• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди799
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы548
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации72
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
22 октября, 04:23

Friday Talking Points -- Bad Hombres And Nasty Women Unite!

So we had the final presidential debate this week, and Donald Trump went right on being Donald Trump, which should have surprised precisely no one by now. Our subtitle today, of course, refers to the two most amusing (or horrifying, take your pick...) things Trump said during the debate. Since then, both "bad hombres" and "nasty women" are trending online. Hey, when bad hombres and nasty women unite, anything could happen, right? Maybe this, together with all the dark talk of "rigged elections" from Trump will finally provide a dash of enthusiasm for Clinton, here at the homestretch -- it'd certainly be a fitting end to the most bizarre presidential campaign of everyone's lifetimes. From the New York Times: "Nasty Woman" T-shirts began selling on the internet. Naral Pro-Choice America advertised "NastyWoman" stickers.... Streams of Janet Jackson's 1986 hit "Nasty" increased 250 percent on Spotify after the debate, according to a Spotify spokesman. More than 8,000 people had taken up the phrase on Twitter by midafternoon, wielding it as a badge of honor. Nastiness aside, last week had to be divided into "pre-debate" and "post-debate." The most prophetic article of the week came from Aaron Blake at the Washington Post, who -- before the debate, mind you -- was already noticing all of Trump's "rigged" talk. In an article titled "The GOP Is Trying To Put Out A Rigged Election Fire That It Helped Start," Blake placed the blame for this phenomenon exactly where it belongs: at the feet of the entire Republican Party. A big problem for Republicans in all of this, though, is that they are fighting against the very same perceptions they have spent years promoting. As Republicans have expanded voter ID laws to dozens of states across the country in recent years, the chief justification has been to combat voter fraud. Democrats have responded by pointing out just how few demonstrated cases of actual voter fraud there are (even fewer of which would be affected by voter ID laws), but Republicans have pressed forward, suggesting it's a big enough problem that it requires legislation. The GOP's platform in 2012 included language supporting voter ID "to prevent election fraud, particularly with regard to registration and absentee ballots." Blake then discusses the charges of media bias, concluding: "Trump's argument today is merely taking that idea to its logical extreme." The piece finishes with: But they've done such a great job pressing claims of voter fraud and a biased media that many of them aren't just pushing back against Trump but, in a very real sense, against themselves. We wrote more than a week ago on a similar theme (although using different examples). Republicans truly have no one to blame but themselves for Trump and all he stands for. But to get back to the pre-debate wrap-up, last week the Post ran a story about possible voter intimidation (and even suppression) happening under the guise of a voter fraud investigation in Mike Pence's home state of Indiana: The voter registration applications flagged by election officials in Marion and Hendricks counties "contained minor inaccuracies like missing Zip codes and area codes," [Patriot Majority USA Director Craig] Varoga said. "Based on the fact that they found (problems in) 10 forms out of tens of thousands... to launch a statewide investigation into a voter registration program is a political agenda." Varoga said the investigation and raid were done to cripple his group's voter registration effort and to create fear and confusion among black voters. "Every single public employee involved in this illegal voter suppression and abuse of law enforcement is a partisan Republican," he said. "With every unlawful action and every partisan statement, they are providing more evidence that this is an abuse of civil rights and voting rights." Astoundingly, Pence then made the round of all the Sunday morning talk shows -- mere days after this article ran, and none of the hosts asked him a single question about it. Want to know why people think the mainstream media is pathetic? Exhibit A. This wasn't a story from some fringe website or even from a biased news source -- it was from the Washington-freakin'-Post, and yet nobody brought it up when they had the chance. Pathetic. Trump, out on the campaign trail before the debate, spent his time calling for Hillary Clinton to be drug tested before debating, and tearing up a TelePrompTer for fun and exercise. We are truly through the looking glass, folks. More and more women keep publicly accusing Trump of sexual misconduct, as well. Trump supporters, though, are still confident, perhaps dangerously so. Let's see, how is Trump's campaign team doing? Well, they just lost their political director, who is going to "step back" from the campaign "for personal reasons." His job "was to focus on Trump's efforts on the ground in those battleground states," so that's probably going to hurt. How is Trump's campaign team doing out in those battleground states? Well, they just severed ties with the state Republican Party chairman in Ohio, and they had to get rid of one of their own in Virginia as well. So, the battleground states seem to be going swimmingly for Trump. Let's see, what else? Hillary Clinton has a huge cash advantage, heading into the homestretch. So she's going to spend some of it in Arizona, where Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders just appeared for her. She's got dozens of offices in the state already, the polls show her in the lead in this very red state, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio is polling down 15 points against his Democratic opponent. So Team Clinton smells a possible pickup, which would be historic. Senator John McCain, already seeing "Madam President Clinton" on the horizon, casually admitted this week that of course Republicans would be united against any Clinton Supreme Court pick. This will make it so much easier for Chuck Schumer to get rid of the filibuster for such appointments next January, should the Democrats take the Senate back. President Obama has decided what he's going to focus on after he leaves office, and it's a pretty worthy idea. He and Eric Holder are going to fight gerrymandering. This includes such things as pushing for redistricting reform and improving Democrats' position in statehouses across the country in anticipation of the 2020 Census and House of Representatives reapportionment. Democrats got their clocks cleaned in 2010, which is a big reason why Republicans have such a stranglehold on the House. Don't believe this is true? From the article: "In 2014, Republicans got 52 percent of the votes but won 57 percent of the seats." In many states that voted for Obama, the majority of the House delegation is Republicans, as well. Fighting such gerrymandering will be Obama's main political objective for the next few years, with an organization dedicated solely to redistricting reform. As noted, a worthy cause indeed. OK, enough of that. On to the debate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debated for the final time in Las Vegas Wednesday night, and it was simultaneously the best night for Clinton and the best night for Trump. However, because Clinton's best is so obviously far, far beyond anything Trump could manage, she emerged the clear winner. Other than the "hombre/nasty woman" quotable lines from Trump, the debate boiled down to one simple statement Trump made: he was taking back his commitment (given in a previous debate with Clinton) that he'd abide by the election results. So, looks like no entertaining concession speech will be forthcoming late on the night of November 8th! Condemnation of Trump's comments was swift, and came from all corners. Leading the pack are Republicans worried about their election chances, naturally, including Senators John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, and Ron Johnson. McCain had the most pertinent experience to draw upon, of course, and his voice was the clearest: "A concession isn't just an exercise in graciousness. It is an act of respect for the will of the American people, a respect that is every American leader's first responsibility." Also important: keeping Sarah Palin away from the microphone during the concession speech, of course. Notably absent in this chorus was either GOP congressional leader, as Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell went into bunker mode, and kept their heads down all week. For Ryan it was probably a wise choice, as he had already been booed (with a "Paul Ryan sucks!" chant, no less) at a campaign event he did recently with Trump in Green Bay. But perhaps the most stunning voice to denounce Trump was Maine's governor, Paul LePage. This is a guy who, previous to Trump's arrival on the Republican political scene, had been in the running for "craziest GOP elected official in the country" -- in fact, he almost seems to be proud of this dubious honor. LePage, after seeing the debate, said: It's a stupid comment. I mean, come on, get over yourself. Donald, take your licks, and let's move on four years. Wow. When you've lost Paul LePage -- when even he's saying "get over yourself" -- then your campaign is in a world of trouble. Also bailing on Donald Trump was Michael Steele, who told an audience celebrating (!) the 40th anniversary of Mother Jones magazine: "I will not be voting for Trump." He becomes the third ex-GOP chairman to refuse to support Trump. As well as all their living ex-presidents. But inquiring minds want to know, what the heck was Michael Steele doing at a Mother Jones celebration? Doesn't seem like his type of bash, if you've ever read the magazine. Steele didn't mince any words, either, saying that Trump had "captured that racist underbelly, that frustration, that angry underbelly of American life and gave voice to that," and admitting "I was damn near puking during the debates." Boy, with party-members like these, who needs Democratic enemies? OK, let's check in with the experts. Steve Schmidt, one of the most savvy Republican Party strategists around, is predicting Trump won't have a leg to stand on if he decides to call the election rigged. Why not? Because: The question is, how close will Clinton get to 400 electoral votes? She'll be north of 350, and she's trending towards 400 -- and the trend line is taking place in very red states like Georgia, Texas and Arizona. Hoo boy. This is a Republican strategist saying this, with two whole weeks to go. Non-partisan election-watchers are predicting pretty much the same thing. The well-respected Stu Rothenberg just wrote an opinion piece titled: "Trump's Path To An Electoral College Victory Isn't Narrow. It's Non-Existent." The mocking has even begun, from the left. Want to bet who Trump's going to blame his epic loss on? Keep this link handy, because it has a dandy little chart of all of Trump's conspiracies (and this was drawn before the debate, mind you) to pick from. Why, it could be anybody! Because as we all know, Trump's not going to take one iota of the blame himself. Is the election depressing you? You certainly aren't alone. So here are two final items to cheer everyone up. First, legalization of recreational marijuana has hit the highest point in public opinion polling that it ever has -- a full 6 out of 10 Americans think the War On Weed should end now, totally and completely. This is an election issue, the article helpfully explains, for a big reason. Full legalization is on the ballot in California (with 40 million residents) as well as four other states: If the Golden State, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada all vote "yes" next month, almost one-quarter of the U.S. population will soon be living in a state where recreational marijuana is legal -- up dramatically from the current 5 percent of the population that now does. So get out and vote, stoners! Finally, for everyone depressed at the depth of nastiness this election has sunk to, we have a cheerful and uplifting message from our neighbors to the north. Check out the video Canadians just sent us all, to convince us that America is already great. We think we speak for all Americans in saying: "Thanks, eh? That was just what we needed!"   There was one grim piece of news this week, as a Republican campaign office in North Carolina got firebombed this week. Anyone -- from any political persuasion -- needs to condemn such acts of political terrorism strongly, of course, and you can add our voice to that chorus. Violence is simply unacceptable in the political arena, no matter how nasty it gets. But we did want to give an Honorable Mention to a group of Democrats who took it upon themselves to raise some money to help pay for repairs. They set a goal of $10,000, which they reached within a few hours, and turned off the donations after hitting $13,000. This is Democrats helping Republicans in the spirit of condemning violence, so it was a silver lining to a very ugly incident. But the rest of this section is going to be pretty short and sweet, because we are handing Hillary Clinton our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for her debate performance, which was superb. The reason this section's going to be short is that the entire talking points section is a recap of the debate, so there's not much else to say about it here. [It is our standing policy not to provide links to candidate web pages, so you'll have to search Hillary Clinton's site on your own to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]   Hillary Clinton deserves at least a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week as well, if the WikiLeaked account of her talking about environmentalists (whom she snarkily told: "Get a life") and Bernie Sanders supporters turns out to be accurate. We really don't think all the leaks have damaged Clinton with the voters so far, and our best guess why this is so is either that Trump is sucking all the oxygen from the room (as he's been doing all along) with scandals that are much juicier and more prurient, or that opinions about Clinton are already "baked in the cake" and aren't going to change anyone's vote at this point. Clinton-lovers will discount the stories as Russian lies, Clinton-haters weren't going to vote for her anyway, and the Bernie Sanders supporters already suspected Clinton has held this attitude all along -- the emails are nothing more than confirmation of these long-held suspicions. With no evidence to back this claim up, though, we think that the Bernie people who are ready to vote for Hillary went through the process of accepting Clinton for who she is during and just after the national convention. Of course, if Donald Trump weren't being such a clown on a daily basis, the email leaks might have hurt Hillary more -- if they were the only thing the press had to talk about, in other words. But again, that's just speculation. But our true winners of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week are Scott Foval and Robert Creamer. Nope, we had never heard of them, either. Here's the story about how they got stung: Scott Foval and Robert Creamer, two little-known but influential Democratic political operatives, have left their jobs after video investigations by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas Action found Foval entertaining dark notions about how to win elections. Foval was laid off Monday by Americans United for Change, where he had been national field director; Creamer announced Tuesday night that he was "stepping back" from the work he was doing for the unified Democratic campaign for Hillary Clinton. The moves came after 36 hours of coverage, led by conservative and social media, for O'Keefe's video series "Rigging the Election." In them, Foval is filmed telling hidden-camera-toting journalists about how they have disrupted Republican events. Foval also goes on at length about how an organization might cover up in-person voter fraud. In another Tuesday night statement, the Creamer-founded Democracy Partners, which used Foval as a contractor, denounced both Project Veritas and the statements caught on camera. For getting caught talking about dirty tricks, both men deserve this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, at the very least. [Since they just got fired and are now private citizens, our policy is not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry.]   Volume 413 (10/21/16) Before we dig in to the talking points, we have a program note for everyone. This column will not appear next weekend, because even though we're deep into election season, it will also be the last calendar day I'll be posting before Hallowe'en. Since Mondays are now "Electoral Math" column days, I can't actually post my yearly spooky column on Hallowe'en itself, so that's what you've got to look forward to next Friday. Fair warning, and prepare to be scared silly by next week's column. And I've already done last year's Hallowe'en column on Trump and Hillary, so I'm going to have to get extra-creative this year. Stay tuned! Since it's Hallowe'en and all, I can ironically say: "Same bat time, same bat channel!" Speaking of amusing slogans from television shows, we do have one note to add to the excerpts from Clinton's debate performance, simply because we have a rather juvenile sense of humor. Clinton, talking about the economy, said the following: "So now we've dug ourselves out of it, we're standing, but we're not yet running. So what I am proposing is that we invest from the middle out and the ground up, not the top down." This immediately brought to mind the scene from The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror VII" where one of the aliens (Kang and Kodos), disguised as Hillary's husband Bill, during a presidential debate, uttered the immortal line: "I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!" Hey, we warned you we were about to get juvenile.... With that out of the way (ahem), let's get to the more serious parts of the debate. Hillary Clinton brought her chef's knives to this debate, and promptly filleted Trump up one side and down the other, which is why we're running such an extended amount of the transcript today. Hillary had her best debate night yet this week, and it's worth taking a look back at all the different ways she sliced Trump up.   Hillary Clinton's Best Debate Moments Clinton started off with an excellent answer on what she'd look for in a Supreme Court justice, which is certainly worth reading for anyone who intends to vote for her for that very reason. But we've already got a ton of material here to work with, so you'll have to look it up yourself on the debate transcript (which takes far less time to read than watching the whole debate). The first truly notable moment was when Hillary made a case she should have been strongly making from the start: Donald Trump uses undocumented workers, so how can anyone believe anything he says on the issue? Now, what I am also arguing is that bringing undocumented immigrants out from the shadows, putting them into the formal economy will be good, because then employers can't exploit them and undercut Americans' wages. And Donald knows a lot about this. He used undocumented labor to build the Trump Tower. He underpaid undocumented workers, and when they complained, he basically said what a lot of employers do: "You complain, I'll get you deported." I want to get everybody out of the shadows, get the economy working, and not let employers like Donald exploit undocumented workers, which hurts them, but also hurts American workers. Trump, tellingly, didn't even attempt to answer this charge, likely because he knows it is both true and easily provable. In the segment on the economy, Chris Wallace tossed both candidates a softball, essentially asking them why their economic plan would create more jobs than their opponent's. Now, for some context, for the past week or so, a certain groupthink had been emerging from the punditocracy. All the inside-the-Beltway types decided that what Clinton needed to do during this debate was to "make the case" for why she wanted to be president. This is rather jaw-dropping, because that's exactly what she's been doing for months, out on the campaign trail, but whatever. In any case, I thought her answer to the jobs question was her best summation of why she wants to be president, and (hopefully) will shut up all those loose lips at the Georgetown cocktail parties. [This was just previous to the amusing Simpsons-like quote, we should mention.] Well, I think when the middle class thrives, America thrives. And so my plan is based on growing the economy, giving middle-class families many more opportunities. I want us to have the biggest jobs program since World War II, jobs in infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. I think we can compete with high-wage countries, and I believe we should. New jobs and clean energy, not only to fight climate change, which is a serious problem, but to create new opportunities and new businesses. I want us to do more to help small business. That's where two-thirds of the new jobs are going to come from. I want us to raise the national minimum wage, because people who live in poverty should not -- who work full-time should not still be in poverty. And I sure do want to make sure women get equal pay for the work we do. I feel strongly that we have to have an education system that starts with preschool and goes through college. That's why I want more technical education in high schools and in community colleges, real apprenticeships to prepare young people for the jobs of the future. I want to make college debt-free and for families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted. And we're going to work hard to make sure that it is, because we are going to go where the money is. Most of the gains in the last years since the Great Recession have gone to the very top. So we are going to have the wealthy pay their fair share. We're going to have corporations make a contribution greater than they are now to our country. That is a plan that has been analyzed by independent experts which said that it could produce 10 million new jobs. By contrast, Donald's plan has been analyzed to conclude it might lose 3.5 million jobs. Why? Because his whole plan is to cut taxes, to give the biggest tax breaks ever to the wealthy and to corporations, adding $20 trillion to our debt, and causing the kind of dislocation that we have seen before, because it truly will be trickle-down economics on steroids. So the plan I have I think will actually produce greater opportunities. The plan he has will cost us jobs and possibly lead to another Great Recession. At the end of the back-and-forth on the economy, Clinton scored a great shot, in a line she should have been using prominently in all the debates. Make it personal! There's only one of us on this stage who's actually shipped jobs to Mexico, because that's Donald. He's shipped jobs to 12 countries, including Mexico. But he mentioned China. And, you know, one of the biggest problems we have with China is the illegal dumping of steel and aluminum into our markets. I have fought against that as a senator. I've stood up against it as secretary of state. Donald has bought Chinese steel and aluminum. In fact, the Trump Hotel right here in Las Vegas was made with Chinese steel. So he goes around with crocodile tears about how terrible it is, but he has given jobs to Chinese steelworkers, not American steelworkers. Once again, Trump had no answer to any of these charges, because he knows they are true. Instead, his argument devolved into: "You should have stopped me by changing all the laws!" He fundamentally misunderstands the role of First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and insisted that Hillary Clinton should have singlehandedly revamped the tax laws during her "30 years" in public life. Clinton was ready for this, and pounced. This was one of the best moments in the entire debate for her, in fact. HILLARY CLINTON: He raised the 30 years of experience, so let me just talk briefly about that. You know, back in the 1970s, I worked for the Children's Defense Fund. And I was taking on discrimination against African-American kids in schools. He was getting sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination in his apartment buildings. In the 1980s, I was working to reform the schools in Arkansas. He was borrowing $14 million from his father to start his businesses. In the 1990s, I went to Beijing and I said women's rights are human rights. He insulted a former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado, called her an eating machine. DONALD TRUMP: Give me a break. CLINTON: And on the day when I was in the Situation Room, monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, he was hosting the "Celebrity Apprentice." So I'm happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what I've done for this country, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years, and I'll let the American people make that decision. Hillary Clinton obviously watched the recent PBS documentary, which presented both her life and Donald Trump's in exactly the same format -- switching back and forth on the timeline to show what each was doing during each decade. The documentary was well worth watching, but Clinton's answer distilled it into a few paragraphs. Nicely done! Wallace then asked Trump directly about all those women who had been making sexual misconduct and sexual assault charges against him. Trump insisted that they had all been "debunked," despite having no evidence whatsoever to back this claim up. Clinton was obviously ready for this exchange, too. Once again, the most effective weapon to use against Trump is his own words, quoted back to him. CLINTON: At the last debate, we heard Donald talking about what he did to women. And after that, a number of women have come forward saying that's exactly what he did to them. Now, what was his response? Well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women because they were not attractive enough for them to be assaulted. TRUMP: I did not say that. I did not say that. CLINTON: In fact, he went on to say... CHRIS WALLACE: Her two minutes -- sir, her two minutes. Her two minutes. TRUMP: I did not say that. WALLACE: It's her two minutes. CLINTON: He went on to say, "Look at her. I don't think so." About another woman, he said, "That wouldn't be my first choice." He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her "disgusting," as he has called a number of women during this campaign. Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don't think there is a woman anywhere who doesn't know what that feels like. So we now know what Donald thinks and what he says and how he acts toward women. That's who Donald is. This led to the most-mocked moment of the night, when Donald Trump stated: "Nobody has more respect for women than I do. Nobody." The crowd responded with: "(LAUGHTER)" prompting Wallace to shush them. Clinton then spiked the football in the end zone and did a dance. She tied Trump's treatment of women to his treatment of, well, everyone. CLINTON: Well, every time Donald is pushed on something which is obviously uncomfortable, like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility. And it's not just about women. He never apologizes or says he's sorry for anything. So we know what he has said and what he's done to women. But he also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television. TRUMP:Wrong. CLINTON: He went after Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the parents of a young man who died serving our country, a Gold Star family, because of their religion. He went after John McCain, a prisoner of war, said he prefers "people who aren't captured." He went after a federal judge, born in Indiana, but who Donald said couldn't be trusted to try the fraud and racketeering case against Trump University because his parents were Mexican. So it's not one thing. This is a pattern, a pattern of divisiveness, of a very dark and in many ways dangerous vision of our country, where he incites violence, where he applauds people who are pushing and pulling and punching at his rallies. That is not who America is. And I hope that as we move in the last weeks of this campaign, more and more people will understand what's at stake in this election. It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have. Wallace then prompted Trump's biggest mistake of the evening -- one that is still reverberating throughout the country -- when he responded: "What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." after being asked whether he'd accept the election's results. Since Trump had been focusing on many claims that the election was about to be "rigged," Clinton was once again ready to pounce. CLINTON: Well, Chris, let me respond to that, because that's horrifying. You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him. The FBI conducted a year-long investigation into my e-mails. They concluded there was no case; he said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus. He lost the Wisconsin primary. He said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering; he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn't get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmys were rigged against him. TRUMP: Should have gotten it. AUDIENCE: (LAUGHTER) CLINTON: This is -- this is a mindset. This is how Donald thinks. And it's funny, but it's also really troubling. WALLACE: OK. CLINTON: So that is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections. We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day when you're whining before the game is even finished... AUDIENCE: (APPLAUSE) WALLACE: Hold on. Hold on, folks. Hold on, folks. CLINTON: ...it just shows you're not up to doing the job. And let's -- you know, let's be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating -- he's talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position. This may have been the moment when Hillary Clinton absolutely put the election away, folks. But there were two final zingers that are also worth pointing out. The first came when Trump tried to use his "Bernie Sanders said you have bad judgment" line, in an attempt to woo Bernie voters to his side. Clinton answered back with the answer she really should have had ready all along. CLINTON: Well, you should ask Bernie Sanders who he's supporting for president. And he has said... TRUMP: Which is a big mistake. CLINTON: ... as he has campaigned for me around the country, you are the most dangerous person to run for president in the modern history of America. I think he's right. And finally, the biggest jaw-dropping moment ever witnessed in a modern presidential debate by a Republican. Sure, the whole "election's going to be stolen from me" thing was astonishing, but this was downright shocking. Hillary got Trump to admit something no Republican has ever (to our knowledge) said in a debate since at least 1980. Clinton teed it up: You know, back in 1987, he took out a $100,000 ad in the New York Times, during the time when President Reagan was president, and basically said exactly what he just said now, that we were the laughingstock of the world. He was criticizing President Reagan. This is the way Donald thinks about himself, puts himself into, you know, the middle and says, "You know, I alone can fix it," as he said on the convention stage. And then Trump, a few responses later, just flat-out admitted something that will surely guarantee to keep a large number of Republicans from voting for him: Because I did disagree with Ronald Reagan very strongly on trade. I disagreed with him. We should have been much tougher on trade even then. I've been waiting for years. Nobody does it right. Badmouthing Saint Ronald of Reagan? With tens of millions of Republican voters watching? Somebody please explain why, exactly, some Democrats were afraid to let Hillary Clinton debate so much during the primaries? If she can get a Republican to admit he disagreed with Ronald Reagan on national television, then we have to conclude she's one of the best debaters we've ever seen. [That's it for this week, for anyone who made it all the way to the end of this tome -- see you all again in two weeks, for our final Friday Talking Points before the election!]   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 октября, 07:34

Obama sharpens his interview skills on 'Late Show'

President Barack Obama dusted the cobwebs off the old resume Monday.POLITICO reported Monday that post-presidency Obama, along with former Attorney General Eric Holder, is planning to launch a massive initiative to chip away at the Republican Party's dominance in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. But visiting "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" on Monday night, the second-term president was given a chance to tune-up his interview skills in the event his plans should fall through. "Tough time to start over for a man," Colbert quipped, acting as a fictitious office manager named Randy, before jokingly mispronouncing Obama's name as "O'Balmer.""Close enough," the president said. Asked why he had failed to earn any promotions the past eight years as president, Obama replied: "Honestly, there wasn't a lot of room for advancement in my last job. The only one with a more powerful position was my wife."Colbert and Obama then delved into the "birther" conspiracy that reemerged this election cycle thanks to the past accusations logged by Republican nominee Donald Trump. "It doesn't say here. Where were you born?" Colbert prodded. "Really?" Obama said with a grin and a laugh. The president also poked fun of his use of executive orders, a common area of criticism from Republican opposition, saying one such order had landed him 77 million Twitter followers. Colbert and Obama also did not pass up an opportunity to take a not-so-subtle dig at Republican nominee Donald Trump, with the late night host giving Obama a choice between two office snacks in a thinly veiled metaphor for the presidential election."I have two choices for you here," Colbert said. "Would you care for an extra fiber nutrient bar, which has traveled to more than 100 countries, or this shriveled tangerine covered in golden retriever hair, filled with bile that I wouldn't leave alone with the woman I love?""I think I will go with the fiber nutrient bar," Obama replied.

17 октября, 19:24

4-star general snagged for lying in Stuxnet leak probe

Retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the former Joint Chiefs vice chairman, has been charged with making false statements in an investigation into the leaking of classified information about Iran's nuclear program. Cartwright, who also led the U.S. Strategic Command and was known to have a close relationship with President Barack Obama, was the subject of a federal investigation into the leaking of details of a reported joint U.S.-Israeli cyberattack targeting Iran's nuclear program. The charge involves testimony he gave investigators about information obtained by New York Times reporter David Sanger, as well as another journalist, Daniel Klaidman. "After investigators showed Cartwright a list of quotes and statements from David Sanger's book, a number of which contained classified information, Cartwright falsely told investigators that he was not the source of any quotes and statements," according to a court filing. "Cartwright also falsely told investigators that he did not provide or confirm information to David Sanger." It added: "Cartwright falsely told investigators that he never discussed Country 1 with Daniel Klaidman when in truth Cartwright had confirmed certain classified information relating to Country 1 in an email he sent to Daniel Klaidman." Cartwright, who retired in 2011 and was stripped of his security clearance in 2013, is expected to offer a guilty plea to the single felony charge at a hearing set for 3 p.m. Monday before U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington. He has entered into a plea deal with prosecutors, but the details of the agreement were not immediately released. Cartwright’s attorney, Greg Craig, confirmed the planned court hearing Monday afternoon but had no immediate comment. The charge carries a sentence of up to five years in prison. If he had been charged with the actual leaking of classified information he could have faced up to 10 years in prison.

17 октября, 12:06

Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign

The former attorney general heads up a new Democratic effort to challenge the GOP's supremacy in state legislatures and the U.S. House.

15 октября, 01:41

Stone ‘happy to cooperate’ with FBI on WikiLeaks, Russian hacking probes

Officially, the FBI has refrained from giving any public signals that it’s investigating Trump associates.

13 октября, 13:00

Questions Plague DOJ Over Inaction In Orange County's Jail Informant Scandal

LOS ANGELES ― For the past three years, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department have been embroiled in a sprawling jailhouse informant scandal ― one that may have involved the violation of multiple defendants’ civil rights, and that threatens to upend a number of already settled cases. The U.S. Department of Justice, though, is still weighing whether to take federal action. “The Justice Department is aware of the allegations involving the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Department, and we are assessing them to determine whether federal action is warranted,” a DOJ spokesman told The Huffington Post. The department declined to comment on multiple questions regarding the county’s jailhouse informant program, which is alleged to have violated defendants’ rights for decades. It also declined to comment on questions related to what is understood to be an ongoing investigation into the county’s jail system stemming from the brutal 2006 killing of prisoner John Derek Chamberlain, who was beaten to death by fellow inmates while a guard watched the television show “Cops” nearby. Orange County is the third largest county in California by population, and the reverberations from the scandal there have already been felt by state lawmakers, who recently passed a law that could send cheating prosecutors to jail. Still, the U.S. Justice Department has been largely silent on the situation since July 2015, when the Orange County Register obtained and reported on an email from Christopher Cheng, a DOJ attorney. In that email, Cheng wrote that the department’s civil rights division, while still investigating the county’s jail system, was also “keeping an eye” on the numerous allegations of misconduct from prosecutors and police involving the use of jail informants in the county. Since then, more evidence and allegations of misconduct have piled up. And legal experts are wondering why the feds, thus far, have refused to intervene. The Jailhouse Informant Scandal In mid-2014, Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals permitted a second round of hearings regarding jailhouse informant evidence the case of Scott Dekraai, a man who shot and killed eight people in 2011 in the deadliest mass murder in Orange County history. Goethals’ decision came after Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders discovered that the county sheriff’s department had been documenting the movements of jail inmates and informants for at least two decades ― but had kept those records concealed. The records showed that at least two sheriff’s deputies had either “either intentionally lied or willfully withheld information” from the court during the Dekraai proceedings, Goethals said in a ruling. The judge also admonished the district attorney’s office for failing to turn over the computerized records after almost two years, despite repeated court orders to produce them. Even if this was unintentional, the judge ruled, it was still a “serious discovery violation.” The deception was so significant that in early 2015, Goethals booted the entire district attorney’s office from the remaining proceedings in the Dekraai case. Another bombshell came in early 2016, when an 1,157-page secret database surfaced ― a log that was maintained by sheriff’s deputies who work in a branch of the department called Special Handling, which specifically deals with inmates and jail informants. The database, which described years’ worth of interactions with inmates and informants, shed new light on the scope of the informant program in the county. Once this database was discovered, the district attorney’s office finally acknowledged ― after years of denials ― that, yes, an informant program does indeed exist, and sheriff’s deputies had actively “recruited and utilized” informants and rewarded them in exchange for information. The DA’s office also admitted that the log contradicts statements made by multiple witnesses, including several members of law enforcement in the county, who’d testified during hearings in the Dekraai case. However, Sanders argues that the deception goes well beyond deputies in the jail. He contends that it points toward a cover-up that extends far up the chain of command. The sheriff’s department has denied that any command staff knew about the log prior to 2016 ― even though Sanders cites evidence that at least one commander, a man named Jon Briggs, had previously served as supervisor of the Special Handling deputies for a period when the secret log was operational. Sanders should have received a copy of the log years ago, when a court ordered the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to turn over just this kind of material. Indeed, Goethals blasted OC Sheriff Sandra Hutchens in court last month for the lengthy delay in turning over the log. And the mystery surrounding the database continues: Lt. Mark Stichter, spokesman for the OCSD, told HuffPost recently that the agency is still trying to determine why the log ended. In court, Goethals questioned Deputy County Counsel Elizabeth Pejeau, who represents the sheriff’s department, about the highly suspicious timing of the log’s final entry in 2013 — made just six days after Goethals ordered the prosecution to hand over thousands of pages of documents to Sanders about the informant who has been at the center of the scandal. Goethals also pressed Pejeau on the sheriff’s department’s claim that it is still, nearly six months after the most recent revelations, unable to say whether a new log replaced the one ending in 2013. Meanwhile, the sheriff’s department continues to deny that a formal jail informant program even exists ― despite evidence, like the 1,157-page log itself, that would seemingly make such denials impossible. Sanders alleges that in multiple Orange County cases, informants held recorded and unrecorded conversations with inmates who were already represented by lawyers. This would be a violation of an inmate’s right to counsel. Prosecutors then allegedly took damning evidence gathered by the informants and presented it in court, while withholding evidence that could have been beneficial to the defense — a move that would violate a defendant’s right to due process. Sanders’ discoveries have caused multiple murder cases in the county to unravel, with some accused murderers even having their sentences vacated.  It remains unclear exactly how many cases in the county may have been affected by tainted informant evidence, but Sanders has argued that every case involving a jailhouse informant in Orange County over the last 30 years deserves to be re-examined.  The Investigation Into The Jail Death Of John Chamberlain In recent court documents, Sanders has brought up the killing of John Chamberlain ― a prisoner in Orange, California, who was beaten to death by fellow inmates on Oct. 5, 2006 ― and raised serious questions about the integrity of the OCDA and OCSD investigation of it. Chamberlain, 41, was awaiting trial on a misdemeanor charge of possession of child pornography when he was killed. The investigation that followed his death, Sanders says, was remarkably similar in some ways to the current jailhouse informant scandal, in terms of evidence disclosure and concealment. Sanders is also critical of a culture that he says has allowed government authorities to believe they can conceal evidence and lie with impunity. In 2007, OCDA issued a blistering investigative grand jury report describing misconduct on the part of the sheriff’s department in the Chamberlain case. The report accused OCSD of violating county protocols and longstanding norms around homicide investigations. It also demonstrated that witnesses from the sheriff’s department had provided false testimony and that the department had failed to turn over requested evidence.  In one particularly revealing passage of the report, the grand jury said that its nine-month investigation was slowed and its objective, at times, was hindered by “delays and lapses” in OCSD’s compliance with the grand jury’s orders for evidence ― issues similar to what Sanders and Goethals are still confronting nearly a decade later. “Material records sought during the Grand Jury’s inquest were never produced and remained inexplicably missing, while others necessitated multiple orders before their eventual delivery,” the report reads. “A substantial bulk of documentary evidence was extensively redacted, obliterating relevant content, while other records were presented by witnesses unqualified to testify to their production.” But despite these and other findings ― including that sheriff’s department personnel committed perjury and engaged in extensive efforts to deprive the grand jury of evidence ― the district attorney’s office specifically declined to file charges against any member of law enforcement. The DA’s office argued that while the behavior of some members of the sheriff’s department could be described as negligent and even reprehensible, it nevertheless had not risen to a criminal level or altered the course of the grand jury investigation.  This argument didn’t make sense to everyone. Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School who in 2015 was part of an OCDA-selected committee examining the conduct of the district attorney’s office in the aftermath of the jailhouse informant scandal, questioned the OCDA’s claim in 2008 that the lies were somehow irrelevant to the full investigation. “The standard for materiality is extremely low,” she said, according to the OC Register. “Maybe if they lied about what they had for lunch... that would be immaterial. But everything else would seem to be material.” Further, Sanders says that both the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department hid important evidence from nine murder defendants ― and from the trial judge, the California Court of Appeal and likely the U.S. Department of Justice ― regarding evidence pertinent to the believability and bias of the lead investigator in the Chamberlain killing. Further muddying the death investigation, Sanders says, is the fact that OCSD investigated the jail death itself, violating decades-old protocol designed to protect against conflicts of interest. In the previous 129 deaths that occurred in custody in Orange County, the district attorney’s office had investigated, not the sheriff’s department.  Speaking out on the potential consequences of this conflict, Marvin Ellenbecker, the foreman of the grand jury, wrote in a 2008 letter to the chairman of the county board of supervisors that the sheriff’s department “inexplicably insisted on leading this particular investigation” and that “it may never be known what, if any, impact this action had on the results of the homicide investigation.” According to Sanders, members of the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department — unlike the grand jurors — were not in the dark about the effects of an OCSD-led investigation. However, staff from both agencies elected to hold back evidence about Ken Hoffman, OCSD’s lead investigator into Chamberlain’s death. That evidence, Sanders argues, would have damaged Hoffman’s credibility and raised significant questions about his motivation to protect fellow deputies from being implicated in the killing. In a recent 185-page brief, Sanders describes how Hoffman had previously been the subject of an intense internal inquiry following allegations of misconduct in his investigation of a special circumstances homicide, allegations that were first raised by investigators from the Vancouver Police Department. As a result of the OCSD’s investigation of Hoffman, he was temporarily transferred out of the homicide unit ― a point he did not acknowledge during his testimony in the Chamberlain murder trial. According to Sanders, the concealment of Hoffman’s transfer, as well as other evidence about his earlier misconduct, would have damaged Hoffman’s credibility and undermined any notion that he was truly exploring the wrongdoing of his fellow Sheriff’s deputies related to Chamberlain’s death. In court documents, the OCDA dismissed all of Sanders’ allegations in the Chamberlain case, calling them “misguided and unfounded.” Still, The Feds Have Not Intervened The DOJ’s continued inaction in Orange County, despite the mountain of evidence, allegations and questionable behavior by prosecutors and law enforcement there, has many legal experts scratching their heads. “I find the DOJ’s indecision rather baffling,” Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University who has written at length about prosecutorial misconduct, told HuffPost in an email. “Both the breadth of the scandal (the number of informants and government officials potentially involved) and the depth (touching upon capital and other serious cases) cry out for federal intervention in my view, especially in light of the less than vigorous state level response so far.” The California Attorney General’s office launched an investigation into the allegations against county prosecutors and law enforcement last year. The detail of that investigation have not been made public.  When a pattern of civil rights violations emerges from a law agency, the DOJ is legally capable of attempting to compel that agency to change its corrupt ways through a consent decree, generally under the threat of a federal civil rights lawsuit if the agency does not comply. DOJ has taken such action against multiple agencies, from police departments to jails. Recently, the feds intervened in Ferguson, Missouri, with the aim of ending unconstitutional practices in the city’s courts and police department that had helped spark unrest in the St. Louis suburb following the police killing of Michael Brown in 2014. Multiple legal experts have repeatedly called for the DOJ to use those powers to conduct a full investigation of the OCDA’s office and the OCSD regarding the informant program. Even Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, who has maintained that no one in his office intentionally behaved inappropriately with regard to the jailhouse informant program, has invited the DOJ to investigate his office’s practices in that area. Alexandra Natapoff, professor and associate dean of research at Loyola Law School, says the arguments for federal intervention in Orange County have only grown stronger over the years. “Orange County presents an important opportunity for the Department of Justice, not only to intervene in one of the greatest snitch scandals in U.S criminal justice history, but also to set an example on an issue that has plagued jurisdictions and cases around the country for many decades ― the issue of law enforcement and prosecutorial disclosure,” said Natapoff, who has written extensively about informants. Natapoff cited a 2009 federal case against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who was convicted for concealing gifts he had received while in office. When it came to light that federal prosecutors in that case had hidden evidence that they should have turned over to Stevens’ defense team, the conviction was thrown out by then-Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder, in essence, concluded that upholding the Constitution was more important than protecting the conviction of his prosecutors. That’s the kind of message that needs to be sent not just to Orange County, but to prosecutors’ offices and sheriff’s departments around the nation ― and the Justice Department is the ideal agency to send it, Natapoff said. “The constitutional obligation of the prosecution to share information that is favorable to a defendant is the primary bulwark that we have ― the most important tool that the Supreme Court has given us for ensuring both the integrity of convictions and their accuracy,” Natapoff said. “Without that, we’re at sea.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

12 октября, 16:25

ФБР добивает Хиллари Клинтон

Глава ФБР Джеймс Коми — человек подчеркнуто либеральных взглядов — без сомнения, лгал Конгрессу. Он также лгал американским гражданам и сделал всё, чтобы уберечь кандидата в президенты от Демократической партии Хиллари Клинтон от судебного разбирательства за очевидное нарушение законодательства. Консерваторы уже привыкли к министерству юстиции при Обаме как к еще одному «левому» органу. Среди известных фамилий там и Эрик Холдер, и Лоретта Линч, представляющие нашумевший орган. К делу присоединились несколько федеральных судей. Федеральное агентство новостей представляет перевод статьи Брюса Уокера (Bruce Walker) «Последний шанс для ФБР, чтобы сохранить свою репутацию» (Only One Way for the FBI to Regain Its Lost Reputation), опубликованной 10 октября в AmericanThinker. Факт использования Федерального бюро расследований как средства политического влияния и либеральной пропаганды уже само по себе является основанием для роспуска министерства юстиции США, считает автор статьи.

10 октября, 19:25

GOP ex-prosecutors slam Trump over threat to 'jail' Clinton

'The Justice Department isn't a political tool and it ought not to be employed that way.'

10 октября, 19:18

ФБР добивает Хиллари Клинтон

«Слить» Хиллари Клинтон — последний шанс для ФБР сохранить свою репутацию.

10 октября, 17:51

Pence Says Trump's Threat To Jail Clinton Was One Of The Debate's 'Better Moments'

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Republican vice presidential nominee and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said Monday that his running mate, Donald Trump, threatening to throw Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton behind bars “was one of the better moments of the debate.” Trump’s remarks at the Sunday presidential debate went beyond saying he would investigate Clinton ― he said definitively that she “would be in jail,” prompting comparisons to countries where dictators imprison their opponents, as MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle noted. “This isn’t the Congo. That sounds like a third-world dictator to me,” she said on “MSNBC Live.” Pence, like other Trump supporters, said these remarks were simply referring to the GOP nominee’s promise to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s use of a private server during her time as secretary of state and whether she allowed special access to donors to the Clinton Foundation. The GOP has largely accepted and encouraged calls to imprison Clinton ― the Republican National Convention including frequent chants from the crowd to “lock her up” ― and Trump has previously said his opponent “has got to go to jail.”  But the FBI investigated Clinton’s email practices and did not recommend charges, although Director James Comey said Clinton and her team were “extremely careless” with classified information. The Justice Department accepted the FBI’s recommendation and closed the investigation without making charges earlier this year. “I don’t know why what the FBI was considering doing six months ago sounds like that to you or to any of your viewers,” Pence said on MSNBC. “What Donald Trump said is no one is going to be above the law,” he said. “There’s going to be no double standards and he said we’re going to look into and get to the bottom of this, which I think is what the American people would fully expect, an even application of the law and I fully support him.” Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who served under President Barack Obama, decried Trump for indicating he would direct the attorney general to take certain actions. So @realDonaldTrump will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 Be afraid of any candidate who says he will order DOJ/FBI to act on his command This is dangerous/so is @realDonaldTrump-he's not qualified— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 In the USA we do not threaten to jail political opponents. @realDonaldTrump said he would. He is promising to abuse the power of the office— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=57fb9457e4b0602ea955b5ff,57fb96b0e4b0e655eab5ea39,57faf9a0e4b0e655eab56574 Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 октября, 08:23

Here's A Complete Rundown Of What Happened At The Second Presidential Debate

Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton faced off in the second presidential debate on Sunday. Below, a roundup of news from the debate: Donald Trump Made It Clear — Again — That He’s Unfit For The Presidency Read Live Updates On The Second Presidential Debate Here’s What Celebrities Had To Say During The Second Presidential Debate Donald Trump Brushes Off Sexual Assault Brag As ‘Locker Room Talk’ Trump Distorted What’s Going On With Obamacare (As Usual) Most Americans Don’t Think Hillary Clinton Should Be Attacked For Her Husband’s Past Hillary Clinton And Donald Trump Did Not Shake Hands Before Their Second Debate Donald Trump Threatens Hillary Clinton With Special Prosecutor, Jail Hillary Clinton Eviscerates Donald Trump Over ‘Grab Them By The P***y’ Comments Donald Trump Doesn’t Know How Trojan Horses Work Don’t Be Fooled, Trump Absolutely Does Not Care About Sexual Assault Victims ‘Lincoln,’ The Movie, Gets A Shoutout During The Second Presidential Debate  Clinton Campaign Spokesman Reacts To Trump’s Humayun Khan Comments: ‘Go F**k Yourself’ Donald Trump’s Plan For Combatting Islamophobia Is Totally Islamophobic Donald Trump Accuses Hillary Clinton Of Having ‘Tremendous Hate In Her Heart’ Juanita Broaddrick’s Rape Allegation Is A Story About Bill Clinton, Not Hillary Rosie O’Donnell Tweets Up An Anti-Trump Storm During Second Presidential Debate  Donald Trump Says His Muslim Ban Has ‘Morphed’ Into ‘Extreme Vetting’ A Whole Lot Of People Thought Trump’s Debate Performance Was A Disaster Jerry Springer Wants Donald Trump And Mike Pence On His Show This Election Isn’t About Politics. It’s About How America Sees Women. Elizabeth Warren Calls Out Senate Republicans’ Hypocrisy On Trump This Is What Happened When Someone Asked Clinton And Trump To Say Something Positive About Each Other Trump: Assad, Iran And Russia Are The Only Partners I See In Syria Trump Admitted He Took A $916 Million Tax Deduction Merriam-Webster Tried To Make Sense Of Donald Trump During The Presidential Debate  Here’s How A Bill Becomes A Law, Donald Trump  Why Does Trump Think ‘Inner City’ Is Synonymous With ‘Black People’?  Hillary Clinton Was Asked Debate Questions About Policy — And About Bill Clinton Trump And Clinton Were Finally Asked About Energy During Sunday’s Debate Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager Opens The Door To Leaving The Campaign Trump Throws Mike Pence Under The Bus At Debate Trump Won’t ‘Make America Safe Again’ By Dodging Questions About Sexual Assault Eric Holder Slams Donald Trump’s Chilling Debate Threat To Hillary Clinton Trump’s Daughter Avoided Kissing Him After The Debate — And It Was Painful To Watch Khizr Khan: The Only Thing Trump Sacrifices Is The Truth Donald Trump, Martha Raddatz Do Battle Over Syria Donald Trump Slams Canada’s Health Care System As ‘Catastrophic’ Snap Polls Suggest Clinton Won Debate, But Changed Few Minds Donald Trump’s Campaign Goes All In On Jailing Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Survives The Crudest Debate Ever Waiting On A Real Apology From Trump? Don’t Hold Your Breath Nominees Debate Less Than 15 Miles From Ferguson, Don’t Discuss Police Reform Clinton Offered A Nuanced Answer On Obamacare; Trump Offered Policy Word Salad Thought That Debate Was Bad? You Should Have Seen The Spin Room Afterwards Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 октября, 08:16

Donald Trump's Campaign Goes All In On Jailing Hillary Clinton

ST. LOUIS ― Donald Trump’s overt threat Sunday night to put Hillary Clinton behind bars if he is elected president ― an unprecedented declaration in modern U.S. politics ― was met with applause by his top campaign surrogates. “That was classic Donald Trump,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said after the debate. “He does want a special prosecutor because these emails were deleted.” During the debate at Washington University, Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton for her use of a personal email account while she was secretary of state. She responded by expressing regret for doing so, and urged viewers to check out the facts about her emails on her campaign website.  “Last time, at the first debate, we had millions of people fact-checking. So I expect we’ll have millions more fact-checking because, you know, it is, it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” she said. Trump responded with a jarring put-down.  “Because you would be in jail,” he said to Clinton. The FBI and Department of Justice formally closed the inquiry into Clinton’s use of a private email server earlier this year. Though they said she was careless in the way she handled classified information, neither FBI Director James Comey nor Attorney General Loretta Lynch moved forward to bring charges. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Reacting to the moment in the debate “spin room,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he believed a special prosecutor “might be justified” in this case. But he pushed back against the notion that Trump could unilaterally put Clinton behind bars, noting a special prosecutor would be independent of the executive branch. “I liked that he said a special prosecutor,” Sessions told reporters. “So I think one might be justified, we’ll just have to see about that. I haven’t studied it. But he didn’t say he was going to appoint a prosecutor to bring charges. He just said a special prosecutor to investigate them. That would be an independent prosecutor in the special prosecutor system, not one picked by the president.” Trump’s supporters repeat their “lock her up” chant at nearly every one of his campaign rallies. After modestly dismissing it earlier this summer, Trump in July embraced the rhetoric ― more frequently associated with dictators who jail political opponents ― by telling his supporters he was “starting to agree” with them. (He has even said he would nominate Supreme Court justices who “would look very seriously at her email disaster.”) Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who served as a U.S. Attorney, took a similar tack on the campaign trail. In a scrum with reporters after the debate, he too cheered the jail threat. “Destroying 33,000 emails after you get a federal subpoena is called a federal crime. When he said you can go to jail for that, nobody laughed ― because they all thought it was true,” Giuliani said with a chuckle. Trump’s campaign seemed to delight in the retort. After the debate, his social media team posted the quote with an easily sharable photo. Clinton’s campaign dismissed the threat, arguing Trump was simply trying to appease his voting base. “It’s just another incoherent baseless attack that he throws at her,” Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri told HuffPost after the debate. “He’s not winning anyone over with those kinds of attacks.” Former Attorney General Eric Holder, however, blasted Trump on Twitter. He noted that President Richard Nixon’s attorney general resigned after being asked to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal. So @realDonaldTrump will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 октября, 08:09

Holder hits Trump for threatening to jail Clinton

Holder hits Trump with Nixon comparison for threatening to jail Clinton

10 октября, 07:09

Eric Holder Slams Donald Trump's Chilling Debate Threat To Hillary Clinton

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called Donald Trump “dangerous” and unqualified to be president after the Republican nominee threatened to use an arm of the federal government to punish his opponents during Sunday’s presidential debate against Hillary Clinton.  “If I win, I’m going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception,” Trump said of Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.  The threat didn’t sit well with Holder, who once held the office Trump seeks to abuse. So @realDonaldTrump will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 Be afraid of any candidate who says he will order DOJ/FBI to act on his command This is dangerous/so is @realDonaldTrump-he's not qualified— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 Holder pointed out that even the famously vindictive President Richard Nixon was thwarted in his efforts to leverage the federal government to fight personal battles. And even when such strong-arm tactics do prevail, the author and Republican political strategist Stuart Stevens noted on Twitter, things tend to unravel in the long run:  Only time I've ever heard a candidate threatening to jail his opponent was in the Congo. He lost & was later convicted of war crimes.— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) October 10, 2016 Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 октября, 06:00

A Whole Lot Of People Thought Trump’s Debate Performance Was A Disaster

Political figures, Republicans and Democrats alike, took to social media during Sunday night’s presidential debate in an attempt to put into words just how disastrous they thought Donald Trump’s performance was. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); One likened what he saw to a Saturday Night Live skit. Another to the detonation of a nuclear bomb.  In a sign of what was to come, the Republican presidential nominee and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, skipped the handshake ahead of the debate. Below, a look at how Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele and others reacted to Sunday’s debate.  This is now indistinguishable from SNL.— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) October 10, 2016 GOP at this moment. #debate pic.twitter.com/nD0gc29sWj— Michael Steele (@MichaelSteele) October 10, 2016 If you don't think Trump wants to mirror Putin as President, then you didn't hear him threaten to jail his political rival if elected.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 10, 2016 Neither of these two represent the decency of the American people. Shame on our political parties.— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) October 10, 2016 The Trump attack on the moderators is what you expect from a sinking ship. #debate— Barbara Boxer (@BarbaraBoxer) October 10, 2016 So @realDonaldTrump will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) October 10, 2016 Off the rails. Less than half an hour in. #debate #lovetrumpshate— Jim Himes (@jahimes) October 10, 2016 I honestly know precocious high school students with deeper policy knowledge than the Republican presidential nominee.— Michael Gerson (@MJGerson) October 10, 2016 Trump has No idea what he's talking about re nuclear issues. He just makes stuff up— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) October 10, 2016 #debate. I can't wait for SNL take on this— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) October 10, 2016 Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 сентября, 22:53

Congress Just Gave Up Its Chance To Slightly Roll Back The Drug War

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― One of the most widely supported pieces of legislation across both parties ― criminal justice reform ― is dead in Congress this year.  All year long, proponents of passing sentencing reform pushed to make tweaks to a package of bills in order to garner more support from Republicans. But even after a number of changes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wouldn’t budge.  During the Republican and Democratic national conventions, advocates pushed the issue. At the DNC, mothers who lost their children in racially charged incidents took the stage, and former Attorney General Eric Holder spoke to the racial disparities in the system. “When black defendants in the federal system receive sentences 20 percent longer than their white peers,” he said. “We need a president who will end this policy of over-incarceration.” Criminal justice reform legislation in both chambers is aimed directly at slashing the country’s skyrocketing prison population. U.S. prisons and jails currently hold 2.3 million Americans, the vast majority of them in state and local facilities. Only 9 percent are in the federal system.  Fifty percent of those incarcerated at the federal level are drug offenders. And out of that population, more than 50 percent are considered low-level drug offenders ― a key distinction. The legislation in Congress, which would affect only federal prisoners, would reduce mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenders and give judges greater discretion when sentencing low-level drug crimes.  But on Thursday, McConnell threw water on any hope of bringing it before the Senate in the lame duck session when lawmakers return after the election, chalking it up to disagreement in his caucus. “We’ve got about three weeks back here after the election,” McConnell said, adding that his priorities are funding the government and an appropriations bill for medical research. “With regard to the criminal justice issue, it’s very divisive in my conference,” McConnell said. “I’ve got very, very smart, capable people without regard to ideology who have different views on that issue. Whether we can take up something that controversial with that amount of limited time available, I doubt.” In April, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), along with a coalition of other senators, revised their sentencing reform legislation. The changes ― made in order to bring over more Republicans ― included blocking violent offenders from qualifying for reduced sentences. A handful of conservatives in McConnell’s caucus have been vocal opponents of doing anything on criminal justice, arguing that crime has increased in the last year and the legislation would send the wrong message to prosecutors. The national homicide rate did slightly rise in 2015, but it was still one of the safest years on record. If criminal justice reform is going to have any chance of passing, McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are going to have to get on the same page. And right now, they aren’t.  As lawmakers left for the campaign trail, the two Republican leaders took questions from reporters about the lame duck session they’ll have at the end of the year and what they hoped to tackle during it.  Sentencing reform is still one of Ryan’ priorities, though he failed to start considering the issue in September like he’d originally planned. “We have more work to do to talk with our members about the merits of criminal justice reform,” Ryan said Thursday. “There are a lot of our members who just have not looked into this issue well enough and it’s those undecided members who have not formed opinions that we’re going to be communicating with in the weeks ahead.”  Pressed on McConnell’s calculation that the legislation is too controversial for Congress to handle in the few weeks it will have left when legislators return in mid-November, Ryan said the House is ahead of the upper chamber in moving criminal justice reform.  “We’re a little farther down the road than the Senate is on this,” Ryan said. “I think it’s good legislation I think its time has come and we’re going to advance this issue as far as we can.” The two chambers are actually at the same place in the process. Both have passed their packages out of committee, and both chambers have yet to bring anything to the floor ― though either could at any time. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 сентября, 11:45

The Legal Fiction That Could Kill Duane Buck

A man’s life hinges on the Supreme Court’s evaluation of racist testimony during his sentencing.

28 сентября, 00:33

Без заголовка

Юлия Латынина (17.09.2016): "И госпоже Клинтон дает 100 миллионов долларов Саудовская Аравия, потом она не может выговорить слов «исламский терроризм»."Юлия Латынина (18.06.2016): "То есть на всех в таких условиях ФБР не хватает. ФБР и так за эти годы предотвратило в Америке около 90 терактов. И это еще при том, что у них запрещено внутренними документами употреблять слово «ислам» в сочетании со словом «воинственный» лично Обамой, лично Эриком Холдером. Президент Обама очень боится обидеть нежные души террористов из ISIS (запрещена в России).Сразу после расстрела в Орландо мир наблюдал, как президент США на брифинге так и не смог выговорить слово «радикальный исламский террорист» о человеке, который расстреливал людей с криком «Аллаху Акбар!»""Более того, Обама сказал, что если он скажет «радикальный исламский терроризм», этим он даст пищу для пропаганды ISIS. То есть если мы попадем в их ловушку, — говорит Обама, — и будем красить всех мусульман одним цветом, тогда мы делаем за террористов их работу. Во как!Допустим, напала, ну скажем, Германия на Британию, и Черчилль говорит «Мы не назовем нападающих немцами, потому что немцев много разных и мы не дадим пропаганде Геббельса оружие в руки». Ну, в общем-то, наверное, ISIS не очень нуждается в словах или не словах Обамы, чтобы рассказывать, как страшная Америка воюет против мирного ислама."Вот почему не нужно Обаме и Клинтон говорить все эти словосочетания для меня очевидно (об этом ниже). Но вот пусть мне кто-нибудь объяснит, - почему нужно говорить все эти словосочетания? Только не надо мне рассказывать, что, мол, надо непременно публично "define the enemy", а иначе нам победы не видать (как будто сейчас кто-то чего-то не понимает). Вот что изменит к лучшему произнесение этих слов?Вот такие люди как Кадыров, Евкуров и другие лидеры севрокавказский республик тоже сталкиваются с терроризмом. Я что-то не слышал от них слов: «радикальный ислам», «исламский терроризм», «воинственный ислам», «радикальный исламский террорист». Всем им тоже Саудовская Аравия башляет? Или тоже боятся "обидеть нежные души террористов из ISIS"? Юлия может назвать хоть одного лидера страны, который все эти слова говороит и кому произнесение этих слов помогло победить терроризм? Чего на Обаму-то с Клинтон все шишки сыпятся?Вот в 80-х годах в разгаре был конфликт в Ольстере (кстати, с основательной религиозной подоплекой). ИРА взрывала бомбы по всей Англии и покушалась на жизнь Маргарет Тэтчер. И вот почему же Маргарет Тэтчер тогда (и потом) не говорила: «радикальное католичество», «ирландский терроризм», «воинственное католичество», «ирландский католический террорист»? А между тем все члены ИРА были, заметье, ирландцами и католиками, а почти все их жерты протестантами и в Ольстере они ирландских же протестанов убивали именно по религиозному признаку.Вот я бы не стал называть расплодившихся в России погромщиков володинского разлива «радикальным православием» (много чести им будет). Вот несколько лет назад в Мьянме прокатилась волна погромов: буддисты вырезали мусульман. Причем, возглавляли погромщиков буддийские монахи. Вот не очень тоже правильно будет называть их прдставителями "радикального буддизма"Допустим, напала, ну скажем, Германия на Британию, и Черчилль говорит «Мы не назовем нападающих немцами, потому что немцев много разных и мы не дадим пропаганде Геббельса оружие в руки».И все же Союзники завляли, что они ведут войну с Гитлером и с нацистами, а не с немецким народом. Вот если бы они объявили войну с немецким народом до последнего живого немца, то действительно дали бы "пропаганде Геббельса оружие в руки". И кстати, немцы, итальянцы и японцы во время войны в тех же самых США оставались лояльными гражданами и верно служили Дяде Сэму.Ну, в общем-то, наверное, ISIS не очень нуждается в словах или не словах Обамы, чтобы рассказывать, как страшная Америка воюет против мирного ислама.Еще как нуждается. Исламский мир расколот. И сторонники Аль-Каиды и ИГИЛ по прежнему состовляют маргинальное меньшинство. Умеренные исламские клерики утверждают и настаивают, что они не мусульмане а самозаванцы (и наш Северный Кавказ не исключение). А  тут такой козырь в руки: "Сам Обама признал что мы и есть истинные мусульмане и радикальный (читай - чистый) ислам".  Именно так это и будет использовано. Ну и умеренному исламскому большинству такие слова Обамы тоже не понравятся, будет вбит еще один клин межу Исламом и Западом. И все ради чего? Что бы угодить таким профессиональным резонерам как Латынина, Тармп, Гленн Бек, Энн Коултер, Раш Лимбо и Шон Хэнити?Президент Обама очень боится обидеть нежные души террористов из ISISНа их-то нежную душу как раз прольется бальзам, они-то годами и добиваются, что бы их признали "воинственным исламом". А заодно им очень бы хотелось, что бы все полтора миллиарда мусульман американцы вытолкали к ним в тот самый "радикальный ислам". Джордж Буш младший многое сделал на этом пути, возможно, Трамп продолжит.Мне могут возразить: "Ну как же? Обама и Клинтон отказываются признать очевидный факт." Да, очевидный факт. Но иногда политики (и особенно, должностные лица) не имеют права признать даже очевидного. Например, вполне очевидно, что в настоящее время (по факту) Крым является частью России. В то же самое время, не должен, наверное, американский президент признавать, что Крым - это часть России.Или вот еще пример из прошлого: Наполеон утверждал что "вооруженная нация" французов ведет войну с коалицией монархов-ретроградов (и так оно, в общем, и было). Но коалиция настаивала: "Нет, мы видем войну не с французской нацией, а с тираном Наполеоном Бонопартом за восстановление законных прав династии Бурбонов". И антинаполеоновской коалиции все же удалось тогда настоять на своем.В заключение, я хотел бы добавить, что ЮЛ не сама придумала всем этим попрекать Обаму и Клинтон. Это все началось несколько лет назад на консервативном разговорном радио, на Fox News, в стане наиболее отмороженных республиканцев. Для меня это пример рафинированной и эталонной американской консервативной демагогии (это при том, что я сам во многом консерватор). Я понимаю зачем им это нужно: они делают политическую ставку на исламофобию, хочется накрутить недалекую и невзыскательную аудиторию и уязвить оппонентов. Но вот зачем это все нужно Юлии Латыниной?

27 сентября, 19:30

Is Charlotte Our Future?

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org, Celebrating the racial diversity of the Charlotte protesters last week, William Barber II, chairman of the North Carolina NAACP, proudly proclaimed, “This is what democracy looks like.” Well, if Barber is right, so, too, was John Adams, who warned us that “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Consider what the protesters, who, exults Barber, “show us a way forward to peace and justice,” accomplished. In the first two nights of rioting, the mob injured a dozen cops, beat white people, smashed and looted stores, blocked traffic, shut down interstate highways, got one person shot and killed, and forced the call-up of state troopers and National Guard to rescue an embattled Charlotte police force. This was mobocracy, a criminal takeover of Charlotte’s downtown by misfits hurling racist and obscene insults and epithets not only at the cops but also at bystanders and reporters sent to cover their antics. We have seen Charlotte before. It was a rerun of Ferguson, Baltimore and Manhattan, after mobs in those cities concluded that innocent black men had been deliberately killed by “racist white cops.” Yet, one week later, what do we know of the precipitating event in Charlotte? Keith Scott, 43-year-old African-American father of seven, was shot and killed not by a white cop, but by a black cop who shouted to him, along with others, almost 10 times — “Drop the gun!”   An ex-con whose convictions included assault with a deadly weapon, Scott was wearing an ankle holster and carrying a handgun.   Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, also black, after viewing video from a dash-cam and a body-cam of the officers involved, recommended against filing any charges.   The chief concedes that he cannot, from the video footage, see a gun in Scott’s hands at the time he was shot. But how is the legitimate investigation of the death of Keith Scott advanced by a mob? And if mass civil disobedience is what “democracy looks like” in 2016, why are we surprised that other nations look less and less to American democracy as their model? Moreover, if these repeated reversions of the enraged to street action become the new normal, what do they portend for the country? Blanket cable news coverage of the Ferguson riots split us along racial lines. But what purpose did they serve? Even Eric Holder’s Justice Department concluded that officer Darren Wilson should not be charged in the shooting death of Michael Brown, who tried to grab his gun. A year ago, Baltimore divided the nation. Six Baltimore cops, three of them black, were charged in an alleged “rough ride” in a police van that killed 25-year-old Freddie Gray. This year, a black judge acquitted three of the cops in three trials, and all charges against the rest were dropped. No evidence was produced that the cops had intended to injure Gray. In New York, the five cops who piled on Eric Garner to subdue him never intended to injure him, said a grand jury. Well over 300 pounds, Garner suffered from obesity, diabetes, asthma and hypertension, and died, not of a police chokehold, but a heart attack. Yes, there have been incidents when cops made mistakes and cases where cops acted criminally. In Tulsa last week, after a white cop shot and killed an unarmed black man who appeared to offer no threat, she was charged with first-degree manslaughter. Is not this, rather than marching mobs, the way to handle such incidents? Inevitably, given the violent crime in our cities — 540 murders this year in Chicago and 3,000 shootings — white and black cops are going to be confronting white and black suspects. Inevitably, some of these collisions are going to result in police shootings and black deaths. While most of those police decisions to shoot are going to be seen in retrospect as justified, some will not be unjustified, and some will be malicious. The latter will be rare, but they are going to happen. But in a nation of 320 million, if every collision between white cops and black men resulting in the death of a suspect is to be seen as legitimate grounds for mob action like Charlotte, we will never know racial peace. Like moths to a flame, TV cameras are attracted to conflict, especially racial conflict. Networks and TV stations reward with airtime the most incendiary of racial charges. Thus, the news going out to homes and bars will continue to polarize us along racial lines. And when the rage of one side and the disgust of the other dissipate, some new incident, between white cops and black men, will occur, and will be recorded, and rushed onto the air. The street action in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte may be what “democracy looks like” to Barber’s NAACP. But to most Americans, it looks like a formula for endless racial conflict — and a touch of fascism in the night.

27 сентября, 05:48

Trump Claims Stop And Frisk Suppressed Crime In New York, But Crime Rates Are Lower Without It

WASHINGTON ― Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed on Monday that the stop and frisk policy in New York “brought the crime rate way down,” despite the fact that crime went down after the policy ended. A federal judge ruled against stop and frisk in 2013, calling it “a demeaning and humiliating experience” for communities of color and a “policy of indirect racial profiling.” During the first presidential debate Monday, Trump called that judge “very against police,” dismissing moderator Lester Holt’s factual assertion that the stop and frisk policy had been ruled unconstitutional. Trump has floated stop and frisk as the solution to combatting crime in communities with high crime rates, although it’s not clear how he would attempt to influence the strategies of local law enforcement agencies if he were to be elected president. But there’s been little indication of a relationship between stop and frisk and a drop in crime rates, as The Washington Post recently reported.  @realDonaldTrump-stop&frisk unconstitutional/not responsible for crime drop you claim - broke relationship between cops & minority community— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) September 27, 2016 The New York Daily News editorial board, which had been supportive of stop and frisk, even admitted in an editorial last month that they had been wrong and that ending stop and frisk did not result in an increase in crime.  “Post stop-and-frisk, the facts are clear: New York is safer while friction between the NYPD and the city’s minority communities has eased,” the editorial said. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 мая 2013, 11:26

Простым языком об организованной преступности финансового бизнеса. Тема: ставки Libor

Организованная преступность финансового бизнесаПора перестать смеяться над любителями теорий заговоров. Может быть, за нитки за кулисами дергают не ротшильды с рокфеллерами, а наемные менеджеры, но суть от этого не меняетсяМеждународная финансовая система, ставшая сегодня основой современной корпоративной свободнорыночной экономики - это мошенничество в особо крупных размерах.Странные порядки царили в советских СМИ. Интересные вещи появлялись в самых неожиданных местах. Журналы «Наука и жизнь» и «Знание сила» писали про политическую философию, рассказы Кафки появлялись где-нибудь в «Сибирских огнях», репродукция Пикассо впервые в СССР была опубликована в сатирическом «Крокодиле», а о Роллинг стоунз впервые написали не в музыкальном обозрении, а в детском журнале «Ровесник».В Америке все скоро будет, как в СССР эпохи застоя. Уже сейчас расследованиями финансовых спекуляций занимаются не солидные «Уолл-стрит джорнал» или «Файненшиал таймс», а журнал «Роллинг стоунз». Финансовый корреспондент журнала Мэтт Тайби практически единственный в мейнстриме, кто пишет о разрегулированном и дисфункциональном американском и мировом финансовом рынке и о том, насколько этот рынок мошеннический.Почему, как в СССР? А потому, что все меньше и меньше реальных хозяев, а делами заправляет цех наемных менеджеров, заинтересованный лишь в высокой зарплате и жирном пакете бенефитов в конце года. Именно менеджеры и финансовые спекулянты, да еще их адвокаты составляют тот 1%, который присваивает себе львиную долю национального богатства Америки. Как заметил ветеран американской журналистики Хедрик Смит, распределение богатства в Америке аналогично тому, что было в Египте в эпоху фараонов. Однако, в отличие от Египта, собственность здесь обезличена, а богатство рассредоточено и перемешано в различных банковских и финансовых продуктах, которые давно уже никто не способен контролировать.На встречу с Мэттом Тайби я шел с большим интересом. Его последняя статья «Все – мошенничество. Крупнейшая финансовая афера фиксирования цен в истории» рассказывает о манипулировании на рынке свопов. Комиссия по торговле товарными фьючерсами недавно начала следствие по делу брокерской фирмы ICAP и 15 банковских учреждений Уолл Стрит. Комиссия расследует их сговор с целью манипуляции скоростью публикации индекса ISDAfix.О ФИНАНСАХ ПРОСТО И ИНТЕРЕСНОЕсли продолжать писать о финансах в том же псевдопрофессиональном духе, зараженном корпоративным новоязом, то даже самые преданные мои читатели скоро потеряют интерес. Потому объясню просто. Что бы вы сказали, если бы результаты скачек объявлялись публике через несколько дней после того, как скачки состоялись? А в это время «умным людям» внутри системы разрешалось делать ставки? Собственно, так и происходит со скоростной электронной торговлей. Комбинаторы внутри системы получают возможность видеть и прогнозировать результаты торгов в конце дня, и на этом основании делают свои ставки, покупают и продают до того, как остальные игроки узнают, что там происходит. Покупают и продают не на свои деньги, а на деньги клиентов, против интересов которых они часто играют. ISDAfix – один из многих индексов, существующих на финансовых рынках. Он служит для определения курса в финансовых сделках. Libor – другой такой индекс, с помощью которого определяют курс практических всех банковских сделок с переменным курсом. Фокус здесь в том, что эти индексы составляются на основе оценочных данных, которые финансовые компании предоставляют добровольно и имеют возможность их поправлять.Самое простое объяснение свопа. Скажем вы – город или компания – заняли деньги под переменный курс и хотите иметь стабильность займа с фиксированным процентом. Тогда  фиксированный процент вы платите банку, а уже он разбирается с переменными процентными ставками. Это выходит дороже, но освобождает от хлопот. Своп – это многошаговая операция,  в ходе которой активы переходят из рук в руки, одновременно продаются и покупаются на заранее договоренных условиях.Сговор был в том, чтобы лишить широкую публику возможности своевременно узнавать об этих условиях. Банки докладывают о своих курсах добровольно, а это прямое приглашение не говорить всей правды.Большинство американского среднего класса слишком озабочено своими растущими долгами,  невозможностью сводить концы с концами, необходимостью выкладываться на двух-трех работах. Лишь мельком они могут услышать о скачках индекса Доу Джонс на Уолл Стрит. В конце дня им по телевизору расскажут, как шутка хакеров о взрыве в Белом Доме завалила на несколько минут финансовые рынки. Уровень торгов  потом восстановится. Вот только самого главного - кто нагрел на этом руки - СМИ не расскажут.Только недавно без лишнего шума закончилось судебной сделкой расследование аферы, в которой мошенники сманипулировали индексом Libor на пятьсот триллионов долларов. Штрафы заплатят, как водится, не виновники, а вкладчики компаний и налогоплательщики. Да еще законодатели дадут проворовавшимся банкирам налоговые скидки.Так случилось в рождественскую ночь, когда для компании, оштрафованной на $750 миллионов за уголовные нарушения, конгрессмены тихонько протащили закон об освобождении от налогов на $500 миллионов. ПОЧЕМУ ЖЕ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛИ РАЗРЕШАЮТ ПОДОБНОЕ?– Раньше это работало или, по крайней мере, ничего не всплывало на поверхность, – говорит Тайби. – Теперь же выясняется, что котировки подправлялись довольно долгое время. Это очень легко сделать. Достаточно одному биржевому маклеру и одному из сотрудников рейтингового агентства вступить в сделку и позвонить по нескольким номерам. И это без преувеличения затрагивает интересы миллиардов людей.На манипуляциях поймали три банка, которые уже заключили судебные сделки, еще четыре - под следствием, но предполагается, что все 16 «первоклассных» банков, определенных в маркетмейкеры индекса, занимались манипуляциями. Тайби говорит, что по его данным, следствие ведется против 15-ти из них:Если там было мошенничество, то во всех 16-ти банках должны были знать о нем? – В деле есть множество косвенных улик, подтверждающих, что руководство знало о мошенничестве, – говорит Тойби. – В деле фигурирует переписка между Bank of England и гендиректором одного из крупнейших в Великобритании и мире финансовых конгломератов – Barklays в разгар глобального финансового обвала 2008 года о том, чтобы установить индекс ниже, чем он был на самом деле.Индекс Libor, по сути, измеряет, как банки доверяют друг другу, и поэтому является показателем благосостояния финансовой системы в целом. Если индекс низкий, банки доверяют и занимают друг другу деньги. Если индекс высокий – значит, банковская система нестабильна.Котировки межбанковского обмена устанавливаются ежедневно, и, вероятно, можно было создать независимую организацию для мониторинга и предотвращения мошенничества?– Да, если бы использовали реальные данные. Однако сегодня никто не обязан подавать реальные цифры о том, сколько денег они заняли вчера и по какому курсу. Предоставляют лишь свои предположения о том, какая котировка будет. Там довольно сложный процесс подсчета, охватывающий разные периоды времени и 16 основных мировых валют.Новый сговор, который расследует Комиссия, влияет на затраты по обслуживанию займов во всем мире и процентные свопы стоимостью в $379.  – триста семьдесят девять триллионов долларов. Для сравнения – валовой национальный продукт США составляет около 15 триллионов, а совокупное национальное богатство США – 57.4 триллиона (на 2011 г). Эта мошенническая схема затрагивает любого, кто платит по ипотечной ссуде, по ссуде на машину, расплачивается кредитной карточкой. От этого зависит сама цена денег, обменные курсы валют во всем мире. Речь идет о небольшом подразделении внутри ICAP, – говорит Тайби. –  Около 20 человек, которые, по сути, определяли курсы свопов во всем мире. Хотя фирма зарегистрирована в Лондоне, действовали они из Джерси-сити, потому американские регуляторы смогли расследовать их деятельность.По сути же, транснациональные банковские корпорации действуют в сумеречной зоне, с неопределенными юрисдикциями. В афере Lidor все началось с японского биржевика, вступившего в сговор с сотрудником Lidor, тоже находившимся в Японии. Национальные границы не всегда позволяют эффективно расследовать новые виды корпоративной преступности.Это совершенно новый вид преступлений. Нет надобности красть у людей деньги и имущество. Вместо воровства манипулируют стоимостью имущества, которое имеется у людей, манипулируют процентными ставками, которые мы платим.НОВЫЙ ЭТАП МЕЖБАНКОВСКИХ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЙЧто же здесь нового, если Уолл-стрит и банки всегда отличались "творческими" и "новаторскими" подходами к поиску путей, как делать деньги? – Здесь нечто совершенно новое. Во время финансового коллапса 2008 вскрылся огромный объем системной коррупции в финансовых корпорациях, систематической обман в ипотечном бизнесе, укорененные аферы в аудите, мошеннические схемы в банках и компаниях, как в Лэмон Брозерс.Однако раньше мы никогда не сталкивались со случаями коррупции и мошенничества, включавшие сговор между банками. Последние аферы свидетельствуют о том, что корпоративная преступность вступила в новый этап межбанковских международных преступлений. На сцену выходит глобальная институцианализированная организованная преступность, способная безнаказанно подавить конкуренцию и манипулировать международными финансовыми рынками в невиданных ранее масштабах.Речь не идет о группе злоумышленников, ловящих рыбку в мутной воде рынка производных финансовых продуктов - деривативов. Определенные деятели зарабатывают миллиарды потому, что делают бизнес по-блатному, имеют нечестные преимущества. Мощные силы лоббируют политическую систему, и не допускают сделать рынок деривативов и свопов более прозрачным и понятным. Они имеют своих людей в Конгрессе. Они помогли Обаме избраться, а он расставил нужных людей в своей администрации. Громко разрекламированная финансовая реформа Обамы, известная еще как Додд-Френк Акт была без зубов, содержала множество лазеек и исключений, позволявший обойти закон. Даже те скромные меры обеспечения прозрачности рынка, которые содержит закон, администрация Обамы за полтора года так и не провела в жизнь.Разве банки не конкурируют между собой? Разве незримая рука свободного рынка не способна упорядочить рынок? А как же базисные мифы капитализма, которые американцы (а теперь и все остальные) впитывают чуть ли не с молоком матери? Предвидя возмущенные возгласы моих читателей-свободнорыночных энтузиастов "где вы видели свободный рынок", скажу, то, что называет себя свободным рынком, таковым и является, другого - нет.С другой стороны мои читатели-либералы, свято верящие, что американское общество стоит на защите их прав и равных возможностей, возразят, мол, а как же антимонопольное законодательство? Что бы сказал борец с монополизацией Тедди Рузвельт?Я полагаю, что антимонопольное законодательство должно применяться к подобным сговорам, но оно не применяется, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Большие корпорации, контролирующие огромные сегменты рынка и национальных ресурсов, являются монополиями. Тем самым они становятся опасными для общества.Однако, когда появляются доказательства того, что они находятся в сговоре между собой для манипуляций курсами и котировками, это становится чрезвычайно опасным  для общества. Если мы ничего с этим не делаем радикально, то это ведет нас к эскалации.ЧЕМУ БАНКИРЫ НАУЧИЛИСЬ У МАФИИ?И все-таки, что же с конкуренцией. Неужели "Чейс" и "Сити банк" не конкурируют между собой? – Они ведут борьбу за клиентов. Они конкуренты на каком-то уровне, но есть целые сферы в финансовом бизнесе, когда они заодно, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Я проводил журналистское расследование по поводу манипуляций на аукционах государственных облигаций. Мало кто об  этом знает, но если город, штат или даже целая страна хочет мобилизовать средства, то по закону, они обязаны провести торги. Аукцион призван создать конкуренцию между финансовыми корпорациями, и тем самым снизить учетные ставки, которые общество платит. На деле банкиры поделили между собой рынок с целью не допустить конкуренции, мол, мы возьмем облигации этого города, вы – другого.Материал по расследованию торгов облигациями Тайби называется «Чему банкиры научились у мафии». Читателю на просторах бывшего СССР они живо напомнят мошеннические аукционы веселых времен приватизации 1990-х.В Америке власти все же уличили пять крупнейших финансовых корпораций Уолл-Стрит, да еще банковскую компанию «Дженерал Электрик» в махинациях на сумму в $3.7 млрд. Как водится, в тюрьму никто не сел. В Штатах элита выше этого и понятие личной ответственности здесь напрочь отсутствует. Никто не заплатил штрафа из собственного кармана. Откупились многомиллионными штрафами из денег держателей акций. Такие штрафы никого не отпугивают. Когда делаются десятки миллиардов, то многомиллионые штрафы – лишь производственные расходы.Да и не доходят штрафы до пострадавших. Когда американское министерство финансов в рамках судебной сделки оштрафовала банки за нарушения в сфере ипотеки, то пострадавшие получили компенсацию в размере $300 на душу, зато адвокаты банков положили в карман два миллиарда. Прокуратура предпочитает не связываться с финансистами. Уходящий министр юстиции Эрик Холдер заявил недавно, что эти компании слишком большие и не по силам прокуратуре.«Министерство юстиции не провело во время президентства Обамы никаких серьезных расследований ни одного из крупных финансовых учреждений», – говорил мне Уильям Блак, адъюнкт-профессор экономики и права в Университете Миссури, Канзас-Сити. В 1980-х годах он работал следователем в скандале S&L (saving&loans). За 4 года Холдер и его люди не только не завели ни одного дела против крупных банковских воротил, но и тщательно следили, чтобы на местах не появились такие дела. Когда генеральный прокурор Нью-Йорка Эрик Шнайдерман завел было уголовные дела за массовые нарушения законов банками при выселении людей из домов за долги, Холдер и его люди тут же надавили и заставили Шнейдермана подписать сделку с банками. При подготовки статьи, из офиса генерального прокурора штата сообщили, что взамен он добился, чтобы из сделки исключили пункт о предоставлении иммунитета банкирам от дальнейших расследований по ипотечным преступлениям.Обама привел Холдера из адвокатской фирмы «Ковингтон и партнеры», которая обслуживает и представляет худших финансовых нарушителей. Холдер зарабатывал там $2,5 млн. в год. Холдер привел с собой Ленни Брюэра, возглавлявшего в фирме отдел "белых воротничков" по защите финансовых уголовников. В юстиции Обамы, Брюэр возглавил отдел уголовного преследования и всячески заботился, чтобы его бывшие клиенты не стали его подследственными. В одном из интервью Брюер признался, что, прежде всего, его заботит, что финансовые фирмы могут пострадать, если их менеджеры окажутся на скамье подсудимых.Брюэра хорошо вознаградили, и после завершения работы в министерстве юстиции, он получил работу лоббиста с окладом $4 млн. в год. Еще два юриста из Ковингтон заняли при Холдере ключевые позиции в системе правосудия Обамы, а первый заместитель Холдера Джеймс Кол пришел из другой, не менее одиозной юридической фирмы Bryan Cave LLP.Не удивительно, что и расследование аферы Libor, по сути, закончилось пшиком.Первым обвиняемым, с кем заключили сделку, оказался Barclays. Они заплатили относительно небольшой штраф ($450 млн. способны ослепить человека с улицы, но это копейки по сравнению с суммами, которые они оборачивают). Мой друг в правоохранительных органах говорил тогда, что все ожидают, как обычно, что за легкое наказание они сдадут всех остальных и последуют обвинительные иски в уголовных преступлениях. Оказалось, что сделка с Barclays стала эталоном для всех остальных подобных сделок.    СМИ не уделяют большого внимания финансовым аферам. Когда я ехал на встречу с Мэттом Тайби, в поезде пролистал газеты. Первые полосы были заняты сообщениями о том, что Джейон Коллинз стал первым открытым геем в Высшей спортивной лиге, Анджелина Джоли в целях профилактики удалила себе грудь (в качестве рекламной кампании по защите многомиллиардного бизнеса корпорации, запатентовавшей на себя человеческие гены – прим. ред.) в городских джунглях Сиэттла нашлись три женщины, проведшие 10 лет в рабстве в подвале дома в тихом городском районе. Одна из рабынь сумела сбежать, когда ее хозяин отправился покушать в местный МакДональдс.Мэтт Тайби - один из немногих в Америке, кто берется распутать аферы и рассказать о них публике, а «Роллинг Стоунз магазин» - практически единственное издание мейстрима, готовое предоставить свои страницы для расследований на эту тему.Много лет назад я слушал выступление легендарного Бена Бредли, многолетнего главреда «Вашингтон пост», запустившего расследование «Уотергейтского дела» и опубликовавшего знаменитые «Бумаги Пентагона». В русскоязычном мире многие помнят блестящую роль Джейсона Робардса, сыгравшего Бредли в фильме «Вся президентская рать». Бредли тогда спросили, а почему бы ему не заняться финансовыми аферами. Как раз тогда в самом разгаре был кризис S&L, в котором прогорело больше четверти всех кредитно-сберегательных ассоциаций США. Бредли тогда усмехнулся и сказал, что у публики «glaze over» – глаза остекленеют от этих дел. Американская публика способна до остервенения спорить по поводу толкования конституции, гражданских, гендерных или религиозных прав, но совершенно не обучена реагировать, когда задевают ее реальные социальные или классовые интересы. Капиталистический реализм, в котором здесь выросли, не дает необходимого словаря, моделей и понятий.Михаил Дорфман

07 мая 2013, 00:39

Без суда и следствия - в лучших традициях Линча

В прошедший понедельник американцам доходчиво разъяснили при каких обстоятельствах любого из них могут убить, причем не кровожадные террористы, а собственная, горячо любимая армия, полиция, спецслужбы…Выступая перед студентами и преподавателями Северо-Западного Университета, генеральный прокурор США Эрик Холдер разъяснил, что факт убийства американских граждан их правительством не стоит расценивать как нечто ужасное, а наоборот, как демонстрацию заботы правительства о безопасности американцев. Эрик ХолдерХолдер пояснил, что: «Когда речь идет о национальной безопасности, конституция гарантирует надлежащую правовую процедуру, а не судебный процесс.» Иными слвоами, любого американца теперь могут лишить жизни без суда и следствия, лишь при одном подозрении в намерении совершить противоправные действия (теракт).Так же Холдер подчеркнул: "Мы находимся в состоянии войны с врагом без гражданства, склонного кочевать от страны к стране… Ни Конгресс, ни наши Федеральные суды не ограничили границы применения нами силы…"До недавних лишь группа высших чиновников могла расценивать уровень угрозы для национальной безопасности и принимать решение по ликвидации лиц, от которых эта угроза исходит. Среди таких чиновников были равно как министр обороны Леон Панетта (ныне Чак Хэйгел) так и президент Барака Обама, который, непосредственно и давал окончательное утверждение на ликвидацию.Леон Панетта и Барак Обама еще в январе 2012 публично обсуждали идею ликвидации подозреваемых без суда и следствия.По словам генерального прокурора, это, с недавних пор, уже пережиток прошлого. «Конституция не требует от президента откладывать действия по предотвращению теракта до момента, когда полностью становится известно, что подозреваемый планирует его совершить. Такие действия приводят к нежелательному риску».По словам Холдера отныне решения, о ликвидации граждан являются исключительной прерогативой исполнительной власти, потому что только исполнительная власть обладает "опытом принятия подобных решений и полным доступ к имеющейся.Таким образом, в ближайшее время стоит ожидать появления списков неблагонадежных граждан США, за которыми будет организована слежка. И случайный клик на гиперссылке радикального исламистского сайта может в ту же секунду призвать фею калибра 5.56.