“We gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well…” Now elected officials in 70 percent black Baltimore are protecting black criminals from mandatory one-year sentences for illegal gun possession… because it will impact blacks”

SBDL, “In 70% Black Baltimore, Elected Officials Oppose Mandatory One-Year Sentence for Illegal Gun Possession b/c it will ‘disproportionately impact black people”, 14 July 2017:

If you’ve read The City that Bleeds: Race, History, and the Death of Baltimore, you know black people there carefully protect their city by using black criminality to keep out white people from ever being a demographic threat to run things again.

Now imagine this 70 percent black having black elected officials - representatives of the state - protecting black criminals from a legal system they’ve deemed not just racist, but replete with implicit bias.

Oh, it’s true. [Baltimore leaders propose mandatory sentence for illegal gun possession, Baltimore Sun, 7-14-17]:

READ MORE...

Visigrad Post, “Poles would rather leave the EU than take in Muslim immigrants”, 12 July 2017:

By Olivier Bault.

Poland – The question does not really arise, since the European treaties reserve the right for each country to accept immigrants of its choice on its soil, except for immigrants from other EU countries benefiting the freedom of movement. Nevertheless, in a country where, as in the whole of former Eastern Europe, membership in the European project is particularly high (although this does not prevent a critical view of the abuses of this project), it is Interesting to know what the Poles would choose if they had to choose between taking the immigrants under the compulsory relocation plan (from Italy and Greece) or leaving the EU. Or even, since there has been talk of abolishing European funds to recalcitrant countries, and in particular to Poland, the Czechia and Hungary, what would the Poles answer if they were given an ultimatum of that kind: if you do not take in immigrants, European subsidies will be abolished (which would be totally illegal under the treaties but has been suggested by high-ranking officials in Berlin, Paris and Brussels).

An IBRiS poll for the left wing liberal and pro-EU weekly Polityka was published on July 5, which answers these questions. Here are the results:

First question: “Should Poland refuse to accept refugees from Muslim countries even if this should lead to the loss of European funds? “

– YES: 56.5% (of which 48.6% were “yes” and 7.9% “rather yes”).
– NO: 40.4% (of which 31.4% were “no” and 9% “rather no”).
(Percentage of undecided: 3.1%)

Question 2: “Should Poland refuse to take in refugees from Muslim countries even if this should lead to the obligation to leave the European Union? “

– YES: 51.2% (of which 33.4% were “yes” and 17.8% “rather yes”).
– NO: 37.6% (27.6% of “no” and 10% of “rather no”).
(Percentage of undecided: 11.2%)

Precision: survey carried out in June on a sample of 1000 people.

It should be noted that the weekly Polityka, favorable to the reception of immigrants and to multiculturalism, tried to influence the answers by speaking of “refugees” rather than “asylum seekers”, since the immigrants concerned by the relocation program are people who have applied for asylum (which sooner or later all illegal immigrants do in order to avoid deportation) and not those who have obtained it. It can be assumed that without this manipulation there would have been an even greater proportion of “YES” for both questions.

This is the first time that a polling institute has been interested in the question of how far the Poles are prepared to go in their refusal of the immigration and multiculturalism model that Western Europe wants to impose on Central and Eastern Europe. A May survey by the OBOP institute (on a sample of 1004 people) and published by the public information channel TVP Info simply showed that 73% of Poles were against receiving Muslim refugees and immigrants (46 % absolutely opposed and 27% opposed) when asked: “Do you think Poland should welcome Muslim refugees and immigrants? ”

This opposition to the relocation of immigrants arriving illegally in Greece and Italy (even if it is with the help of European ships) is reflected in the popularity of PiS. After an empty run in early spring, the PiS reached 41% for the first time (against 26% for Donald Tusk’s Liberal party PO) in an IPSOS poll commissioned by the liberal-libertarian newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza at the end of June. This was when the European Commission had just announced the launch of a sanctions procedure against Poland, Czechia and Hungary for their refusal of the immigrant relocation program. Thus, if Brussels continues on this path, it could allow the conservative PiS party to win easily the next elections, possibly even with a constitutional majority. The PO suffers from its contradictory statements on the issue of the reception of illegal immigrants. This is most likely due to the commitment made in September 2015 by Prime Minister PO Ewa Kopacz (who replaced Donald Tusk after his departure to Brussels) to take 7,000 immigrants under the relocation program that the PiS, firmly opposed to this program, was able to obtain an absolute majority in the Polish parliament at the elections of October 25, 2015. It was the first time since the fall of communism in Poland that a party alone obtained an absolute majority in the parliament.

The government of Beata Szydło therefore has every interest in continuing to resist, especially as it has the support of most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe on this subject and that it has received strong support from the United States with the speech pronounced by Donald Trump on July 6 in Warsaw. A speech where the American President called on the peoples of Europe to fight for their family, for their homeland, for their civilization and for God! This explains why the French mainstream media, in order to conceal this point, have preferred to relay the fake news of the Polish president’s wife refusing to shake President Trump’s hand.

The web connecting the Trump administration to Russia

From Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to former campaign director Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s allies have business and personal connections to Russia. As Congress and the FBI look into Russia’s involvement with the 2016 election, those connect (Natalie Fertig and Patrick Gleason McClatchy).

McClatchy DC, “Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation”, 12 July 2017:

WASHINGTON

Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the Trump campaign’s digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia’s sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump’s campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump’s digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.

Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether Russia’s “fake or damaging news stories” were “coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of any other measure … with the (Trump) campaign.”

By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.

Russia’s operation used computer commands knowns as “bots” to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a pedophile ring at a Washington pizzeria.

One source familiar with Justice’s criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently “known where to specifically target … to which high-impact states and districts in those states.”

All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.

Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.

Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters and whether there was “any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of work.”

Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a “person of interest” in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances and December meetings with Russia’s ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.

Kushner’s “role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow’s influence operations in the elections,” including his niche overseeing the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.

Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied “If it’s what you say I love it.”

That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.

Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia’s cyber operatives.

“There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia’s online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation,” he said, without naming any American suspects.

Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.

Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia’s role in the election meddling and Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.

A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including interference in other countries’ internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn’t believe such an effort can happen.

As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired with the Russians.

READ MORE...

CNN, “Massive iceberg breaks away from Antarctica”, 12 July 2017:

It’s clear that global warming, caused largely by burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices, is contributing to the broader destabilization of Antarctica, said Eric Rignot, professor of Earth systems sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

“This break-up signals that the ice shelf got too thin,” Rignot said in an email. “It got thinner because climate has been warming, over decades; the ice shelf will eventually collapse in the coming decades. This is absolutely related to climate warming. The ice shelf front has not calved this far back in 125 years (first seen by Carl Larsen in 1893) and Larsen C is on a course to collapse, very reminiscent of what happened to Larsen B in 2002.”

“This is yet another wake up call,” he said, “that Antarctica is on the rise and we should be concerned about what that means for future sea level.”

Former Goldman-Sachs President (((Henry Paulson))), presided as Chairman of SEC and key decision maker in 2008 meltdown

NPR, “Is The Justice Department Shying Away From Prosecuting Corporations?” 11 July 2017:

TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. In an era of mass incarceration, why was only one top banker convicted after the financial collapse of 2008? My guest Jesse Eisinger tries to answer that question in his new book. Eisinger is an investigative business reporter with ProPublica. He shared a Pulitzer Prize for a series of stories on questionable Wall Street practices that led to the financial crisis. Lately he’s been writing about the Trump administration’s business and finance practices and policies. We’ll talk about that a little later.

Let’s start with his new book, which is subtitled “Why The Justice Department Fails To Prosecute Executives.” I can’t say the full title of the book because the FCC defines one of the words as indecent. It’s a word that begins with an S. So here’s the best I can do. It’s called “The Chicken S-Word Club.” The chicken word is a barnyard epithet for coward.

Jesse Eisinger, welcome to FRESH AIR. So question number one is, what were you thinking when you wrote a book with a title I can’t say on the radio?

JESSE EISINGER: (Laughter) Thanks so much for having me back. Yes, I should have thought about the interview before I came up with the title. But this comes from a line from Jim Comey. It’s a controversial title in my family. My daughters love it, which means my wife does not. But it actually comes from a speech. Now, you may know and your listeners may know Jim Comey from being recently fired by Donald Trump as FBI director. Before that, back in 2002, he became the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a role later held by Preet Bharara…

GROSS: Also fired by President Trump.

EISINGER: Also fired - the twofer there. And Comey comes in, and he’s replacing a legend in the office, Mary Jo White, who served as Obama’s SEC head. And he gathered all the hotshots from the Southern District. And the Southern District is the premier office of the Department of Justice. They are 94 offices around the country, U.S. attorneys from all over in every state. And the Department of Justice and - main justice is one of the prestigious units and then the prestige unit for corporate investigations and Wall Street and financial investigations is the Southern District.

Goldman-Sachs and 2008 swamp alumni, Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin, drained into the Trump Administration.

And these guys really are the hottest shots, the best of the best of the best. And you know, if you have any doubts about them, you just have to ask them, and they will tell you how good they are. And they think of themselves as the best trial lawyers. And Comey gathers them all together and asks them, how many of you have never lost a case, never had an acquittal or a hung jury? And a bunch of hands shoot up. They’re very proud of their undefeated records. And he says, well, me and my buddies have a name for you guys. You guys are the chicken-blank club. And the hands go back down very fast.

And what was he trying to say there? Well, he was trying to say - and he goes on to explain that the prosecutor’s job - federal prosecutor’s job is not to win - like, win at all costs and preserve an undefeated record. What they’re doing is something more important. They are seeking justice. And to seek justice and ensure justice in this country, you have to take on ambitious cases. You have to raise your sights and look at the most significant wrongdoers in society and focus on them. And you can’t be afraid of losing and avoid those difficult cases if justice calls for taking on the powerful interests.

READ MORE...

ITV, “Donald Trump Jr releases Russian meeting emails”, 11 July 2017:

Donald Trump’s eldest son was offered a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton as part of a Kremlin-sponsored effort to boost Mr Trump’s presidential campaign, according to documents released today.

      He replied: “If it’s what you say I love it”.

Donald Trump Jr published what he said were the full transcripts of his emails with a businessman who offered to set up the meeting in the run-up to the 2016 elections which took his father to victory.

It comes as he faces growing scrutiny over what appears to be strongest evidence yet of direct Russian links to the Trump presidential campaign at the highest levels.

The transcripts show Mr Trump Jr, who was deeply involved in his father’s presidential campaign, was told he was being passed the contact as “part of Russia and it’s Government’s support for Mr Trump”.

Russian Oligarch’s son, Rob Goldstone

The transcripts indicate that Mr Trump Jr was contacted in early June 2016 by music publicist Rob Goldstone, whom he had met at a 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

It offered to put him in contact with a Russian lawyer who he said had information that would “incriminate” rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

         

“This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but it is part of Russia and it’s Government’s support for Mr Trump,” the message said.

It added the information “would be very useful to your father”.

“If it’s what you say I love it, especially later in the summer,” Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone in the exchanges which he posted to Twitter.

The emails say the alleged leak came via the “Crown Prosecutor of Russia”. That is a position that does not exist, though Russia does have a Prosecutor General.

Mr Trump Jr has acknowledged that a meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, did subsequently take place at Trump Tower.

He insisted that in fact no information on Clinton was given to him, and the supposed leak was “the most inane nonsense I ever heard”.

The Trump Jr. delegation was actually disappointed with Veselnitskaya. They had sought more dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The growing concern over the contact comes after allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to benefit Mr Trump.

Those claims are currently the subject of an ongoing politically-charged investigation in the US.

Mr Trump has firmly denied that there was any contact between his campaign and the Russian government.

Last updated Tue 11 Jul 2017

READ MORE...

       
Tara McCarthy Interviews Colin Flaherty: Don’t Make The Black Kids Angry, Youtube.com, 10 July 2017.

Trump would try to stop election hacking by working with the man who has turned election hacking into an art form

Vox, 9 July 2017:  No, really.

“Trump wants to work with Putin to fight election hacking.”

President Donald Trump began his high-profile Europe trip by publicly questioning the US intelligence community’s unanimous conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. He used a one-one-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to make clear Moscow wouldn’t be punished for the hack.

Then, on Sunday, Trump capped his time at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, with an announcement that he and Putin had agreed to create “an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things” will be prevented.

Trump, if he sticks with the plan, will be trying to stop election hacking by working with the man who has turned election hacking into an art form.

The announcement stunned lawmakers from both parties, with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham describing it as “pretty close” to the “dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” Graham also blasted Trump for his continued refusal to acknowledge the Russian hacking campaign.

“He is literally the only person I know of who doesn’t believe Russia attacked our election in 2016,” Graham said on NBC News’s Meet the Press.

With criticism pouring in, Trump tried to slightly distance himself from the idea late Sunday night, with a tweet that said the “fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn’t mean I think it can happen. It can’t-but a ceasefire can, and did!”

Trump’s quasi-denial aside, there was something genuinely startling about his first announcement. Trump left for the G20 summit with his presidency engulfed in an array of Russia-related scandals, including a criminal investigation into whether his campaign knowingly colluded with Kremlin hackers.

That meant there was one major question hanging over Trump as he prepared for his face-to-face meeting with Putin: whether he would hold the Russian leader accountable for directing what US spies describe as a systematic hacking campaign designed to hurt Hillary Clinton and help him win the White House.

On Sunday, Trump appeared to answer that question with a resounding “no.”

The summit was a win for Putin and a loss for everyone else.

READ MORE...