitz [ http://time.com/4811712/comey-testimony-marc-kasowitz-transcript/ ] noted that Comey testified that he had given a friend permission to reveal the contents of a memo about a meeting with President Trump. "Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey's excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to [be] entirely retaliatory," Kasowitz said at the National Press Club after the hearing. However, this misstates the order of events. Here's a quick review of the timeline: On May 11, the New York Times reported [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html ] that Trump and Comey had a private dinner in which Trump asked Comey for "loyalty." The story made no mention of any contemporaneous memos. On May 12, Trump tweeted [ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473 ] that Comey "better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations." [...] Comey testified [ http://time.com/4810345/james-comey-testimony-real-time-transcript/ ] that he "woke up in the middle of the night" on Monday, May 15, after realizing that if there were tapes he should put the memo "into the public square" and asked his friend to share it. [...] On May 16, the New York Times reported [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html ] that a memo from Comey discussed an apparent request from Trump to shut down the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. [...] http://time.com/4811888/comey-testimony-marc-kasowitz-mistake/ [with embedded video]
Thursday, June 8th 2017[, with an appearance by Roger Stone, and Anthony Cumia hosting the fourth hour]: Comey Perjures Himself Before Congress? - Does James Comey's previous testimony contradict statements he made before Congress? And did Comey violate the law admitting he gave his memos to a friend to leak to the press? Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes joins the program to break down the important points established in the hearing and discuss how the testimony completely vindicates Trump. We'll also break down other news.
Chelsea interviews some of Britain’s youngest voters on their knowledge about POTUS, and their answers couldn’t be more spot on. Among some of the key takeaways? Donald Trump owns a wig closet, has orange skin, and is racist. Now THAT’s not fake news.
Sen. Murphy: Time for 'soul-searching' about impeachment
All In with Chris Hayes 6/8/17
After watching James Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) says there's a clear case that the president committed obstruction of justice. Duration: 3:56
Comey's damning assessment of the president's character
All In with Chris Hayes 6/8/17
Dan Rather and Joy Reid join Chris Hayes to discuss James Comey's Senate testimony, in which he repeatedly accused the president of lying. Duration: 6:58
Former Watergate prosecutor: Intention 'up the wazoo'
All In with Chris Hayes 6/8/17
Former assistant special Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman has no doubts about whether the president obstructed justice. Find out who know what and when, and 'you'd have corrupt intent up the wazoo here,' he said. Duration: 5:50
Rachel Maddow looks at how former FBI Director James Comey's testimony in the Senate raised questions about A.G. Jeff Sessions, and created a serious obstruction of justice evidence problem for Donald Trump. Duration: 22:33
Largely corroborated report under fire at Comey hearing
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/8/17
Rachel Maddow shows how a New York Times story criticized as false by James Comey is largely corroborated by other news outlets' reporting as well as Senate testimony by former DNI James Clapper. So what is he saying they got wrong? Duration: 5:12
Michael Schmidt, New York Times reporter whose work was central to today's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Donald Trump's lawyer got the Comey memo timeline wrong in his accusation against the New York Times. Duration: 10:10
Congressman Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about how James Comey's testimony in the Senate informs interviews the House intends to pursue in its investigation. Duration: 6:15
Donald Trump just lived through the darkest day he's experienced in the White House as former FBI Director James Comey called him and his spokespeople liars. Lawrence O'Donnell explains how Comey's rationale for keeping memos is because of Trump's history of lying. Duration: 8:31
For Trump, abuse of power could be as bad as obstruction
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/8/17
Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe joins Lawrence O'Donnell exclusively to explain why being accused of abuse of power could be just as bad for President Trump as being accused of obstruction of justice… both are impeachable offenses. Duration: 7:30
Credibility wars: Who do you believe – Trump or Comey?
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/8/17
It's James Comey's words against the president's words. Who wins the credibility contest? David Frum and John Heilemann join Lawrence O'Donnell to weigh in. Duration: 7:30
Comey: One Trump tweet may have led to Russia Special Counsel
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/8/17
During Senate testimony, fired FBI Director James Comey explained how one Trump tweet provoked Comey to release details from his memos in the hopes it would lead to a Special Counsel on Russia. Duration: 11:25
Senators may soon meet with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/8/17
Sources say Jared Kushner may soon meet with senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Will it lead to under oath testimony? NBC News' Kristen Welker has details. Duration: 0:48
Bush White House lawyer: Trump's in 'serious legal jeopardy'
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/8/17
Former Chief Ethics Lawyer for Pres. George W. Bush Richard Painter joins our panel of legal minds to explain why, after Comey's testimony, he believes Trump has some big legal hurdles ahead. Duration: 8:24
Many comments from James Comey's testimony are directly at odds with remarks from Donald Trump's personal attorney. MSNBC's Brian Williams discusses with Eli Stokols & Peter Baker. Duration: 5:27
James Comey Testifies, Says Trump Lied: A Closer Look
Published on Jun 8, 2017 by Late Night with Seth Meyers
Seth takes a closer look at former FBI Director James Comey's Senate testimony that President Trump lied about his reasons for firing him and the Republicans' defense of POTUS' actions.
The MOSSAD had "Day 140" of the Donald Trump White House Regime all planned out. First they Instruct Trump to Not Twitter Anything and than let the MSM Circus do their Job of diverting the attention of the America Masses. Not one Snowflake will hear about the Attack on the USS Liberty 50 years ago because they live in an Open Air Prison working as Servants for the Rich Elite. James Comey testified before the Senate on June 8th.., RIP America
Conservatives lose their majority in British Parliament amid calls for May to resign Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May listens as the declaration at her constituency is made for in the general election in Maidenhead, England, Friday, June 9, 2017. June 9, 2017 LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May’s bet that she could strengthen her grip on power by calling an early election backfired spectacularly on Friday, with her Conservative Party losing its parliamentary majority and May facing calls to resign. The outcome — an astonishing turn following a campaign that began with predictions that May would win [ http://www.tmay.co.uk/ ] in a historic landslide — immediately raised questions even among her fellow Tories about whether she could maintain her hold on 10 Downing Street. It also threw into disarray the country’s plans for leaving the European Union, threatening to render Britain rudderless just days before talks were to begin with European leaders over the terms of the nation’s exit. As of 5 a.m., a projection based on final results in nearly every district nationwide put the Conservatives at 318 seats — eight short of what they would need for a working majority in the 650-member Parliament and well down from the 331 they won just two years ago. The Labour Party was forecast to win 262 seats — an unexpected gain of dozens of seats under far-left leader Jeremy Corbyn [ http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/08/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-uk-election-manifesto-policies.html ]. The outcome gave him at least a chance, albeit a remote one, of becoming prime minister — something virtually no one had thought possible before Thursday’s vote. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-votes-in-election-torn-between-terrorism-worries-and-brexit-strategies/2017/06/08/5f080504-4aed-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html [with comments]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
5 Things Media Get Wrong About White Supremacist Hate Jeremy Christian, 35, stabbed three people and killed two of them after they came to the defense of two teens in Portland, Oregon. People demonstrate outside the White House against the lynching of black people in 1946. A conservative protester yells during competing demonstrations in Portland, Oregon, on June 4, 2017. It’s not rare, it’s not fringe - and it’s terrorism more often than you think. 06/09/2017 Updated June 9, 2017 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/media-white-supremacist-hate_us_593850d5e4b0b13f2c66667a [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Mediocre human calls black patrons in Starbucks “slaves” before punching a homeless man
Las Vegas Man Accused of Death Threats to Lawyers Suing Fox News A Las Vegas man threatened to kill a prominent N.Y. lawyer representing plaintiffs in a discrimination lawsuit against Fox News Channel. [ http://canivatimes.com/las-vegas-man-cuffed-for-alleged-threats-to-blow-up-nyc-law-firm ] JUNE 9, 2017 A computer repairman from Las Vegas was charged on Friday in Manhattan with threatening to kill New York lawyers who have filed an anti-discrimination suit on behalf of 11 black employees at Fox News, the police and prosecutors said. The repairman, Joseph D. Amico, 46, was arraigned in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on three counts of making terrorist threats and one count of aggravated harassment, a day after being extradited from Nevada. Justice Laura Ward ordered him held until a bail hearing on Monday. On April 26, Mr. Amico made several calls to Wigdor L.L.P., the firm representing the Fox News employees. He threatened to blow up the firm’s Fifth Avenue office and to shoot its partners for pursuing the suit against Fox News, lacing his comments with derogatory comments about blacks, Lt. Paul Ng, a spokesman for the New York Police Department, said. The calls started shortly after the lawyers, Douglas H. Wigdor and Jeanne M. Christensen, appeared with the plaintiffs in a televised news conference announcing a class-action tort [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/business/media/fox-news-racial-discrimination-lawsuit.html ], alleging that Fox News executives tolerated “abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination” in the workplace. The lawsuit contends that Fox News employees repeatedly complained about racial discrimination to executives but that no action was taken. A separate lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan made similar claims. Fox News has denied the allegations. The broadcast of the news conference infuriated Mr. Amico, the police said. In one telephone conversation with Mr. Wigdor, he threatened to kill the lawyer and his family for supporting black plaintiffs and used a racial slur to describe them. “I was disturbed and shocked and very worried,” Mr. Wigdor said in an interview on Friday. “I took this explicit death threat very seriously.” New York detectives located Mr. Amico using telephone records. On May 10, two detectives traveled to Las Vegas and tried to take Mr. Amico into custody at his house. But Mr. Amico, who the police said has a lengthy arrest record in both Nevada and New York, barricaded himself inside and refused to come out. A tense standoff ensued [ http://www.ktnv.com/news/man-wanted-in-new-york-leads-to-hours-long-las-vegas-standoff ]. Fearing Mr. Amico might be armed, Las Vegas officers with assault rifles surrounded the single-family home on Flagler Street. Five hours later, the SWAT team entered the house and found Mr. Amico in an attic, Officer Michael Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said. Mr. Amico’s lawyer, Todd Spodek, said his client would fight the charges. “Words can be misinterpreted,” he said outside court. “And in this political climate people are so worked up about the issues that it’s very easy for words to be misunderstood and hysteria to take place.” [...] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/business/media/las-vegas-fox-news.html
--
Greg Gianforte to plead guilty for assaulting Guardian reporter Greg Gianforte was charged following an altercation on the eve of a special election to fill Montana’s sole seat in the US House of Representatives. Congressman-elect will appear in court Monday over misdemeanor charge Announcement comes day after he reached settlement with Ben Jacobs 9 June 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/09/greg-gianforte-guilty-plea-assault-ben-jacobs-montana
--
ACT for America Stages Marches Against ‘Sharia Law’ Nationwide, Arrests Made Jun 10 2017 Demonstrations against Islamic law led to arrests, tense confrontations and physical fights in some U.S. cities Saturday amid several rallies sponsored by ACT for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/act-america ] designates as an anti-Muslim hate group. The "March Against Sharia" was scheduled to take place in more than 20 cities, including New York, Dallas and Atlanta, and was projected to be ACT for America's largest protest against Islam. [...] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/anti-muslim-act-america-stage-marches-against-sharia-law-nationwide-n767386 [with embedded videos]
There Have Been Anti-Muslim Marches — And Counter-Protests — Around The US A protester holds a sign during an anti-Sharia rally in Seattle, Washington. Counter-protesters in Manhattan on Saturday. Brigitte Gabriel at the White House. Demonstrations were planned in 28 cities in 21 states across the country. June 10, 2017 https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/act-marches-anti-sharia [with embedded video, and comments]
Anti-Sharia Rallies Are Dangerous for America 06/09/2017 Just two weeks after a white supremacist went on an anti-Muslim tirade in Portland that ended with him stabbing three men in the neck, anti-Muslim hate rallies are being organized in over 25 cities across the country this Saturday, June 10th. All are organized by ACT for America, an organization designated as both a hate group [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/active-hate-groups-2016 ] and an extremist group [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups ] by the Southern Poverty Law Center. At a time when many ask why there is an alarming rise of hate crimes [ https://csbs.csusb.edu/sites/default/files/Special%20Status%20Report%20Metro%20Areas%202017%20Final%20Draft%2032417.pdf ] in the United States, such rallies continue to fan the flames of hatred and mistrust that give fertile soil to hate crimes and violence. Dubbed as “Anti Sharia Rallies,” tomorrow’s events are very clearly anti-Islam and anti-Muslim - based on the words of the event organizers themselves. Do not be mistaken into thinking this is about freedoms or human rights; rather, it is a calculated effort by ACT for America to manufacture division and hatred between Americans. The Founder of this group, Brigitte Gabriel, has explicitly stated [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/act-america ] that any “practicing Muslim … who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States.” This is not a fight against terrorism. This is a coordinated effort to vilify and demonize Muslims and their faith to pit Americans against one another. Gabriel has confirmed this time and again, stating that terrorists are simply “doing exactly what the Koran teaches,” alleging that Islam’s holy scripture mandates a “sacred obligation” to impose Islam on the entire world by force. She has defined “authentic Islam” as an “ ideology of bigotry and intolerance” that preaches “violence and the slaughter of thousands.” When explaining the roots of terrorism, she has concluded: “It’s not radical Islam. It’s what Islam is at its core.” This group wants nothing more than for Americans to turn on each other – specifically against Muslim Americans. Although only 38% of Americans know a Muslim [ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/17/how-many-people-of-different-faiths-do-you-know/ ] themselves, this organization wants to destroy any trust Americans have in Muslim Americans. It is for this reason that Gabriel said: “Our enemies are the neighbors next door, the doctors practicing in our hospitals, and the workers who share our lunch break.” That’s right – she alleges that every Muslim American living in your midst is your enemy. This is reminiscent of the hateful rhetoric of Nazi Germany. This is not what America stands for. This is not the America I was born and raised in and love with all my heart. As Americans, we need to resist and push back against such hate-filled rhetoric that aims to strip people of their humanity. Do not get sucked into this group’s crusade against tolerance, cooperation and peace. If you are truly concerned about the systems of government in countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Afghanistan, know that so am I and countless other Muslims. But going to an anti-Sharia rally and listening to those who don’t even know what the Arabic word Sharia means will not fix the problem. You have in me and millions of other Muslims willing partners to call-out the barbaric policies and practices of various countries and to protect our homelands from such depravity. The solution is to work together, not against one another. Far from finding any solution, tomorrow’s rallies perpetuate the problem. [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-sharia-rallies-are-dangerous-for-america_us_593b1503e4b014ae8c69e056 [no comments yet]
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following (the primary reference posts in this string, of which the post to which this is a reply is one, continue at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132042257 and {future} following), see also (linked in):
Justice Dept. Wants Lawsuit Against President Trump Thrown Out
The Trump International Hotel in Washington is just one of many properties owned by President Trump’s organization. Al Drago/The New York Times
By SHARON LaFRANIERE JUNE 9, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department asked a federal court late on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit that accused President Trump [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html ] of violating the Constitution by continuing to own and profit from his businesses, arguing in part that, even if he had broken the law, it would be up to Congress, not a federal judge, to act.
The lawsuit was filed this year in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [ https://www.citizensforethics.org/ ], or CREW, a legal watchdog group. It is seeking a court order to force Mr. Trump to divest himself of his business holdings on the grounds that the Constitution prohibits him from accepting any economic benefit from foreign governments or from the United States government beyond his salary.
Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of CREW, said the Justice Department’s claim that a federal court has no power to intervene — even if it finds a president’s behavior is unconstitutional — “is a remarkable assertion” that flies in the face of decades of judicial decisions.
The Justice Department’s lawyers argue that the injunction sought by the watchdog group would harm the president’s ability to perform his official duties and would ensnare him “in prolonged litigation over any number of transactions.” They contend that litigation would violate the separation of powers, which prohibits one branch of government from impairing another in carrying out its duties.
Even if the president’s continued ownership of his business is illegal, the government’s brief argued, “Congress is far better equipped than the courts” to fashion a remedy, perhaps by enacting legislation that would govern the president’s behavior.
Beyond that, the government’s lawyers contended, any injury claimed by CREW is “purely self-inflicted.” The group has alleged that it has been forced to divert its resources to challenge the president’s illegal actions. And the Justice Department said the other plaintiffs had not demonstrated any loss of business because of hotels or restaurants owned by the president’s companies.
Finally, the government contended, the Constitution does not prevent the president from profiting from commercial transactions conducted by his businesses, which Mr. Trump maintains he has kept at arm’s length. Such transactions, the brief argued, amount neither to gifts from a foreign government nor to economic benefits other than his presidential salary.
Trump Can Accept Payments From Foreign Governments, Justice Department Argues Trump and family at the October 2016 ribbon cutting for the Trump International Hotel in D.C. Turkish businessman Ekim Alptekin, who paid President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn more than $500,000 in 2016 to lobby on behalf of Turkish interests, spoke at the 36th Annual Conference on U.S. Turkey Relations at the Trump International Hotel in D.C. last month. June 10, 2017 http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/doj-says-trump-can-accept-payments-from-foreign-governments.html
White House social-media director Dan Scavino violated Hatch Act with tweet targeting GOP congressman Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, was reprimanded for a tweet attacking Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). June 9, 2017 White House social-media director Dan Scavino Jr. violated a federal law that bars public officials from using their positions for political activity when he urged President Trump's supporters to defeat a GOP congressman, the Office of Special Counsel has concluded. As a result, Scavino was issued a warning letter and advised that additional violations of the law could result in further action, according to a June 5 letter that the office sent to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which filed a complaint about Scavino's tweet. Scavino's April 1 message [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/02/white-house-social-media-director-misused-official-position-by-going-after-gop-lawmaker-ethics-experts-say/ ] called on the “#TrumpTrain” to take out Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) in an upcoming primary, referring to him as “a big liability.” Amash is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group that Trump had blamed at the time for derailing legislation that would have repealed parts of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Even though Scavino was tweeting from his personal account, his page at the time listed his official White House position and featured a photo of him inside the Oval Office. The Office of Special Counsel concluded that his tweet violated the Hatch Act, which restricts government employees from attempting to influence an election through their official authority. “Mr. Scavino has been advised that if in the future he engages in prohibited political activity while employed in a position covered by the Hatch Act, we will consider such activity to be a willful and knowing violation of the law, which could result in further action,” Ana Galindo-Marrone, chief of the office's Hatch Act Unit, wrote in a letter to CREW. Federal employees who willfully violate the Hatch Act [ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/1215 ] can be removed from their positions or barred from federal employment for up to five years. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/09/white-house-social-media-director-dan-scavino-violated-hatch-act-with-tweet-targeting-gop-congressman/ [with comments]
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following (the primary reference posts in this string, of which the post to which this is a reply is one, continue with the reply to that one at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132042257 and {future} following), see also (linked in):
What you need to know about the Israeli settlements
"Republican Congressman on Suspected Islamic Radicals: "Kill Them All""
.. a refresher .. lol, never hurts, eh ..
CNN Digital Rebranding 2015 Oren Liebermann Photo: Jeremy Freeman
By Oren Liebermann, CNN
Updated 4:27 AM ET, Fri February 3, 2017
A January 26, 2017, photo of new apartments under construction in the Israeli settlement of Har Homa.
(CNN)-- Four issues have dominated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the most difficult to solve and the most complex to handle: the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees (and their right of return), borders, and settlements.
Recent announcements by the Israeli government of the expansion of West Bank settlements, made in the period since Donald Trump became US President, have put settlements back in the spotlight. The announcements come just weeks after the UN Security Council Resolution declared that settlements had "no legal validity."
What are settlements?
Settlements are Israeli cities, towns and villages in the West Bank and the Golan Heights. (We will deal with East Jerusalem a bit later.) They tend to be gated communities with armed guards at the entrances. Why are they settlements and not simply Israeli residential areas? Because Israel is widely considered to be an occupying force in the territories. It is land that Palestinians, along with the international community, view as territory for a future Palestinian state.
Israeli soldiers stand guard blocking an entrance to the Jewish settlers zone of Hebron's Tel Rumeida neighbourhood, on September 18, 2016.
Why are the West Bank and East Jerusalem considered occupied territory?
Israel began its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967 during the Six-Day War. Seeing a military buildup in the surrounding Arab countries, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, after which Jordan, in turn, attacked Israel. Israel annexed East Jerusalem shortly thereafter, unifying the city under Israel's authority. But Israel has never annexed the West Bank, part of which remains under military law.
Decisions in the West Bank are carried out by the Israeli military, not the civilian government. The Israeli military makes decisions on land use, freedom of movement of Palestinians, home demolitions, and many other areas.
Before 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were under Jordanian occupation. Jordan annexed the territory in 1950, but few countries recognized the annexation as legal. Jordan renounced its claim to this territory in 1988, recognizing the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people.
Israelis who support the settlement movement, among a few others, dispute that the West Bank is occupied territory. They refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, which is its biblical name. There are others who support this belief, including evangelical Christians. This opinion opposes the international consensus that the West Bank is occupied territory.
Where are the settlements?
There are 126 Israeli settlements in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), according to the September 2016 report from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. Geographically, these settlements are all across the West Bank.
The West Bank is broken down into Areas A, B, and C, according to the Oslo Accords, a series of peace agreements made in the 1990s.
Area C makes up approximately 60% of the West Bank. This area is entirely under Israeli control. Most of the settlements are in Area C.
Area B is under joint control between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and comprises approximately 20% of the West Bank. Area A is under full control of the Palestinian Authority. This area makes up the final 20%.
Most settlers live in what are called the "settlement blocs." These are areas that have a high number of Jewish settlements. The three main blocs are Ariel in the north, Ma'ale Adumim near Jerusalem, and Gush Etzion in the southern West Bank. Other settlements are outside of these blocs.
Who are the settlers?
This is a very broad question, and requires a fair amount of generalization.
According to the YESHA Council, which is the organization that represents West Bank settlements, there are approximately 420,000 settlers in the West Bank.
Each of these people has their own reasons for choosing to live in the West Bank, but we can break them down into four broad categories:
1. Religious-National Settlers: The religious-national settlers tend to live in the West Bank for ideological reasons. The West Bank has thousands of years of Jewish history and many Jewish holy sites, and religious-national settlers believe these have always been the Land of Israel, as promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament.
In the Book of Exodus in the Torah, as in the Old Testament, verse 23:31 states "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you."
According to scripture, some of these holy sites include: the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are buried; Shiloh, where the Ark of the Covenant rested before it was carried into Jerusalem; and the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus.
An Israeli settler holds a flag with slogans at the Amona outpost, northeast of Ramallah, on February 1, 2017.
2. Ultra-Orthodox Settlers: The Ultra-Orthodox tend to live in their own settlements. Modi'in Illit in the northern West Bank and Beitar Illiat in the southern West Bank are examples of Ultra-Orthodox settlements, also known as Haredi settlements. These are also two of the most populated settlements. Ultra-Orthodox settlements are generally located close to the Green Line, which is the 1949 Armistice Line that separates Israel from the West Bank. They generally don't live in the settlements for ideological reasons; rather, they choose to live in the settlements because housing there tends to be more affordable.
3. Economic Settlers: It's not only the Ultra-Orthodox who live in the settlements for economic reasons. Some secular settlers, among others, live in settlements near the Green Line and in the blocs because of more affordable housing or quality of life considerations. For example, the settlement of Ariel in the northern West Bank has a mostly secular population that has easy access to nearby highways leading into Israel's economic heartland.
4. Jordan Valley Settlers: In the decade after the 1967 Six-Day War, a group of settlements were established along the Jordan River; people who settled there saw themselves as a first line of defense. (A peace treaty with Jordan wasn't signed until 1994.) These settlements run north-south along the Jordan Valley in the West Bank. Many are agricultural towns, taking advantage of the fertile land near the Jordan River.
Again, these are broad generalizations, but without getting into a detailed analysis of the settlers, this is a good place to start.
What's the difference between settlements and outposts?
Settlements are authorized by the Israeli government. Some were retroactively authorized, meaning they were initially built illegally but later recognized by the Israeli military. By contrast, outposts are illegally built Israeli villages which have not been recognized or authorized by the Israeli government. In the past, Israel's High Court has ordered some outposts evacuated and razed, including Amona and Migron. According to Peace Now, a left-wing organization that tracks settlement growth, there are 97 Israeli outposts in the West Bank.
Why are the settlements controversial?
The settlements are built on land the Palestinians and the international community, along with some in the Israeli community, see as a future Palestinian state. Some of the settlements -- especially the blocs -- may be a part of Israel in a two-state solution through land swaps between Israelis and Palestinians. One concern, expressed by the European Union, and in the past by the US State Department, is that settlement expansion may make a contiguous, whole Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible.
For example, a string of east-west settlements in the northern West Bank threatens to cut the West Bank apart into northern and southern segments, split by Israeli settlements. This string of settlements includes Oranit, Etz Efraim, Kiryat Netafim, Ariel, Eli, Shiloh, Ma'ale Efraim, and others. Ma'ale Efraim is deep within the West Bank, much closer to Jordan than it is to Israel.
If one contiguous Palestinian state cannot be recognized, then the two-state solution may be dead.
Palestinians have long claimed that the expansion of settlements is a way for Israel to de facto seize the land, and that Israel is creating "facts on the ground" that will be very difficult to undo. For this reason, Palestinians demand a freeze to settlement construction before they are willing to resume negotiations.
The Israeli government's position, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is that settlements are not an obstacle to peace and that settlement expansion is a function of natural growth within existing settlements. Netanyahu has repeatedly said that the refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel as a Jewish state within any borders is the primary obstacle to peace.
What does President Donald Trump think of the settlements?
President Trump's administration warned on February 2 that new Israeli settlement activity could potentially hamper the peace process, a new stance for a White House that has remained adamant in its support for Netanyahu.
Despite the shift in language, the White House said it hadn't taken an official position on Israeli settlements, saying it would wait until Trump meets with Netanyahu later in February to formally develop a position.
To date, the US State Department under Trump has made no comment following recent announcements by Israel of new settlement housing. Under previous administrations, the State Department would routinely issue sharp criticism of any plans to expand settlements, and demand a freeze on construction.
The settlements are illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which concerns civilian populations during a time of war, states in Article 49 that, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, which the United States did not veto, and was passed in December 2016, angering Israel, reaffirms this position. It states that settlements have "no legal validity" and constitute "a flagrant violation under international law." The resolution references previous Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 446, 452, 465, 476, 478, 1397, 1515, and 1850. Of these, 465, 476, and 478 established that settlements have "no legal validity" in 1980.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) currently has a preliminary examination underway that is looking into Israeli actions, including settlements, in the occupied territories since Jun 13, 2014. The examination, which is meant to determine whether there is enough evidence to begin an official investigation, was launched on January 16, 2015.
Israel, along with a few legal analysts, disputes that settlements are illegal. There are three primary reasons they use. Some cite religious reasons, claiming religious scripture gives Jews a right to build anywhere in Israel and the West Bank. Others use historical reasons, saying Jews have lived in the region for thousands of years, and it remains their land.
Some others use legal reasons. In 2012, the Israeli government, under the direction of Prime Minister Netanyahu, published the Levy Commission Report, which summarized this legal position. The report rejected the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank, arguing that the West Bank was never a legitimate part of any Arab state. "Consequently, those conventions dealing with the administration of occupied territory and an occupied populations [sic] are not applicable to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria," the report read.
This is not a position that any country or international forum has accepted.
What about East Jerusalem? And what is East Jerusalem anyway?
From 1948 to 1967, Jerusalem was divided by the Green Line, which is the cease-fire line of 1948 between Israel and Jordan. Although the city is now under Israeli governance, the distinction remains.
Under international law, settlements in East Jerusalem are no different than settlements in the West Bank. So why consider them separately?
Because Jerusalem has always held a special place in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Secretary Kerry singled out Jerusalem as one of the most sensitive and complex points, as did President Bill Clinton when he offered his ideas for peace in 2000. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of their state.
[IMAGE]
Unlike the West Bank, Israel annexed East Jerusalem. In late-June of 1967, Israel expanded the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to include East Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the entire city and declaring a unified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No country has ever recognized this annexation, and there are currently no embassies in Jerusalem. There are approximately 200,000 Israelis, which the international community considers to be settlers, and 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
Although the international community considers Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as settlements, Israel disputes this. To Israel, this is simply building in Israel's capital, despite international objections.
Under the partition plan of 1947, Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city open for all religions. The entire vision of the partition plan never came to fruition. Jerusalem was even supposed to have its own international airport. There is an abandoned airfield in northern Jerusalem, established in 1920 under the British Mandate, that was intended as the city's link to the world.
What about the Golan Heights?
The Golan Heights is also considered occupied territory, taken from Syria in the Six-Day War in 1967 as well. But the West Bank has become the focal point of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Golan has, to a large extent, fallen off the agenda.
Unlike the West Bank, Israel has applied Israeli law to the Golan, effectively annexing it. The international community does not recognize this annexation.
Israel has held onto the Golan Heights because of its strategic importance. The elevated terrain allows whoever controls it to see into both northern Israel and southern Syria. At 9,232 feet, Mt. Hermon is the highest mountain in the area. The Golan Heights has a small population of Israeli settlers, along with Druze, many of whom remain loyal to Syria.
Has Israel ever withdrawn from settlements?
Yes, Israel has withdrawn from settlements on a few different occasions. In 1982, Israel began withdrawing from settlements in Sinai as part of the 1979 peace deal with Egypt. In 1989, the withdrawal was completed, constituting a full Israeli withdrawal from Sinai.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from settlements in Gaza. At the same time, Israel also withdrew from some settlements in the northern West Bank.
Poll: Majority of Israeli Jews Favor Settlement Construction, Consider Obama ‘Unfriendly’ to Israel [...] Apparently there are "moderate right" and "moderate left" Jewish people, and quite a gulf between US and Israel Jews on important issues http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132666550
Yes, and not for the lack of trying. WE ALL the entire US .. as far as I know .... wanted Iraq to make a deal.. but Maliki would not.. His people had had it up to here with us! .. You don't blame them do you? . .My god . .to wake up to what we sent that the early dark morning .. ? If I lived there I'd spit on every American I got close enough to ... at least for awhile anyway ... Just look at these images from that morning .. Death came on loud planes and brought FIRE with them! ... Horrible .. I'd never forget and I don't think I could forgive either .. .it's not something I'd want to get even for but it would burn whenever it came to me ! .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124547051
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
