Presidential Appointments

The Pronk Pops Show 1179, November 27, 2018, Story 1: Jerome Corsi vs. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Political Criminal Witch Hunt –Mueller’s Attorneys’ Suborning Perjury! — End The Witch Hunt — Appoint Second Special Counsel — Go After Mueller’s Political Criminals or Desperate Dirt Diggers — Videos — Story 2: Cindy Hyde-Smith Wins Mississippi Senate Seat Over Democrat Mike Espy– 53 Republican and 47 Democrat Votes in Senate — Videos — Story 3: 8,500 Migrants in Tijuana Reach The End of Line — Videos

Posted on November 30, 2018. Filed under: American History, Breaking News, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Language, Legal Immigration, Life, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Presidential Appointments, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States of America, United States Space Force, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1166 October 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1165 October 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1164 October 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Jerome Corsi vs. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Political Criminal Witch Hunt –Mueller’s Attorneys’ Suborning Perjury! — End The Witch Hunt — Appoint Second Special Counsel — Videos —

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Sean Hannity Fox News [1AM] 11/29/18 Breaking News Today November 29, 2018

Corsi: Basis for collusion is complete nonsense

9PM Hannity 11/29/2018 – Fox News – November 29 2018

Hannity: Mueller investigation desperate for dirt on Trump

 

Jerome Corsi On Why He Rejected Robert Mueller’s Plea Deal | NBC News

Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/27/18 Breaking Fox News November 27, 2018

The Ingraham Angle 11/27/18 | Laura Ingraham Fox News Today November 27, 2018

Sean Hannity 11/27/18 Breaking Fox News November 27, 2018

Sean Hannity 11/29/18 | Hannity, Tucker Carlson Fox News Today November 29, 2018

Roger Stone associate: I expect to be indicted

Jerome Corsi SLAMS the Mueller Investigation… “They’re forcing me to lie!”

 

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/27/18 Breaking Fox News November 27, 2018

Sean Hannity 11/27/18 Breaking Fox News November 27, 2018

 

Jerome Corsi Explains Why He Entered Defense Agreement With President Trump

by Chuck Ross

  • Jerome Corsi, through his attorney, has provided President Trump’s legal team with details of his interactions with the special counsel’s office, the right-wing author reveals in an upcoming book.
  • Corsi discussed his arrangement with Trump’s team in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • He wanted Trump to “understand what was going on with the special counsel.” He also denies that he is angling for a pardon, and that Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said that a pardon was “not on the table.” 

Jerome Corsi revealed this week that he has a joint defense agreement with President Donald Trump, an arrangement the conservative author says will likely generate speculation that he is angling for a pardon should he be convicted in the Russia probe.

Corsi claims that a pardon was not his goal in entering an agreement with Trump. The 72-year-old former InfoWars correspondent said in an interview this week with The Daily Caller News Foundation that he entered a verbal, informal agreement with Trump’s legal team because he thought “it would be important for Trump’s attorneys to understand what was going on with the special counsel.”

“I felt the information would be beneficial to the president’s attorneys in preparing their defense of Donald Trump,” said Corsi, who first revealed the defense agreement in his upcoming book, “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt.’”

“A pardon was not the objective of the talks. It was not the anticipation of the pardon, and I still do not anticipate a pardon,” said Corsi, who added that he “will continue supporting Trump regardless of a pardon.”

The joint defense agreement came about through Corsi’s professional connection to Jay Sekulow, an attorney for Trump.

Shortly after Corsi was subpoenaed on Aug. 28, he says that he suggested to friends that they get in touch with Sekulow, who operates a Christian rights group, the American Center for Law and Justice, in addition to representing Trump.

Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, called Sekulow, and after a discussion, Sekulow suggested that the two sides enter an agreement to exchange information about the investigation.

Joint defense agreements are not illegal or even unusual in cases with numerous investigative subjects and targets. Trump has maintained a defense agreement with Paul Manafort even after the former Trump campaign chairman entered a cooperation agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team on Sept. 14.

Corsi said he and Gray discussed the ramifications of the defense agreement, taking under consideration how the special counsel might respond.

Corsi raised the specter of a pardon from Trump, unprompted during the interview with TheDCNF. He also said talk of a possible pardon came up in Gray’s interactions with Sekulow, but that Sekulow said a pardon was “not on the table.”

“I don’t expect one. I’m not angling for one. I’m not strategizing for one. I’m not asking for one,” Corsi said, while adding that he would not reject a pardon, either.

Whether Corsi will be charged with a crime remains to be seen. He announced on Nov. 13, days after testifying to Mueller’s grand jury, that prosecutors had informed him that he would be indicted for perjury. Mueller’s team then presented a plea offer that would have required Corsi to making false statements about his interactions with Trump confidant Roger Stone regarding WikiLeaks.

Corsi said Monday that he was rejecting the offer because he did not believe he willfully lied to Mueller and his team.

Prosecutors accused Corsi of lying during a Sept. 6 interview when he claimed that he ignored a suggestion from Stone that he reach out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He’s also accused of falsely denying that he told Stone of WikiLeaks’ plans to release dirt on former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Corsi sent Stone an email on Aug. 2, 2016, which referred to Assange’s plans to release two batches of documents that would be “very damaging” to the Clinton campaign. The email also referred to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

One focus of investigators is whether Corsi, Stone or any other Trump associates had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ Oct. 7, 2016 release of Podesta’s emails. Stone claims that he did not interpret the email as Corsi saying that WikiLeaks had the documents.

Gray’s conversations with Sekulow and the rest of Trump’s legal team were “one way,” said Corsi, with Gray telling the lawyers what questions prosecutors were asking and what lines of inquiry they were exploring.

“The usual things one would want to know,” Corsi said.

Trump’s attorneys “weren’t telling him what their strategy was, they really weren’t giving him legal advice. We didn’t inquire about the status of other cases,” he added.

Gray made contact with Trump’s team “whenever there was a material development,” Corsi said. “They were regular discussions, not every day, but when needed.”

Corsi said Sekulow was “very strict” about materials Gray could see as Trump’s team wanted to avoid being seen as interfering with Mueller’s investigation.

The informality of Corsi’s agreement with team Trump caused some confusion between Gray and Mueller’s team, said Corsi.

At one point, the special counsel learned of the defense agreement and asked Corsi about it. Gray told Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky that there was no arrangement with Trump’s lawyers. But Corsi said he instructed Gray to clarify that there was an agreement, but it was verbal and informal.

“They decided not to put it in writing. They didn’t think it was necessary,” said Corsi.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/11/jerome-corsi-explains-why-he-entered-defense-agreement-with-president-trump/

 

XCLUSIVE: JEROME CORSI SAYS HE HAS DEFENSE AGREEMENT WITH TRUMP, RECEIVED LIMITED IMMUNITY FROM MUELLER

Chuck Ross | Reporter
  • Jerome Corsi makes several stunning disclosures in a new book about his interactions with the special counsel’s office
  • Corsi claims that he has a joint defense agreement with President Donald Trump
  • The right-wing author also writes that he received ‘limited use immunity’ from prosecutors to testify about a series of exchanges with Trump confidant Roger Stone

Right-wing author Jerome Corsi claims in a forthcoming book that he has a joint defense agreement with President Donald Trump and was provided limited immunity during his testimony before special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury to discuss a “cover story” he claims he crafted for Trump confidant Roger Stone.

Corsi, who has been interviewed six times in the investigation over the course of more than two months, writes in “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt,’” which The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained, that he entered into the defense agreement with Trump after being advised that Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, was interested in the arrangement.

Describing his interactions with the special counsel’s office, Corsi claims he was granted what’s known as “limited use immunity” for testimony he gave during his Sept. 21 grand jury appearance regarding his conversations with Stone about a Aug. 31, 2016 memo he wrote about former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. (RELATED: Jerome Corsi Reveals Details Of Plea Talks With Mueller)

Corsi says he received immunity for testimony that he and Stone developed a cover story to help explain Stone’s now-infamous Aug. 21, 2016, tweet that it would “soon be [the] Podesta’s time in the barrel.”

Corsi testified that he and Stone hatched a plan in which Corsi would write a memo about the Podestas to allow Stone to cite it as the basis for his tweet. The revelation, if accurate, would undercut Stone’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that opposition research on the Podesta brothers’ business activities was the catalyst for the tweet. (RELATED: Exclusive Roger Stone: Report I Developed A ‘Cover Story’ With Corsi Is Devoid Of Logic)

Stone vehemently denied Corsi’s claim about the origin of the memo to TheDCNF on Monday. He insisted that he and Corsi discussed the Podesta brothers’ activities and that his tweet was a reference to opposition research that would come out on the topic.

He also noted that Corsi has not claimed to have emails or text messages supporting his contention about the memo.

Stone also provided TheDCNF with a series of tweets he posted prior to his now-infamous tweet that showed that he was tracking reporting on the Podesta’s business activities in Ukraine.

“John Podesta makes Paul Manafort look like St. Thomas Aquinas. Where is The New York Times?” Stone wrote on Aug. 15, 2016, referring to news articles alleging that Manafort, the chairman of Trump’s campaign, had engaged in illegal business dealings in Ukraine. Stone claims that he was researching the Podesta Group’s lobbying activities in Ukraine.

Twitter posts from Roger Stone

Corsi announced the release of his book Monday in an interview and said that he had rejected a plea offer from Mueller’s team. Corsi, 72, claimed that prosecutors wanted him to plead guilty to making false statements regarding WikiLeaks. He rejected the offer, saying that he would not plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.

Political consultant Roger Stone at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, September 26, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Corsi suggests in his book, which clocks in at 57,000-plus words and was written over the course of a few weeks, that his joint defense agreement with Trump’s legal team was intended to be kept from public view.

He claims that Sekulow, Trump’s lawyer, suggested the agreement could be verbal in nature and did not need to be put in writing.

“This saved creating a document that might appear later in some relevant legal proceeding or newspaper article,” Corsi writes.

Joint defense agreements are common in criminal proceedings, especially when multiple witnesses and investigative targets are dealing with the same prosecutors. Trump has one such agreement with Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was convicted of tax and bank fraud in the special counsel’s probe on Aug. 21. Prosecutors often bristle at the agreements because they allow witnesses to exchange information about the investigation that would otherwise be limited by attorney-client privilege.

Corsi says he and the Trump team entered into the agreement prior to Corsi’s first meeting with the special counsel’s office, which was held on Sept. 6. Corsi’s first encounter with investigators was on Aug. 28, when FBI agents issued him a subpoena to testify before the grand jury.

Corsi claims that his attorney, David Gray, was skeptical of entering the agreement out of fear of being seen as less-than-cooperative with the special counsel’s office.

“During their phone conversation, Sekulow offered to Gray that the White House was willing to enter into what is known as a mutual defense agreement with us,” writes Corsi, noting that under the agreement “we and the White House would be permitted to share information privately about the Special Prosecutor’s investigation, with the goal of the White House and me assisting one another in defending ourselves.”

Corsi says that after a few days of consideration about the ramifications of entering the agreement, Gray phoned Sekulow and accepted the offer.

“After debating the pros and cons, we had decided that anytime we could get the attorney for the president of the United States to offer assistance to us, we needed to say to be thankful and accept,” writes Corsi.

Corsi writes of one instance in which Gray, his lawyer, had contact with Sekulow. He says that he wanted Gray to warn Trump that “we had to assume the Special Counselor would have everything.”

“All emails, text messages, written notes, and phone records could be obtained by search warrant.”

“I wanted the president warned NOT to give in-person verbal testimony to Mueller under any circumstances,” he adds, expressing concern that prosecutors were moving towards a “perjury trap” against him for misremembering details about a July 25, 2016, email he received from Stone.

Sekulow has not responded to several request for comment about the defense agreement.

Corsi accepted “limited use immunity” from prosecutors to avoid what he claims would have been another perjury trap. He writes that the immunity discussions began after Aaron Zelinsky, a prosecutor on the Mueller team, asked whether he was aware that Stone had testified to the House Intelligence Committee that Corsi’s research on the Podesta brothers was the basis for his Aug. 21, 2016, tweet.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign manger John Podesta gestures before speaking during election night at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York on November 9, 2016. (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta (Photo: Getty Images)

Gray interrupted the session to confer with prosecutors. Minutes later, he informed Corsi that prosecutors “had agreed to give me a grant of immunity for my testimony here.”

“David explained to me that I could be criminally charged for subornation of perjury for my role in creating a ‘cover story’ about Podesta that Stone used in his testimony under oath to the House Intelligence Committee,” Corsi writes.

Stone’s Podesta tweet has been a central part of the special counsel’s Russia probe. John Podesta asserted just after Trump defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that the tweet and others Stone posted before WikiLeaks’ Oct. 7, 2016, release of Podesta emails showed Stone had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans.

Stone has claimed other tweets he made about WikiLeaks in October 2016 were based on tips he received from Randy Credico, a left-wing activist who is close friends with WikiLeaks lawyer Margaret Ratner Kunstler.

Stone released text messages on Nov. 14 that showed that Credico told him that WikiLeaks would release documents that would roil the Clinton campaign.

“Hillary’s campaign will die this week,” Credico texted Stone on Oct. 1, 2016.

“Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary,” Credico told Stone on Aug. 27, 2016.

Though Credico appears to be one source of information for Stone, prosecutors appear unconvinced by Stone’s public denials that he had no other back channels to WikiLeaks.

For his part, Corsi denies ever speaking to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange or any of his intermediaries.

Corsi writes that his alleged cover up plan with Stone began on Aug. 30, 2016, when Stone emailed him asking to speak on the phone.

“I have no precise recollection of that phone call,” writes Corsi, adding, “But from what happened next, I have reconstructed that in the phone call Stone told me he was getting heat for his tweet and needed some cover.”

Corsi claimed he had begun researching John Podesta’s business links to Russia and believed the research “would make an excellent cover-story for Stone’s unfortunate Tweet.”

Corsi writes that in his phone call later that evening, “I suggested Stone could use me as an excuse, claiming my research on Podesta and Russia was the basis for Stone’s prediction that Podesta would soon be in the pickle barrel.”

“I knew this was a cover-story, in effect not true, since I recalled telling Stone earlier in August that Assange had Podesta emails that he planned to drop as the ‘October Surprise,’ calculated by Assange to deliver a knock-out blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations.”

Corsi emailed the nine-page memo to Stone the following day.

“So you knew this was a lie when you wrote the Podesta email,” Zelinsky asked Corsi during one question-and-answer session, he writes.

“Yes, I did,” Corsi responded. “In politics, it’s not unusual to create alternative explanations to deflect the attacks of your political opponents.”

Corsi maintains that neither he nor Stone committed any crime.

“The evidence I provided against Stone was very weak,” he asserts.

“So, what if we had concocted a cover story to explain away Stone’s ‘Podesta’s time in the barrel’ email … So, what if Roger Stone used my cover story to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. Roger could amend that testimony and Congress rarely pursues anyone for criminal charges of perjury,” he wrote.

“Without the link to Assange, there was no ‘Russian Collusion’ that could be pinned on Roger Stone.”

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/27/jerome-corsi-immunity-mueller/

Mueller investigation: Who is Jerome Corsi, Roger Stone’s associate?

By: Debbie Lord, Cox Media Group National Content Desk

Updated: 

According to court papers filed Thursday, special counsel Robert Mueller believes a conservative author and conspiracy theorist alerted political consultant Roger Stone during the 2016 presidential campaign that thousands of emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman would be released to the public.

The court papers were part of a plea offer made to Jerome Corsi. 

According to court documents, Corsi, in the midst of the 2016 presidential campaign, told Stone that WikiLeaks was about to release a trove of emails hacked from John Podesta, Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

Who is Corsi and how does he fit into the Mueller investigation?

Here is what we know about him:

  • Corsi was born in East Cleveland, Ohio in 1946.
  • He graduated from St. Ignatius High School and earned a degree from Case Western Reserve University in 1969. He earned a doctorate in political science from Harvard in 1972.
  • He worked in banking and finance, and in 1995, after the fall of the Soviet Union, he launched a mutual fund to invest in Poland. The 20 or so investors in the fund lost $1.2 million.
  • Corsi was sued by two of the investors, but they collected no money from him. No federal charges were brought against him.
  • After the failure of the mutual fund, Corsi remained in finance as a financial services marketing specialist.
  • In 2007, Corsi said he was going to run as a Republican or Independent for then-Sen. John Kerry’s Massachusetts Senate seat in the 2008 election. He did not run for the seat as a Republican, but was nominated by the Constitutional Party as its candidate, but left the race in July 2007.
  • Corsi was a senior staff writer for the far right website WorldNetDaily. In 2017, he became Washington bureau chief for InfoWars. He is no longer working there.
  • Corsi is a “birther,” one who does not believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.
  • In 2004, Corsi wrote a biography of John Kerry called “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.” Kerry was plagued by the accusations made in the book. Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election to George W. Bush.
  • In September, Corsi appeared before the grand jury in Mueller’s special counsel investigation. Corsi said he disclosed to investigators that he had told Stone that Assange had Podesta’s emails. “But I maintained and still do that I figured it out,” he said, adding: “I made it sound maybe like I had a source, but I didn’t. And I don’t think Stone ever believed me.”
  • He turned over a laptop to Mueller’s investigators.
  • Corsi announced on Nov. 12 that he expected to be indicted for perjury within days.
  • On Monday, Corsi spoke about a plea deal brought by the special counsel. He said he rejected the deal because he would not agree to lie. “They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie.”
  • Court documents showed that two months before WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Clinton campaign, Corsi sent emails to Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone telling him of WikiLeaks’ intent to publish the emails. Corsi said the emails would be published in two “dumps. He provided the dates of the planned releases and said the emails would be “very damaging” to Clinton’s campaign.
  • According to the court documents, Stone directed Corsi to contact Julian Assange of WikiLeaks “and get the pending (WikiLeaks) emails.” The court document says Corsi passed Stone’s request to an “overseas individual,” whom Corsi identified as Ted Malloch. Malloch was also questioned by Mueller’s investigators.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending-now/mueller-investigation-who-is-jerome-corsi-roger-stones-associate/880816179

Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi in plea talks with Mueller team

An associate of Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, confirmed Friday that he is in plea talks with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, according to multiple reports.

Jerome Corsi told The Associated Press he is negotiating a potential plea deal, although he declined to elaborate. 

In a video posted last week on YouTube, he said he expected he would be indicted for giving false information to investigators, The Hill reported.

“I’m going to be criminally charged,” he said.

Corsi provided Trump campaign officials, including Stone, with research on Democrats during the 2016 race for the White House, according The Washington Post. The newspaper was the first to report on the possible plea deal.

>> More on Robert Mueller’s investigation

Mueller’s team has been investigating connections between Stone and WikiLeaks in light of a warning shared by Stone in the weeks before the 2016 presidential election. Stone said in a tweet on Aug. 21, 2016, that “it will soon (be) Podesta’s time in the barrel.” On Oct. 7, 2016, WikiLeaks published thousands of emails that had been stolen from John Podesta, the chairman of Trump rival Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

>> Mueller investigation: Who is Roger Stone, what links him to Trump?

Intelligence officials later determined the emails were among items stolen by Russian hackers.

Corsi said he cooperated for about two months with Mueller’s team and gave investigators a pair of computers and access to his cellphone, emails and Twitter account, The Hill reported. However, he said talks had recently “blown up,” according to the AP.

>> 12 Russians indicted: Military officials accused of hacking DNC, stealing voter info

Stone, who has also said he is prepared to be indicted, has denied having any ties to WikiLeaks.

“I had no advanced notice of the source or content or the exact timing of the release of the WikiLeaks disclosures,” Stone told the AP earlier this month.

In a statement released to the AP on Friday, Stone said Corsi appears to be under “a tremendous amount of pressure, and it is beginning to affect him profoundly.”

“He has stated publicly that he is being asked over and over to say things he simply does not believe occurred,” Stone said.

Officials continue to investigate.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/roger-stone-associate-jerome-corsi-plea-talks-with-mueller-team/mH06m86vB0Eb1y5jyJ9KdN/

 

The Latest: Document says Corsi tipped off Stone about leaks

The Latest on President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort (all times local):

8:45 p.m.

Prosecutors believe a conservative author tipped off Trump confidant Roger Stone months before WikiLeaks released thousands of emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

That’s according to a document drafted as part of a plea offer to Jerome Corsi. The document was published Tuesday by the Washington Post.

The document says Stone asked Corsi to get in touch with WikiLeaks so he could learn about information that could be relevant to Trump’s campaign.

The document quotes Corsi as saying a “friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps.” He added that the impact of the release was “planned to be very damaging.”

FILE - In this May 23, 2018, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves the Federal District Court after a hearing, in Washington. Special counsel Robert Mueller is accusing Manafort of lying to federal investigators in the Russia probe in breach of his plea agreement. Prosecutors say in a new court filing that after Manafort agreed to truthfully cooperate with the investigation, he "committed federal crimes" by lying about "a variety of subject matters." (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012.

Corsi said he’s rejected the offer to plead guilty to a false statements charge. He says he didn’t knowingly mislead investigators.

__

8 p.m.

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is denying an explosive British news report about alleged contacts he may have had with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The report in London’s Guardian newspaper comes the day after the breakdown of Manafort’s plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller, after prosecutors accused Manafort of repeatedly lying to them.

Besides denying he’d ever met Assange, Manafort, who is currently in jail, says he told Mueller’s prosecutors the truth in weeks of questioning.

WikiLeaks says Manafort never met with Assange, offering to bet the Guardian “a million dollars and its editor’s head.”

The developments are raising new questions about what Manafort knows and what prosecutors say he might be attempting to conceal as they probe Russian election interference and any possible coordination with Trump associates.

__

3:40 p.m.

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is denying that he ever met WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Manafort says in a statement that a Guardian report saying he met with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy is “totally false and deliberately libelous.” Manafort says that he has never been contacted by “anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly.”

He also says the Guardian published the story after being told by Manafort’s representatives that it was false.

The British newspaper reported that Manafort met with Assange “around March 2016,” the same month he joined the Trump campaign. The newspaper also said that Manafort had met with Assange previously in 2013 and 2015.

The report didn’t identify the sources for its reporting.

___

2:45 p.m.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says she’s unaware of any conversations about a potential pardon for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Prosecutors with special counsel Robert Mueller’s office accused Manafort on Monday of lying to them and said he had violated a plea agreement struck in September.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani (joo-lee-AH’-nee) had previously suggested Manafort and others could be eligible for pardons at the end of Mueller’s Russia investigation. The allegation Manafort had lied to prosecutors in the last two months has fueled speculation he might be angling for a pardon.

Manafort cut a deal with prosecutors in September, agreeing to plead guilty to two felonies and cooperate with Mueller’s team “fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly.”

Manafort’s lawyers have denied that he misled investigators.

Sanders spoke at the White House on Tuesday.

___

Noon

A British newspaper alleges that Paul Manafort secretly met WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London within days or weeks of being brought aboard the Donald Trump presidential campaign.

If confirmed, the report Tuesday suggests a direct connection between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, which released tens of thousands of emails stolen by Russian spies during the 2016 election.

The campaign seized on the emails to undermine Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton.

The Guardian, which did not identify the sources for its reporting, said that Manafort met with Assange “around March 2016” – the same month that Russian hackers began their all-out blitz to steal emails from the Clinton campaign.

Manafort’s lawyers did not immediately return messages from The Associated Press.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-6435159/The-Latest-Sanders-says-shes-unaware-pardon-talks.html

 

Meet the all-star team of lawyers Robert Mueller has working on the Trump-Russia investigation

Robert Mueller
Robert Mueller.
 Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed one year ago to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign — and Mueller has quietly assembled a formidable team of investigators whose resumés offer a glimpse into potential leads the probe is chasing.

Mueller’s team boasts a storied amount of experience both prosecution and criminal defense, hailing from prestigious law firms to top spots in the Justice Department.

The lawyers, combined, possess a vast array of experience investigating financial fraud, corruption, money laundering, foreign bribery, organized crime, and more.

And Mueller’s team has been on the offensive from the get-go — the last year has consisted of a whirlwind of criminal indictments, guilty pleas, hundreds of pages of court documents, and ever-increasing outrage from President Donald Trump and his allies.

Mueller’s roster of lawyers has earned bipartisan acclaim for their wealth of experience, yet some members have come under fire from conservatives over their previous donations to Democrats. Some critics have even urged Trump to fire Mueller over the hires.

Trump himself has even weighed in on the team:

“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history — led by some very bad and conflicted people!” Trump wrote on Twitter in June 2017.

Meet some of Mueller’s hires:

Michael Dreeben

Michael DreebenReuters/Jonathan Ernst

Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general overseeing the Department of Justice’s criminal docket, is widely regarded as one of the top criminal law experts in the federal government. He is working for Mueller on the investigation part-time as he juggles the DOJ’s criminal appellate cases.

Dreeben is best known for having argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court — a feat that fewer than 10 other attorneys have accomplished in the high court’s history. Peers say his hiring reveals how seriously Mueller is taking the investigation, and how wide-ranging it ultimately could be.

“That Mueller has sought his assistance attests both to the seriousness of his effort and the depth of the intellectual bench he is building,” Paul Rosenzweig, a former Homeland Security official and Whitewater investigator, wrote on the Lawfare blog.

Preet Bharara, who Trump fired as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, called Dreeben one of the DOJ’s top legal and appellate minds in modern times:

—Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 9, 2017 //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js ” data-e2e-name=”embed-container” data-media-container=”embed” style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 0px;”>

Preet Bharara

@PreetBharara

More importantly, Michael Dreeben is careful, meticulous, non-partisan, and fair-minded. His loyalty is to the Constitution alone.

Preet Bharara

@PreetBharara

Dreeben is 1 of the top legal & appellate minds at DOJ in modern times (My admiration goes far beyond his 8-0 insider trading win in Salman) https://twitter.com/mikescarcella/status/873178227203862528 

1,994 people are talking about this

Beyond possessing an “encyclopedic” knowledge of criminal law, lawyers who have worked with Dreeben say he also has a gift for anticipating questions his arguments will likely prompt, allowing him to prepare answers accordingly.

“He answers [questions] directly. He answers them completely. And he answers them exquisitely attuned to the concerns that motivated them,” Kannon Shanmugam, a partner at the law firm Williams & Connolly who worked with Dreeben at the solicitor general’s office, told Law360 last year.

Andrew Weissmann

Andrew WeissmannAssociated Press/Pat Sullivan

Weissmann joined Mueller’s team after taking a leave of absence from his current job leading the DOJ’s criminal fraud unit. He formerly served as general counsel to the FBI under Mueller’s leadership.

Weissman also headed up the Enron Task Force between 2002 and 2005, for which he oversaw the prosecutions of 34 people connected to the collapsed energy company, including chairman Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

He spent 15 years as a federal prosecutor in the eastern district of New York, where he specialized in prosecuting mafia members and bosses from the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families.

“As a fraud and foreign bribery expert, he knows how to follow the money. Who knows what they will find, but if there is something to be found, he will find it,” Emily Pierce, a former DOJ spokeswoman under the Obama administration, told Politico.

Weissman is one of several attorneys in Mueller’s team that has donated to Democrats, although he does not appear to have donated in the 2016 election. He gave $2,300 to President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, and $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006, according to CNN’s review of FEC records.

Jeannie Rhee

Rhee is one of several attorneys to resign from the WilmerHale law firm to join Mueller’s investigation.

She also has two years of DOJ experience, serving as deputy assistant attorney general under former Attorney General Eric Holder. She advised Holder and Obama administration officials on criminal law issues, as well as criminal procedure and executive issues, according to WilmerHale’s website.

As many critics of Mueller’s investigation have pointed out, Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in a 2015 lawsuit that sought access to her private emails. She also represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit.

Rhee is also one of the members of Mueller’s team under scrutiny for her political donations, and has doled out more than $16,000 to Democrats since 2008, CNN reported. She maxed out her donations both in 2015 and 2016 to Clinton’s presidential campaign, giving a total of $5,400.

James Quarles

Quarles is another of Mueller’s former WilmerHale colleagues who left the firm to join the special counsel. He is acting as the investigation’s point person for communicating with the White House, and has been relaying all of Mueller’s requests to the Trump team with increasing frequency,according to The Daily Beast.

Quarles is a well-respected, longtime litigator who served as an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation early in his career — experience that gives him a significant edge in the Trump-Russia probe, according to colleagues.

“There is nothing comparable to the kind of pressure and obligation that this kind of job puts on your shoulders,” Richard Ben-Veniste, one of Watergate’s special prosecutors, told CNN. “Having been there before gives [Quarles] the confidence to know how to do it and how to do it right.”

Quarles, like other lawyers working on the probe, has also faced scrutiny for donating almost $33,000 to politicians in past years. Although most of the donations went to Democrats — including Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns — FEC records show he has also donated small amounts to Republicans such as Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

Aaron Zebley

Aaron ZebleyAssociated Press/Jeff Chiu

Zebley is a longtime FBI staffer who spent years in the counterterrorism division as a special agent before becoming the agency’s chief of staff under Mueller’s former leadership.

Between FBI stints, Zebley served as assistant US attorney in the national security and terrorism unit. He then moved to the DOJ’s national security division before eventually joining the WilmerHale firm in 2014. He, like Quarles and Rhee, left his job at the firm to work on Mueller’s investigation.

Zebley’s early work at the FBI consisted of grueling, complicated investigations into terrorist groups like Al Qaeda — even before 9/11 propelled the organization into infamy. Yet in recent years at WilmerHale, his focus has turned to cybersecurity.

A recent profile in Wired called Zebley a “dogged FBI agent turned prosecutor turned confidant,” noting that his tenacity, history of working alongside Mueller, and globetrotting, investigatory experience will be crucial assets for the Trump-Russia probe.

Greg Andres

Greg Andres
Greg Andres.
 C-SPAN screenshot

Andres joined the investigation on August 1, adding expertise in foreign bribery to Mueller’s team.

Andres previously worked at the DOJ between 2010 and 2012, as a deputy assistant attorney general in the department’s criminal division. One of the most prominent cases he oversaw was the prosecution of Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford, who ran an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.

He also has chops in prosecuting organized crime, having worked in the US attorney’s office in Brooklyn on the criminal cases of several members of the infamous Bonanno family — one of whom was even accused of plotting Andres’ murder, according to Reuters.

Most recently, Andres had worked as a white-collar-crime defense attorney for the firm Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Andres told Law360 in a 2016 interview that trial lawyers should always “be confident, straightforward, and well-prepared.”

“Judges, juries, and adversaries can sense a lack of conviction and are unforgiving with respect to overstatement or misrepresentation,” he added. “Emphasize the strengths of your case but acknowledge and concede the weak facts or legal precedent. Failing to cite adverse authority or hiding bad facts can be devastating.”

Zainab Ahmad

Zainab Ahmad
Second from right is Assistant US Attorney Zainab Ahmad.
 Associated Press/Elizabeth Williams

Ahmad is best known for her counterterrorism experience as an assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of New York — an office famed for its work prosecuting organized crime.

Yet Ahmad, herself, is best known for successfully prosecuting 13 terrorists since 2009 without sustaining a single loss, according to a New Yorker profile.

Ahmad’s specialty in prosecuting extraterritorial terrorism cases has meant she has spent much of her time in both American and foreign prisons, interviewing convicted terrorists. One former supervisor told the magazine that Ahmad has likely spend more hours talking to “legitimate Al Qaeda members, hardened terrorist killers,” than any other prosecutor in America.

In a 2015 interview with West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, Ahmad said the best way for prosecutors to win over public trust is “to do their job fairly, with an open mind, and with integrity, throughout every stage of the criminal justice process.”

“As prosecutors we are taught over and over that our principal aim is to seek justice, not to achieve any particular subsidiary goal in any particular case,” she said.

Aaron Zelinsky

Aaron Zelinsky
Aaron Zelinsky.
 YouTube/Maryland Carey Law

Zelinsky came to the Mueller probe in June after a three-year stint in the US attorney’s office in Maryland, where he worked under none other than Rod Rosenstein, who is now the deputy attorney general with authority over the Trump-Russia investigation.

Zelinsky has clerked for Judge Thomas Griffith of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, a George W. Bush appointee, as well as Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Anthony Kennedy. He also worked for the State Department under the Obama administration, where he dealt with hostage negotiations.

“He is a professional, non-partisan straight shooter, who worked for Democrats at the State Department … but has probably spent more years working for Republicans,” former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, who supervised Zelinksy, told The New Haven Independent.

“He is an outstanding and fair-minded young prosecutor who will follow the facts and law where they lead. You can count on him to conduct any investigation based on law, not politics.”

Kyle Freeny

—Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) September 16, 2017 //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js ” data-e2e-name=”embed-container” data-media-container=”embed” style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 0px;”>

Josh Gerstein

@joshgerstein

SCOOP: Meet Trump-Russia prosecutor #17: Jumped from “Wolf of Wall Street” money laundering case to Mueller team http://politi.co/2xpMJcm 

141 people are talking about this

Freeny is one of the most recently discovered additions to the Mueller probe, joining the team shortly after withdrawing from the Justice Department’s highest-profile money-laundering case on June 26, Politico reported.

He had been spearheading the DOJ’s effort to seize profits from the film “The Wolf of Wall Street” following allegations that a co-founder of production company Red Granite Pictures, Riza Aziz, had used $64 million worth of stolen assets from the Malaysian government to finance its production. Lawyers for Red Granite Pictures said in a court filing earlier in September that they had reached a settlement with prosecutors.

As Politico reported, Freeny has drawn criticism in the past when she was one of the lawyers defending the Obama administration from a lawsuit that challenged one of Obama’s executive actions on immigration. US District Court Judge Andrew Hanen had accused Freeny and her colleagues of misleading him by incorrectly indicating that none of the changes ordered by Obama had taken effect.

As a result, Hanen was prepared to order extra ethics training for many Washington-based DOJ lawyers and impose sanctions on the government and certain individual lawyers who were not specified. But Hanen eventually backed down, and accepted that the lawyers’ comments he believed to be misleading were “unintentional” and that they “acted with no intent to deceive the other parties or the Court.”

Another aspect about Freeny likely to draw ire from Mueller’s critics are her political donations to Democrats, which consist of $250 donations to each of Obama’s presidential campaigns, and $250 to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, according to Politico.

Andrew Goldstein

Andrew GoldsteinAssociated Press/Mark Lennihan

Before jumping to the Mueller probe, Goldstein led the public corruption unit in the US Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, where he worked under Preet Bharara, the federal prosecutor who was famously fired by Trump in March after refusing to resign.

During his tenure at the Southern District of New York, Goldstein helped prosecute New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, on federal corruption charges. Goldstein also has experience in prosecuting money laundering and asset forfeiture cases, The New York Times reported.

Elizabeth Prelogar

Prelogar is a lawyer on loan to the Mueller probe from the US solicitor general’s office. Prelogar is fluent in Russian, according toThe National Law Journal, and was a Fulbright scholar in Russia after graduating from Emory College. Prelogar also clerked for Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

“Like Michael Dreeben, she is a person of superb intellect and deep integrity,” former solicitor general Donald Gerrilli, who hired Prelogar in 2014, told the Law Journal. “She can be counted on to call it as she sees it.

Brandon Van Grack

Van Grack worked in the US Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he helped prosecute national security, espionage, and international crime cases.

“It would absolutely make sense that a small team like this would want him at their core because of how impossible it is not to get along with him,” Josh Geltzer, a former colleague of Van Grack and executive director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy, told The Daily Beast.

Adam Jed

Jed is the only lawyer on Mueller’s team to have never worked as a prosecutor, according to The Daily Beast. Instead, Jed has experience as an appellate lawyer in the Justice Department’s civil division.

Scott Meisler

Meisler worked mostly in the Justice Department’s criminal division since 2009 as an appellate lawyer, specializing in cases that involved search warrants and seizure, as well as mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.

He joined Mueller’s team in June 2017, Mueller’s spokesman Peter Carr told Reuters.

Rush Atkinson

Atkinson was a trial attorney for more than four years in the Securities and Financial Fraud Unit of the Justice Department’s criminal division, according to his LinkedIn account.

Before that, Atkinson also worked in the DOJ’s national security division. Samuel Rascoff, one of Atkinson’s law professors at New York University, said in 2010 that Atkinson represented “the best of the new generation of national security lawyers.”

Brian Richardson

Richardson joined Mueller’s team in July 2017, shortly after clerking for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

He has appeared in court alongside Weissmann, Andres, and Freeny as recently as February 2018, when the Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, CNN reported.

Dickey joined Mueller’s team in November 2017, after working for years as an assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, specializing in cybercrimes and fraud, according to ABC News.

Dickey also worked in the Justice Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. Most notably, he helped prosecute the Romanian hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel, who went by the screen name Guccifer and pleaded guilty to hacking email and social media accounts belonging to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, among other prominent figures.

Uzo Asonye

Asonye is an assistant US attorney with experience prosecuting embezzlement and bribery cases. He joined Mueller’s team in May 2018 to serve as the local counsel in Manafort’s trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, according to ABC News.

Asonye’s LinkedIn shows that in addition to his role as assistant US attorney, he has also worked at the law firm O’Melveny and Myers in its white collar defense and corporate investigations group.

Federal Election Commission records show that Asonye donated $800 to Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign in 2008.

https://www.businessinsider.com/lawyers-robert-mueller-hired-for-the-trump-russia-investigation-2017-6#uzo-asonye-18

Subornation of perjury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In American lawScots law and under the law of some English-speaking Commonwealth nations, subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury, the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, whether spoken or written. The term subornation of perjury further describes the circumstance wherein an attorney at law causes a client to lie under oath or allows another party to lie under oath.[1][2]

In American federal law, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1622 provides:

Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

In California law, per the State bar Code,[3] the subornation of perjury constitutes an act of “moral turpitude” on the part of the attorney, and thus is cause for his or her disbarment, or for the suspension of his or her license to practice law.[4]

In legal practice, the condition of suborning perjury applies to a lawyer who presents either testimony or an affidavit, or both, either to a judge or to a jury, which the attorney knows to be materially false, and not factual. In civil law and in criminal law, the attorney’s knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what an attorney would reasonably have believed in the circumstances of the matter discussed in the testimony. Hence, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that his or her witness is giving false, perjurious testimony.

An attorney who encourages a witness to give false testimony is suborning perjury, a crime punished either with formal disciplinary action, disbarment, jail or a combination thereof. A false statement by an attorney in court also is a crime similar to subornation of perjury and is punished accordingly. In the professional conduct of an attorney at law, there is a fine delineation between assisting a witness to recall events and encouraging him or her to give materially false testimony. The practice of ″horse shedding the witness″ (rehearsing testimony) is an example of such perjurious criminal conduct by an attorney, which is depicted in the true-crime novel Anatomy of a Murder (1958), by Robert Traver and in the eponymous film (Otto Preminger, 1959), about a rape-and-murder case wherein are explored the ethical and legal problems inherent to the subornation of perjury.[5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ “Scots Legal Terms and Offences Libelled”. Edinburgh: National Archives of Scotland. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  2. ^ Garner, Bryan A., Ed., Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Ed. West Group, St. Paul Minnesota, 1999, p. 1440.
  3. ^ In re Rivas (1989) 49 Cal.3d 794, 263 California Reporter. 654, 781 P.2d 946
  4. ^ California Business & Professions Code §6102(a)
  5. ^ “Horse shedding” term, Quote it Completely! (1969) pp. 445–446.
  6. ^ Edward Carter (2008). “Horse-shedding, Lecturing and Legal Ethics” (PDF). Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 2011-06-04.
  7. ^ See Garner, B.A. Ed., Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Ed., 1999, pp. 742, 1342, and 1598.

See also

 

Story 2: Cindy Hyde-Smith Wins Mississippi Senate Seat Over Democrat Mike Espy — Videos

See the source image

Supporters celebrate Hyde-Smith’s Miss. Senate win

Mississippi elects Cindy Hyde-Smith to Senate despite controversial comments

After Mississippi, All Eyes Turn To The 2020 Senate Map | MTP Daily | MSNBC

Mississippi Senate Election Results: Cindy Hyde-Smith vs. Mike Espy

Cindy Hyde-Smith has won the election, according to A.P.

Candidate Party Votes Pct.
Cindy Hyde-Smith* Republican 479,278 53.9%
Mike Espy Democrat 410,693 46.1

889,971 votes, 100% reporting (1,797 of 1,797 precincts)

* Incumbent

Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Republican who was appointed to the Senate this year, faces Mike Espy, a Democrat and former congressman, in a special election runoff on Tuesday after neither candidate won a majority on Election Day. The election was held to fill the seat of Senator Thad Cochran, who retired earlier this year for health reasons.

Although Mississippi is a deeply conservative state, a series of remarks by Ms. Hyde-Smith that were widely condemned as racist and insensitive have led Democrats to believe that they might have a chance to defeat her.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/27/us/elections/results-mississippi-senate-runoff-special-election.html

Story 3: 8,500 Migrants in Tijuana Reach The End of The Road — Videos —

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Food, water scarce for thousands of migrants in Tijuana

[youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEWl4CESc3Q]

Fox & Friends First Fox News [5AM] 11/27/18 Breaking News Today November 27, 2018

Tear gas fired at migrants approaching U.S.-Mexico border

Migrants arrested on both sides of U.S.-Mexico border after desperate attempt to cross

Dying to get through the US-Mexico border | Unreported World

Who can apply for asylum in the US?

Asylum in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Annual Refugee Admissions to the United States by Fiscal Year, 1975 to mid-2018

Annual Asylum Grants in the United States by Fiscal Year, 1990-2016

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified by international and federal law.[1] A specified number of legally defined refugees who either apply for asylum from inside the U.S. or apply for refugee status from outside the U.S., are admitted annually. Refugees compose about one-tenth of the total annual immigration to the United States, though some large refugee populations are very prominent. Since World War II, more refugees have found homes in the U.S. than any other nation and more than two million refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1980. In the years 2005 through 2007, the number of asylum seekers accepted into the U.S. was about 40,000 per year. This compared with about 30,000 per year in the UK and 25,000 in Canada. The U.S. accounted for about 10% of all asylum-seeker acceptances in the OECD countries in 1998-2007.[2] The United States is by far the most populous OECD country and receives fewer than the average number of refugees per capita: In 2010-14 (before the massive migrant surge in Europe in 2015) it ranked 28 of 43 industrialized countries reviewed by UNHCR.[3]

Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[4] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: racereligionnationalitypolitical opinion, or particular social group.[5]

 

Character of refugee inflows and resettlement

Refugee resettlement to the United States by region, 1990–2005 (Source: Migration Policy Institute)

During the Cold War, and up until the mid-1990s, the majority of refugees resettled in the U.S. were people from the former-Soviet Union and Southeast Asia.[citation needed] The most conspicuous of the latter were the refugees from Vietnam following the Vietnam War, sometimes known as “boat people“. Following the end of the Cold War, the largest resettled European group were refugees from the Balkans, primarily Serbs, from Bosnia and Croatia.[citation needed] In the 1990s/2000s, the proportion of Africans rose in the annual resettled population, as many fled various ongoing conflicts.[citation needed]

Large metropolitan areas have been the destination of most resettlements, with 72% of all resettlements between 1983 and 2004 going to 30 locations.[citation needed] The historical gateways for resettled refugees have been California (specifically Los AngelesOrange CountySan Jose, and Sacramento), the Mid-Atlantic region (New York in particular), the Midwest (specifically ChicagoSt. LouisMinneapolis-St. Paul), and Northeast (Providence, Rhode Island).[citation needed] In the last decades of the twentieth century, Washington, D.C.SeattleWashingtonPortlandOregon; and AtlantaGeorgia provided new gateways for resettled refugees. Particular cities are also identified with some national groups: metropolitan Los Angeles received almost half of the resettled refugees from Iran, 20% of Iraqi refugees went to Detroit, and nearly one-third of refugees from the former Soviet Union were resettled in New York.[citation needed]

Between 2004 and 2007, nearly 4,000 Venezuelans claimed political asylum in the United States and almost 50% of them were granted. In contrast, in 1996, only 328 Venezuelans claimed asylum, and a mere 20% of them were granted.[6] According to USA Today, the number of asylums being granted to Venezuelan claimants has risen from 393 in 2009 to 969 in 2012.[7] Other references agree with the high number of political asylum claimants from Venezuela, confirming that between 2000 and 2010, the United States has granted them with 4,500 political asylums.[8]

Criticism

Despite this, concerns have been raised with the U.S. asylum and refugee determination processes. A recent empirical analysis by three legal scholars described the U.S. asylum process as a game of refugee roulette; that is to say that the outcome of asylum determinations depends in large part on the personality of the particular adjudicator to whom an application is randomly assigned, rather than on the merits of the case. The very low numbers of Iraqi refugees accepted between 2003 and 2007 exemplifies concerns about the United States’ refugee processes. The Foreign Policy Association reported that “Perhaps the most perplexing component of the Iraq refugee crisis… has been the inability for the U.S. to absorb more Iraqis following the 2003 invasion of the country. Up until 2008, the U.S. has granted less than 800 Iraqis refugee status, just 133 in 2007. By contrast, the U.S. granted asylum to more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees during the Vietnam War.” [9]

Relevant law and procedures

“The Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’) authorizes the Attorney General to grant asylum if an alien is unable or unwilling to return to her country of origin because she has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.'”[1]

The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. As defined by these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or place of habitual residence if stateless) who, owing to a fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the state. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The signatories to these agreements are further obliged not to return or “refoul” refugees to the place where they would face persecution.

This commitment was codified and expanded with the passing of the Refugee Act of 1980 by the United States Congress. Besides reiterating the definitions of the 1951 Convention and its Protocol, the Refugee Act provided for the establishment of an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to help refugees begin their lives in the U.S. The structure and procedures evolved and by 2004, federal handling of refugee affairs was led by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) of the U.S. Department of State, working with the ORR at HHS. Asylum claims are mainly the responsibility of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Refugee quotas

Each year, the President of the United States sends a proposal to the Congress for the maximum number of refugees to be admitted into the country for the upcoming fiscal year, as specified under section 207(e) (1)-(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This number, known as the “refugee ceiling”, is the target of annual lobbying by both refugee advocates seeking to raise it and anti-immigration groups seeking to lower it. However, once proposed, the ceiling is normally accepted without substantial Congressional debate. The September 11, 2001 attacks resulted in a substantial disruption to the processing of resettlement claims with actual admissions falling to about 26,000 in fiscal year 2002. Claims were doublechecked for any suspicious activity and procedures were put in place to detect any possible terrorist infiltration, though some advocates noted that, given the ease with which foreigners can otherwise legally enter the U.S., entry as a refugee is comparatively unlikely. The actual number of admitted refugees rose in subsequent years with refugee ceiling for 2006 at 70,000. Critics note these levels are still among the lowest in 30 years.

Recent actual, projected and proposed refugee admissions
Year Africa % East Asia % Europe % Latin America
and Caribbean
% Near East and
South Asia
% Unallocated
reserve
Total
FY 2012 actual arrivals[10] 10,608 18.21 14,366 24.67 1,129 1.94 2,078 3.57 30,057 51.61 58,238
FY 2013 ceiling[10] 12,000 17,000 2,000 5,000 31,000 3,000 70,000
FY 2013 actual arrivals[11] 15,980 22.85 16,537 23.65 580 0.83 4,439 6.35 32,389 46.32 69,925
FY 2014 ceiling[11] 15,000 14,000 1,000 5,000 33,000 2,000 70,000
FY 2014 actual arrivals[12] 17,476 24.97 14,784 21.12 959 1.37 4,318 6.17 32,450 46.36 69,987
FY 2015 ceiling[12] 17,000 13,000 1,000 4,000 33,000 2,000 70,000
FY 2015 actual arrivals[13] 22,472 32.13 18,469 26.41 2,363 3.38 2,050 2.93 24,579 35.14 69,933
FY 2016 ceiling[13] 25,000 13,000 4,000 3,000 34,000 6,000 85,000
FY 2016 actual arrivals[14] 31,625 37.21 12,518 14.73 3,957 4.65 1,340 1.57 35,555 41.83 84,995
FY 2017 ceiling[15] 35,000 12,000 4,000 5,000 40,000 14,000 110,000
FY 2017 actual arrivals[16] 20,232 37.66 5,173 9.63 5,205 9.69 1,688 3.14 21,418 39.87 53,716
FY 2018 ceiling[17] 19,000 5,000 2,000 1,500 17,500 45,000
*FY 2018 actual arrivals[18] 10,459 46.50 3,668 16.31 3,612 16.06 955 4.25 3,797 16.88 22,491

A total of 73,293 persons were admitted to the United States as refugees during 2010. The leading countries of nationality for refugee admissions were Iraq (24.6%), Burma (22.8%), Bhutan (16.9%), Somalia (6.7%), Cuba (6.6%), Iran (4.8%), DR Congo (4.3%), Eritrea (3.5%), Vietnam (1.2%) and Ethiopia (0.9%).

Application for resettlement by refugees abroad

The majority of applications for resettlement to the United States are made to U.S. embassies in foreign countries and are reviewed by employees of the State Department. In these cases, refugee status has normally already been reviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and recognized by the host country. For these refugees, the U.S. has stated its preferred order of solutions are: (1) repatriation of refugees to their country of origin, (2) integration of the refugees into their country of asylum and, last, (3) resettlement to a third country, such as the U.S., when the first two options are not viable.[citation needed]

The United States prioritizes valid applications for resettlement into three levels.[citation needed]

Priority One

  • persons facing compelling security concerns in countries of first asylum; persons in need of legal protection because of the danger of refoulement; those in danger due to threats of armed attack in an area where they are located; or persons who have experienced recent persecution because of their political, religious, or human rights activities (prisoners of conscience); women-at-risk; victims of torture or violence, physically or mentally disabled persons; persons in urgent need of medical treatment not available in the first asylum country; and persons for whom other durable solutions are not feasible and whose status in the place of asylum does not present a satisfactory long-term solution. – UNHCR Resettlement Handbook[citation needed]

Priority Two

is composed of groups designated by the U.S. government as being of special concern. These are often identified by an act proposed by a Congressional representative. Priority Two groups proposed for 2008 included:[19]

  • “Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox religious activists in the former Soviet Union, with close family in the United States” (This is the amendment which was proposed by Senator Frank LautenbergDN.J. and originally enacted November 21, 1989.[20])
  • from Cuba: “human rights activists, members of persecuted religious minorities, former political prisoners, forced-labor conscripts (1965-68), persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting from their perceived or actual political or religious beliefs or activities, and persons who have experienced or fear harm because of their relationship – family or social – to someone who falls under one of the preceding categories”[citation needed]
  • from Vietnam: “the remaining active cases eligible under the former Orderly Departure Program (ODP) and Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR) programs”; individuals who, through no fault of their own, were unable to access the ODP program before its cutoff date; and Amerasian citizens, who are counted as refugee admissions[citation needed]
  • individuals who have fled Burma and who are registered in nine refugee camps along the Thai/Burma border and who are identified by UNHCR as in need of resettlement[citation needed]
  • UNHCR-identified Burundian refugees who originally fled Burundi in 1972 and who have no possibility either to settle permanently in Tanzania or return to Burundi[citation needed]
  • Bhutanese refugees in Nepal registered by UNHCR in the recent census and identified as in need of resettlement
  • Iranian members of certain religious minorities[citation needed]
  • Sudanese Darfurians living in a refugee camp in Anbar Governorate in Iraq would be eligible for processing if a suitable location can be identified[citation needed]

Priority Three

is reserved for cases of family reunification, in which a refugee abroad is brought to the United States to be reunited with a close family member who also has refugee status. A list of nationalities eligible for Priority Three consideration is developed annually. The proposed countries for FY2008 were Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, ColombiaCongo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), EritreaEthiopiaHaiti, Iran, Iraq, RwandaSomaliaSudan and Uzbekistan.[19]

Individual application

The minority of applications that are made by individuals who have already entered the U.S. are judged on whether they meet the U.S. definition of “refugee” and on various other statutory criteria (including a number of bars that would prevent an otherwise-eligible refugee from receiving protection). There are two ways to apply for asylum while in the United States:

  • If an asylum seeker has been placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is a part of the Department of Justice, the individual may apply for asylum with the Immigration Judge.
  • If an asylum seeker is inside the United States and has not been placed in removal proceedings, he or she may file an application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), regardless of his or her legal status in the United States. However, if the asylum seeker is not in valid immigration status and USCIS does not grant the asylum application, USCIS may place the applicant in removal proceedings, in that case a judge will consider the application anew. The immigration judge may also consider the applicant for relief that the asylum office has no jurisdiction to grant, such as withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Since the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act passed in 1996, an applicant must apply for asylum within one year[21] of entry or be barred from doing so unless the applicant can establish changed circumstances that are material to his or her eligibility for asylum or exceptional circumstances related to the delay.

Immigrants who were picked up after entering the country between entry points can be released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on payment of a bond, and an immigration judge may lower or waive the bond. In contrast, refugees who asked for asylum at an official point of entry before entering the U.S. cannot be released on bond. Instead, ICE officials have full discretion to decide whether they can be released.[22]

If an applicant is eligible for asylum, they have a procedural right to have the Attorney General make a discretionary determination as to whether the applicant should be admitted into the United States as an asylee. An applicant is also entitled to mandatory “withholding of removal” (or restriction on removal) if the applicant can prove that her life or freedom would be threatened upon return to her country of origin. The dispute in asylum cases litigated before the Executive Office for Immigration Review and, subsequently, the federal courts centers on whether the immigration courts properly rejected the applicant’s claim that she is eligible for asylum or other relief.

The applicant has the burden of proving that he (or she) is eligible for asylum. To satisfy this burden, an applicant must show that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in her home country on account of either race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.[23] The applicant can demonstrate her well-founded fear by demonstrating that she has a subjective fear (or apprehension) of future persecution in her home country that is objectively reasonable. An applicant’s claim for asylum is stronger where she can show past persecution, in which case she will receive a presumption that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in her home country. The government can rebut this presumption by demonstrating either that the applicant can relocate to another area within her home country in order to avoid persecution, or that conditions in the applicant’s home country have changed such that the applicant’s fear of persecution there is no longer objectively reasonable. Technically, an asylum applicant who has suffered past persecution meets the statutory criteria to receive a grant of asylum even if the applicant does not fear future persecution. In practice, adjudicators will typically deny asylum status in the exercise of discretion in such cases, except where the past persecution was so severe as to warrant a humanitarian grant of asylum, or where the applicant would face other serious harm if returned to his or her country of origin. In addition, applicants who, according to the US Government, participated in the persecution of others are not eligible for asylum.[24]

A person may face persecution in his or her home country because of race, nationality, religion, ethnicity, or social group, and yet not be eligible for asylum because of certain bars defined by law. The most frequent bar is the one-year filing deadline. If an application is not submitted within one year following the applicant’s arrival in the United States, the applicant is barred from obtaining asylum unless certain exceptions apply. However, the applicant can be eligible for other forms of relief such as Withholding of Removal, which is a less favorable type of relief than asylum because it does not lead to a Green Card or citizenship. The deadline for submitting the application is not the only restriction that bars one from obtaining asylum. If an applicant persecuted others, committed a serious crime, or represents a risk to U.S. security, he or she will be barred from receiving asylum as well.[25]

  • After 2001, asylum officers and immigration judges became less likely to grant asylum to applicants, presumably because of the attacks on 11 September.[26]

In 1986 an Immigration Judge agreed not to send Fidel Armando-Alfanso back to Cuba, based on his membership in a particular social group (gay people) who were persecuted and feared further persecution by the government of Cuba.[27] The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision in 1990, and in 1994, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered this decision to be a legal precedent binding on Immigration Judges and the Asylum Office, and established sexual orientation as a grounds for asylum.[27][28] However, in 2002 the Board of Immigration Appeals “suggested in an ambiguous and internally inconsistent decision that the ‘protected characteristic’ and ‘social visibility’ tests may represent dual requirements in all social group cases.”[29][30] The requirement for social visibility means that the government of a country from which the person seeking asylum is fleeing must recognize their social group, and that LGBT people who hide their sexual orientation, for example out of fear of persecution, may not be eligible for asylum under this mandate.[30]

In 1996 Fauziya Kasinga, a 19-year-old woman from the Tchamba-Kunsuntu people of Togo, became the first person to be granted asylum in the United States to escape female genital mutilation. In August 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the United States’s highest immigration court, found for the first time that women who are victims of severe domestic violence in their home countries can be eligible for asylum in the United States.[31] However, that ruling was in the case of a woman from Guatemala and was anticipated to only apply to women from there.[31] On June 11, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed that precedent and announced that victims of domestic abuse or gang violence will no longer qualify for asylum.[32]

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca precedent

The term “well-founded fear” has no precise definition in asylum law. In INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca480 U.S. 421 (1987), the Supreme Court avoided attaching a consistent definition to the term, preferring instead to allow the meaning to evolve through case-by-case determinations. However, in Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court did establish that a “well-founded” fear is something less than a “clear probability” that the applicant will suffer persecution. Three years earlier, in INS v. Stevic467 U.S. 407 (1984), the Court held that the clear probability standard applies in proceedings seeking withholding of deportation (now officially referred to as ‘withholding of removal’ or ‘restriction on removal’), because in such cases the Attorney General must allow the applicant to remain in the United States. With respect to asylum, because Congress employed different language in the asylum statute and incorporated the refugee definition from the international Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Court in Cardoza-Fonseca reasoned that the standard for showing a well-founded fear of persecution must necessarily be lower.

An applicant initially presents his claim to an asylum officer, who may either grant asylum or refer the application to an Immigration Judge. If the asylum officer refers the application and the applicant is not legally authorized to remain in the United States, the applicant is placed in removal proceedings. After a hearing, an immigration judge determines whether the applicant is eligible for asylum. The immigration judge’s decision is subject to review on two, and possibly three, levels. First, the immigration judge’s decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In 2002, in order to eliminate the backlog of appeals from immigration judges, the Attorney General streamlined review procedures at the Board of Immigration Appeals. One member of the Board can affirm a decision of an immigration judge without oral argument; traditional review by three-judge panels is restricted to limited categories for which “searching appellate review” is appropriate. If the BIA affirms the decision of the immigration court, then the next level of review is a petition for review in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the immigration judge sits. The court of appeals reviews the case to determine if “substantial evidence” supports the immigration judge’s (or the BIA’s) decision. As the Supreme Court held in INS v. Ventura537 U.S.12 (2002), if the federal appeals court determines that substantial evidence does not support the immigration judge’s decision, it must remand the case to the BIA for further proceedings instead of deciding the unresolved legal issue in the first instance. Finally, an applicant aggrieved by a decision of the federal appeals court can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case by a discretionary writ of certiorari. But the Supreme Court has no duty to review an immigration case, and so many applicants for asylum forego this final step.

Notwithstanding his statutory eligibility, an applicant for asylum will be deemed ineligible if:

  1. the applicant participated in persecuting any other person on account of that other person’s race, religion, national origin, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;
  2. the applicant constitutes a danger to the community because he has been convicted in the United States of a particularly serious crime;
  3. the applicant has committed a serious non-political crime outside the United States prior to arrival;
  4. the applicant constitutes a danger to the security of the United States;
  5. the applicant is inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds;
  6. the applicant has been firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States; or
  7. the applicant has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined more broadly in the immigration context.

Conversely, even if an applicant is eligible for asylum, the Attorney General may decline to extend that protection to the applicant. (The Attorney General does not have this discretion if the applicant has also been granted withholding of deportation.) Frequently the Attorney General will decline to extend an applicant the protection of asylum if he has abused or circumvented the legal procedures for entering the United States and making an asylum claim.

Work permit and permanent residence status

An in-country applicant for asylum is eligible for a work permit (employment authorization) only if his or her application for asylum has been pending for more than 150 days without decision by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. If an asylum seeker is recognized as a refugee, he or she may apply for lawful permanent residence status (a green card) one year after being granted asylum. Asylum seekers generally do not receive economic support. This, combined with a period where the asylum seeker is ineligible for a work permit is unique among developed countries and has been condemned from some organisations, including Human Rights Watch.[33]

Up until 2004, recipients of asylee status faced a wait of approximately fourteen years to receive permanent resident status after receiving their initial status, because of an annual cap of 10,000 green cards for this class of individuals. However, in May 2005, under the terms of a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit, Ngwanyia v. Gonzales, brought on behalf of asylees against CIS, the government agreed to make available an additional 31,000 green cards for asylees during the period ending on September 30, 2007. This is in addition to the 10,000 green cards allocated for each year until then and was meant to speed up the green card waiting time considerably for asylees. However, the issue was rendered somewhat moot by the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of United States Public Law 109-13 (H.R. 1268)), which eliminated the cap on annual asylee green cards. Currently, an asylee who has continuously resided in the US for more than one year in that status has an immediately available visa number.

Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program

An Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM) is any person who has not attained 18 years of age who entered the United States unaccompanied by and not destined to: (a) a parent, (b) a close non-parental adult relative who is willing and able to care for said minor, or (c) an adult with a clear and court-verifiable claim to custody of the minor; and who has no parent(s) in the United States.[34] These minors are eligible for entry into the URM program. Trafficking victims who have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and/or the United States Department of State are also eligible for benefits and services under this program to the same extent as refugees.

The URM program is coordinated by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a branch of the United States Administration for Children and Families. The mission of the URM program is to help people in need “develop appropriate skills to enter adulthood and to achieve social self-sufficiency.” To do this, URM provides refugee minors with the same social services available to U.S.-born children, including, but not limited to, housing, food, clothing, medical care, educational support, counseling, and support for social integration.[35]

History of the URM Program

URM was established in 1980 as a result of the legislative branch’s enactment of the Refugee Act that same year.[36] Initially, it was developed to “address the needs of thousands of children in Southeast Asia” who were displaced due to civil unrest and economic problems resulting from the aftermath of the Vietnam War, which had ended only five years earlier.[35] Coordinating with the United Nations and “utilizing an executive order to raise immigration quotas, President Carter doubled the number of Southeast Asian refugees allowed into the United States each month.”[37] The URM was established, in part, to deal with the influx of refugee children.

URM was established in 1980, but the emergence of refugee minors as an issue in the United States “dates back to at least WWII.”[36] Since that time, oppressive regimes and U.S. military involvement have consistently “contributed to both the creation of a notable supply of unaccompanied refugee children eligible to relocate to the United States, as well as a growth in public pressure on the federal government to provide assistance to these children.”[36]

Since 1980, the demographic makeup of children within URM has shifted from being largely Southeast Asian to being much more diverse. Between 1999 and 2005, children from 36 different countries were inducted into the program.[36] Over half of the children who entered the program within this same time period came from Sudan, and less than 10% came from Southeast Asia.[36]

Perhaps the most commonly known group to enter the United States through the URM program was known as the “Lost Boys” of Sudan. Their story was made into a documentary by Megan Mylan and Jon Shenk. The film, Lost Boys of Sudan, follows two Sudanese refugees on their journey from Africa to America. It won an Independent Spirit Award and earned two national Emmy nominations.[38]

Functionality

In terms of functionality, the URM program is considered a state-administered program. The U.S. federal government provides funds to certain states that administer the URM program, typically through a state refugee coordinator’s office. The state refugee coordinator provides financial and programmatic oversight to the URM programs in his or her state. The state refugee coordinator ensures that unaccompanied minors in URM programs receive the same benefits and services as other children in out-of-home care in the state. The state refugee coordinator also oversees the needs of unaccompanied minors with many other stakeholders.[39]

ORR contracts with two faith-based agencies to manage the URM program in the United States; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)[40] and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). These agencies identify eligible children in need of URM services; determine appropriate placements for children among their national networks of affiliated agencies; and conduct training, research and technical assistance on URM services. They also provide the social services such as: indirect financial support for housing, food, clothing, medical care and other necessities; intensive case management by social workers; independent living skills training; educational supports; English language training; career/college counseling and training; mental health services; assistance adjusting immigration status; cultural activities; recreational opportunities; support for social integration; and cultural and religious preservation.[41]

The URM services provided through these contracts are not available in all areas of the United States. The 14 states that participate in the URM program include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and the nation’s capital, Washington D.C.[41]

Adoption of URM Children

Although they are in the United States without the protection of their family, URM-designated children are not generally eligible for adoption. This is due in part to the Hague Convention on the Protection and Co-Operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption, otherwise known as the Hague Convention. Created in 1993, the Hague Convention established international standards for inter-country adoption.[42] In order to protect against the abduction, sale or trafficking of children, these standards protect the rights of the biological parents of all children. Children in the URM program have become separated from their biological parents and the ability to find and gain parental release of URM children is often extremely difficult. Most children, therefore, are not adopted. They are served primarily through the foster care system of the participating states. Most will be in the custody of the state (typically living with a foster family) until they become adults. Reunification with the child’s family is encouraged whenever possible.

U.S. government support after arrival

As soon as people seeking asylum in the United States are accepted as refugees they are eligible for public assistance just like any other person, including cash welfare, food assistance, and health coverage. Many refugees depend on public benefits, but over time may become self-sufficient.[43]

Availability of public assistance programs can vary depending on which states within the United States refugees are allocated to resettle in. For example, health policies differ from state to state, and as of 2017, only 33 states expanded Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act.[44] In 2016, The American Journal of Public Health reported that only 60% of refugees are assigned to resettlement locations with expanding Medicaid programs, meaning that more than 1 in 3 refugees may have limited healthcare access.[45]

In 2015, the world saw the greatest displacement of people since World War II with 65.3 million people having to flee their homes.[46] In fiscal year 2016, the Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act (MRA) requested that $442.7 million be allocated to refugee admission programs that relocate refugees into communities across the country.[47] President Obama made a “Call to Action” for the private sector to make a commitment to help refugees by providing opportunities for jobs and accommodating refugee accessibility needs.[48]

Child separation

The recent U.S. Government policy known as “Zero-tolerance” was implemented in April 2018.[49] In response, a number of scientific organizations released statements on the negative impact of child separation, a form of childhood trauma, on child development, including the American Psychiatric Association,[50] the American Psychological Association,[51] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[52] the American Medical Association,[53] and the Society for Research in Child Development.[54]

Efforts are underway to minimize the impact of child separation. For instance, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network released a resource guide and held a webinar related to traumatic separation and refugee and immigrant trauma.

LGBTQ asylum seekers

Historically, homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior in the US, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 barred homosexual individuals from entering the United States due to concerns about their psychological health.[55] One of the first successful LGBTasylum pleas to be granted refugee status in the United States due to sexual orientation was a Cuban national whose case was first presented in 1989.[56] The case was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the barring of LGBT and queer individuals into the United States was repealed in 1990. The case, known as Matter of Acosta (1985), set the standard of what qualified as a “particular social group.” This new definition of “social group” expanded to explicitly include homosexuality and the LGBT population. It considers homosexuality and gender identity a “common characteristic of the group either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.”[57] This allows political asylum to some LGBT individuals who face potential criminal penalties due to homosexuality and sodomy being illegal in the home country who are unable to seek protection from the state.[58][59] The definition was intended to be open-ended in order to fit with the changing understanding of sexuality. According to Fatma Marouf, the definition established in Acosta was influential internationally, appealing to “the fundamental norms of human rights.”[60]

Experts disagree on the role of sexuality in the asylum process. Stefan Volger argues that the definition of social group tends to be relatively flexible, and describes sexuality akin to religion—one might change religions but characteristics of religion are protected traits that can’t be forced.[57][60] However, Susan Berger argues that while homosexuality and other sexual minorities might be protected under the law, the burden of proving that they are an LGBT member demonstrates a greater immutable view of the expected LGBT performance.[61] The importance of visibility is stressed throughout the asylum process, as sexuality is an internal characteristic. It is not visibly represented in the outside appearance.[60]

When considering how sexuality is viewed, research utilize asylum claim decisions and individual cases to understand what is considered characteristic of being a member of the LGBT community. In migration studies, there was an implicit assumption that immigrants are heterosexual and queers are citizens.[62]

One theory that took route within the queer migrations studies was Jasbir Puar‘s idea of homonationalism. According to Paur, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the movement against terrorists also resulted in a reinforcement of the binary “us vs. them” against some members of the LGBT community. The social landscape was termed “homonormative nationalism” or homonationalism.[63]

Obstacles asylum seekers face

Gender

Female asylum seekers may encounter issues when seeking asylum in the United States due to what some see as a structural preference for male narrative forms in the requirements for acceptance.[61] Researchers, such as Amy Shuman and Carol Bohmer, argue that the asylum process produces gendered cultural silences, particular in hearings where the majority of narrative construction takes place.[64] Cultural silences refers to things that women refrain from sharing, due to shame, humiliation, and other deterrents.[64] These deterrents can make achieving asylum more difficult as it can keep relevant information from being shared with the asylum judge.[64]

Susan Berger argues that the relationship between gender and sexuality leads to arbitrary case decisions, as there are no clear guidelines for when the private problems becomes an international problem. Berger uses case specific examples of asylum applications where gender and sexuality both act as an immutable characteristic. She argues that because male persecutors of lesbian and heterosexual female applicants tend to be family members, their harm occurs in the private domain and is therefore excluded from asylum consideration. Male applicants, on the other hand, are more likely to experience targeted, public persecution that relates better to the traditional idea of a homosexual asylum seeker. Male applicants are encouraged to perform gay stereotypes to strengthen their asylum application on the basis of sexual orientation, while lesbian women face the same difficulties as their heterosexual partners to perform the homosexual narrative.[61] Joe Rollins found that gay male applicants were more likely to be granted refugee status if they included rape in their narratives, while gay Asian immigrants were less likely to be granted refugee status over all, even with the inclusion of rape.[65] This, he claimed, was due to Asian men being subconsciously feminized.[65]

These experiences are articulated during the hearing process where the responsibility to prove membership is on the applicant.[61][64][57] During the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate persecution for gender or sexuality and place the source as their own culture. Shuman and Bohmer argue that in sexual minorities, it is not enough to demonstrate only violence, asylum applicants have to align themselves against a restrictive culture. The narratives are forced to fit into categories shaped by western culture or be found to be fraudulent.[64]

Mexican Transgender Asylum Seeker

LGBT individuals have a higher risk for mental health problems when compared to cis-gender counterparts and many transgender individuals face socioeconomic difficulties in addition to being an asylum seeker. In a study conducted by Mary Gowin, E. Laurette Taylor, Jamie Dunnington, Ghadah Alshuwaiyer, and Marshall K. Cheney of Mexican Transgender Asylum Seekers, they found 5 major stressors among the participants including assault (verbal, physical and sexual), “unstable environments, fear for safety and security, hiding undocumented status, and economic insecurity.”[66] They also found that all of the asylum seekers who participated reported at least one health issue that could be attributed to the stressors. They accessed little or no use of health or social services, attributed to barriers to access, such as fear of the government, language barriers and transportation.[66] They are also more likely to report lower levels of education due to few opportunities after entering the United States. Many of the asylum seeker participants entered the United States as undocumented immigrants. Obstacles to legal services included fear and knowledge that there were legal resources to gaining asylum.[66]

Human Rights Activism

Human Rights and LGBT advocates have worked to create many improvements to the LGBT Asylum Seekers coming into the United States.[67] A 2015 report issued by the LGBT Freedom and Asylum network identifies best practices for supporting LGBT asylum seekers in the US.[68] The US State Department has also issued a factsheet on protecting LGBT refugees.[69]

Film

The 2000 documentary film Well-Founded Fear, from filmmakers Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini marked the first time that a film crew was privy to the private proceedings at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), where individual asylum officers ponder the often life-or-death fate of the majority of immigrants seeking asylum. The film analyzes the US asylum application process by following several asylum applicants and asylum officers.

See also

Sources

  • David Weissbrodt and Laura Danielson, Immigration Law and Procedure, 5th ed., West Group Publishing, 2005, ISBN 0-314-15416-7

Notes and references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

Story 4: Europe Must Stop Migration Into Europe —  Videos

Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power

A Nation of Immigrants

The Suicide of Europe

Refugee Crisis Escalates in Europe as Some Countries Fight Back

Did Hillary Clinton Just Go Full Steve Bannon?

Is Clinton’s stance on immigration in Europe hypocritical?

Hillary Clinton Calls on Europe To END Mass Immigration

Ann Coulter: Trump doesn’t need Congress to build the wall

Israel extends its high-tech barriers I FT World

Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists

When will President Trump get the border wall built?

Home secretary visits first completed section of Trump’s border wall

New Border wall construction zone Santa Teresa New Mexico 2018

US-Mexico border wall

Europe and centre left everywhere need tougher approach to phenomenon that fuelled Trump and Brexit, says Clinton

Hillary Clinton
 Hillary Clinton, a former US presidential candidate, suggests immigration contributed to Brexit and Donald Trump’s election. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

Europe must get a handle on immigration to combat a growing threat from rightwing populists, Hillary Clinton has said, calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are “not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support”.

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Democratic presidential candidate praised the generosity shown by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but suggested immigration was inflaming voters and contributed to the election of Donald Trump and Britain’s vote to leave the EU.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.

“I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/embed/article-embeds/populism/embed.html

Clinton’s remarks are likely to prove controversial across Europe, which has struggled to form a unified position ever since more than 1 million migrants and refugees arrived in the EU in 2015.

While some countries who have borne the brunt, such as Germany, Italy and Greece, have argued for the burden to be shared more evenly, some, particularly in central and eastern Europe, have rejected demands to take in refugees.

Migration numbers have fallen sharply since 2015, while a series of initiatives have been tabled, from a 10,000-member European border and coastguard agency to an overhaul of EU asylum procedures.

Clinton was one of three heavyweights of the centre-left interviewed by the Guardian to better understand why their brand of politics appears to be failing. All three have seen their countries upended by political events that to some degree can be explained by the success of rightwing populism.

The other two interviewees, Tony Blair and Matteo Renzi, agreed that the migration issue had posed significant problems for centrist politics.

“You’ve got to deal with the legitimate grievances and answer them, which is why today in Europe you cannot possibly stand for election unless you’ve got a strong position on immigration because people are worried about it,” Blair said. “You’ve got to answer those problems. If you don’t answer them then … you leave a large space into which the populists can march.”

Clinton urged forces opposed to rightwing populism in Europe and the US not to neglect the concerns about race and identity issues that she says were behind her losing key votes in 2016. She accused Trump of exploiting the issue in the election contest – and in office.

“The use of immigrants as a political device and as a symbol of government gone wrong, of attacks on one’s heritage, one’s identity, one’s national unity has been very much exploited by the current administration here,” she said.

“There are solutions to migration that do not require clamping down on the press, on your political opponents and trying to suborn the judiciary, or seeking financial and political help from Russia to support your political parties and movements.”

Brexit, described by Clinton as the biggest act of national economic self-harm in modern history, “was largely about immigration”, she said.

Matteo Renzi
Pinterest
 Matteo Renzi, who was Italian PM from 2014-16. Photograph: Pacific/Rex/Shutterstock

Clinton, Blair and Renzi all said rightwing populism had not just fed off issues of identity but was also driven by a disruptive way of conducting politics that dramatises divisions and uses a rhetoric of crisis. The centre left struggles to get its voice heard over the simplistic, emotional language used against it, they said.

Blair said populism would continue to rise until mainstream parties found a way to cut through the reductive soundbites that populists deploy so effectively.

“I don’t think it’s reached its peak,” he said, when asked about the electoral success of populists globally. “I think it will peak, in my view, when the centre ground recovers its mojo and has a strong forward agenda.”

“A significant part of the problem here is people’s desire for a leader that is going to just push through change without regard to political pressures, you know, that ‘getting things done’ mentality.”

Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met “a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

“The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality.

“I don’t know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it’s a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we’ve got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it.”

She also reveals her contempt for Steve Bannon, whose attempt to bolster rightwing populist parties in Europe is stalling everywhere outside of Italy. “Rome is the right place for him since it is bread and circuses and it’s as old as recorded history. Keep people diverted, keep them riled up appeal to their prejudices, give them a sense they are part of something bigger than themselves – while elected leaders and business leaders steal them blind. It’s a classic story and Bannon is the latest avatar of it.”

Renzi bemoaned a generational shift that he said had elevated hate and confrontation over admiration and respect. “There is a climate of hate that has come from the Five Star Movement and the League,” he said of his political opponents in Italy. “This is the problem of the new generation – they are educated to hate and to envy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/hillary-clinton-europe-must-curb-immigration-stop-populists-trump-brexit

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1179

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

&nbsp

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1170, November 7, 2018, Story 1: The Big Winner Is President Donald J. Trump — Senators: Republicans 55 — Democrats 45, Representatives: Republicans 197 — Democrat — 238 — No Wave But Blue Ripple — Videos — Story 2: President Trump’s Reaction To Election Results — Trump Puts Progressive Press In Its’ Place — Sit Down — Videos — Story 3: President Trump Fires  Attorney General Jeff Sessions By Accepting His Requested Letter of Resignation — Second Special Counsel To Investigate and Prosecute Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy? — The 2020 Presidential Election Begins –Videos

Posted on November 7, 2018. Filed under: 2018 United States Elections, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, James Comey, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Social Networking, Social Science, Social Security, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1166 October 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1165 October 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1164 October 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

Story 1: The Big Winner Is President Donald J. Trump — Senators: Republicans 55 — Democrats 45, Representatives: Republicans 201 — Democrats — 234 — No Blue Wave But Blue Ripple — Videos —

Midterm election 2018: The biggest winners

Republicans, Democrats weigh in on midterm election results

Trump will help Republicans win midterm elections: Rep. Biggs

Story 2: President Trump’s Reaction To Election Results — Videos —

See the source image

 

Trump press conference following midterm elections

Trump holds press conference after mixed night at midterms

Donald Trump: 50 supporters explain why they love him – BBC News

A look at potential 2020 contenders

‘Sit down, you’re very rude, you’re fake news!’ President Trump’s extraordinary confrontation with CNN reporter as his aide wrestles for the microphone and he takes credit for mid-terms ‘victory’

  • Democrats took control of the House of Representatives during the US mid-terms in a blow to Donald Trump 
  • Party vowed to frustrate his populist political agenda while launching investigations into his administration
  • But Republicans are set to increase their majority in the Senate, providing the President with a partial victory
  • Trump hailed a ‘big win’ for his party and those who backed his pro-business, anti-illegal immigration agenda 
  • He also threatened to go to war in the Capitol if Democrats try to launch investigations into his administration

Donald Trump hailed ‘a historic day’ for Republicans in the American mid-term elections and became embroiled in an extraordinary confrontation with a CNN reporter at his press conference today.

Democrats won back control of the House of Representatives, and are projected to win 238 seats to the Republicans 197 seats – with Republicans projected to retain control of the Senate and increase their majority to 54 seats.

At the press conference President Trump took credit for victory, then when taking questions from the media, got into a furious row with CNN reporter Jim Acosta who challenged his characterisation of migrants heading for the US border in a ‘caravan’ from Central America as ‘an invasion.’

A riled President Trump points and admonishes CNN reporter Jim Acosta in a tense argument between the two at his press conference today. The duo often clash during the President's briefings at the White House

President Trump denied using a migrant caravan making its way to the US border through Mexico to whip up fear ahead of Tuesday’s election to win votes, and then went on to admonish Acosta

Acosta attempted to ask a further question that was denied to him before him and a White House Aide then got into a strange fight over the microphone.

The reporter attempted to ask a question about whether President Trump was ‘concerned about the investigation into Russia’, with a quick riposte coming from Trump who said the investigation was a ‘hoax.’

The President added: ‘CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a very rude ..terrible person.. the way you treat Sarah Huckabee is…’

The room went temporarily silent before another question from a reporter was taken who defended Acosta describing him as ‘diligent’.

President Trump shot back at the reporter he ‘wasn’t a big fan of his either’ to laughter from the room, before Acosta stood up again and started talking to the President.

Trump said ‘just sit down please’ and then accused Acosta of reporting ‘fake news’ and branded him ‘an enemy of the people.’

A White House aide takes the microphone from Jim Acosta as he attempts to ask a further question to President Trump. The reporter managed to ask a further question about Russia that President Trump rebutted saying the investigation was a 'hoax'

A White House aide takes the microphone from Jim Acosta as he attempts to ask a further question to President Trump. The reporter managed to ask a further question about Russia that President Trump rebutted saying the investigation was a ‘hoax’

At the start of the news conference President Trump claimed the largest Senate gains for a President’s first midterms since President Kennedy in 1962.

He said: ‘We saw the group of candidates I supported achieve tremendous success last night.’

The President said he they had a ‘big day yesterday, an incredible day and last night the Republican party defied history to expand our Senate.’

They managed this despite being ‘getting bombarded with money on the other side’ and ‘a very hostile media coverage to put it mildly,’ he added – ‘it set a new standard.’

Donald Trump hailed a 'Big Win' for Republicans in the mid-term elections on Tuesday after the party increased its majority in the Senate, marking the first time since 2002 that a ruling party has picked up seats in the upper house of government

Donald Trump hailed a ‘Big Win’ for Republicans in the mid-term elections on Tuesday after the party increased its majority in the Senate, marking the first time since 2002 that a ruling party has picked up seats in the upper house of government

Trump said he had made history in raising the number of Senators to 55, ‘the largest number of Republican Senators for the last 100 years.’

Responding to Democrats threats over claims of Russian election tampering, Trump said ‘It’s been a long time they’ve got nothing.’

He continued, ‘They can play that game but we can play it better because we’ve got the Unites States Senate.’

He was also critical of some Republican candidates who did not accept his ’embrace.’

‘Those are some of the people that decided for their own reasons – whether its me or what we stand for, but what we stand for meant a lot to most people and we have had tremendous support of the Republican party – at 93% its a record.’ Trump said.

 There may be some room, however, for Trump and Democrats to work together on issues with bipartisan support such as a package to improve infrastructure or protections against prescription drug price increases.

‘It really could be a beautiful bipartisan situation,’ Trump said.

He said Nancy Pelosi, who may be the next speaker of the House, had expressed to him in a phone call a desire to work together. But Trump doubted there would be much common ground if Democrats press investigations.

‘You can’t do it simultaneously,’ he said.

He also said he hopes he can work with Congress to get enough money to build his long-promised border wall but that he would not necessarily force a government shutdown over the issue.

‘We need the money to build the wall, the whole wall, not pieces of it,’

‘We need the wall, many Democrats know we need the wall, and we’re just going to have to see what happens.’

Republicans are forecast to hold 54 out of 100 seats in the Senate once all votes are counted, up from 51, while the Democrats are projected to take 238 seats in the House of Representatives, with 218 needed for a majority.

Trump used the result – the first time since 2002 that the ruling party has gained Senate seats – to congratulate himself, saying: ‘Yesterday was such a very Big Win, and all under the pressure of a Nasty and Hostile Media!’

Despite the Democrats making gains, Tuesday failed to live up to expectations that a ‘blue wave’ of support would sweep them into power in both houses and leave Trump as a lame duck.

But winning the House does give Democrats the ability to block Republican legislation they disagree with, frustrating Trump’s political agenda for the remaining two years of his term.

They also win control of several powerful committees which they have pledged to use to launch investigations into Trump, including subpoenaing tax records he refused to release during the 2016 election and probing whether he has received money from Russia.

Trump preempted that tactic on Wednesday, vowing to go to war on Capitol Hill if necessary.

He said: ‘If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!’

The President used the victory to attack critics within his own party, saying that those who supported his pro-business, anti-illegal immigration policies 'did very well'

The President used the victory to attack critics within his own party, saying that those who supported his pro-business, anti-illegal immigration policies ‘did very well’

As well as gaining the House, Democrats gained control of powerful committees which they plan to use to investigate Trump. But he preempted that tactic on Wednesday, vowing to fight fire with fire 

As well as gaining the House, Democrats gained control of powerful committees which they plan to use to investigate Trump. But he preempted that tactic on Wednesday, vowing to fight fire with fire

The Democrats are on course to win 238 seats in the House following the mid-term elections on Tuesday, though the figure falls short of the upper limit of 245 that they hoped to win

Republicans clung on to power in the Senate after the Democrats were defeated in key battleground states of Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and North Dakota

Nancy Pelosi, who could return as Democrat House Speaker after last night's result, proclaimed victory and said the party would work to impose Constitutional checks and balances on Donald Trump 

Trump tweeted out his support for Pelosi after she said the Democrats would work with Republicans in the House 'where we can find common ground'

Trump tweeted out his support for Pelosi after she said the Democrats would work with Republicans in the House ‘where we can find common ground’

Nancy Pelosi thanks candidates for returning House to Dems

Should any of these bills pass both houses and make it to Trump’s desk, it could force him to veto the legislation, something he hasn’t had to do so far and allowing Democrats to paint him as the bad guy.

But maintaining control of the Senate allows Trump to nominate justices and recruit members of his cabinet unopposed, and puts a stop to any hopes the Democrats may have had of impeaching him.

The result also helps silence Trump’s critics within his own party, a fact he seemed very aware of when he tweeted: ‘Those that worked with me in this incredible Midterm Election, embracing certain policies and principles, did very well. Those that did not, say goodbye!’

The omens are not all bad for Trump’s hopes of winning a second term in 2020 either. Obama lost the House and Senate in the 2010 mid-terms, which he described as a ‘shellacking’, but went on to win a second term in 2012.

Nancy Pelosi, former Democrat Speaker in the House, hailed the victory early Wednesday, vowing to apply ‘checks and balances’ to Trump’s power, but also saying Democrats would cooperate with Republicans where possible.

The Democrats also made gains in the elections for state governors – which act like lesser Presidents for the state they represent – gaining seven seats from the Republicans.

However, high-profile candidates Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams fell short in Florida and Georgia, leaving the Republicans with a majority of governors nationwide.

Gillum was hoping to become the first black governor of Florida, while in Georgia Stacey Abrams was aiming to enter history as America’s first female black governor.

Gillum finished less than a percent shy of Republican rival Ron DeSantis, while Abrams finished two per cent short of Brian Kemp. However, Abrams was refusing to concede on Wednesday, in the hopes that a recount could force another contest in December.

Encouragingly for the Democrats, they won governor’s races in states where Trump claimed victory in 2016, and while facing down candidates the President had endorsed.

In Kansas, Laura Kelly triumphed by a four-point margin over Kris Kobach – a strong ally of Trump’s immigration policies – while in Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer opened up an eight-point lead over Republican Bill Schuette.

Taylor Swift’s intervention also flopped as Marsha Blackburn won the Senate in Tennessee by 11 points over Democrat candidate Phil Bredesen, who the singer backed.

Trump called the night a 'tremendous success' for Republicans on Twitter because the incumbent party typically loses seats during the mid-terms, while he managed to make gains in the senate

Trump called the night a ‘tremendous success’ for Republicans on Twitter because the incumbent party typically loses seats during the mid-terms, while he managed to make gains in the senate

The President also praised himself as a ‘magic man’, quoting from TV news reports that said the Republicans were ‘lucky’ to have him as their leader

One key Senate battleground was Texas, which had been widely seen as a safe seat for Republican Ted Cruz (pictured) until Beto O'Rourke emerged from obscurity to take him on

One key Senate battleground was Texas, which had been widely seen as a safe seat for Republican Ted Cruz (pictured) until Beto O’Rourke emerged from obscurity to take him on

Ultimately Beto (pictured alongside wife Amy Sanders) fell short of victory, though many have pegged him as a rising star within the Democrat part

Ultimately Beto (pictured alongside wife Amy Sanders) fell short of victory, though many have pegged him as a rising star within the Democrat part

I’m so f***ing proud of you! Beto drops F-bomb after defeat
Ted Cruz supporter Marie Rice sheds tears of joy as Cruz declares victory at their election night headquarters

Ted Cruz supporter Marie Rice sheds tears of joy as Cruz declares victory at their election night headquarters

While the Democrats’ grass-roots organisation allowed them to seize the House, Trump’s showmanship and personality thwarted them in key Senate battleground states of Indiana, Missouri, and Tennessee – where he held rallies in the closing days of the election.

WHY IS LOSING THE HOUSE SIGNIFICANT?

Losing the House of Representatives will make it more difficult for Trump to govern by making it harder for Republicans to pass laws.

Laws start their life as bills submitted in either the House of Representatives – often shortened to House – or Senate, which makes up the legislative branch of the US government.

Bills must pass a vote in both of those houses before they can become law, giving the Democrats an opportunity to thwart bills they disagree with.

Holding the House also gives Democrats the opportunity to introduce bills on subjects the Republicans would rather not discuss – such as gun control, the environment, or healthcare – and force a debate.

Finally, the House includes several powerful committees which the Democrats now control and could use to probe Trump’s misdeeds.

Russian election meddling, Trump’s tax returns, and security clearances granted to members of the Trump clan could all come under scrutiny.

If a Democrat bill does make it through both the House and Senate it will land with the executive branch – which Trump leads – for approval.

This could force Trump into vetoing legislation he disagrees with, which is something he has not had to do so far.

However, maintaining control of the Senate allows Republicans to hold sway over the third branch of government – the judiciary – which is responsible for enforcing these laws.

The President is responsible for appointing justices, but they must be confirmed by Senators, which is why keeping control here was a key goal.

Senators are also responsible for confirming nominations to Trump’s cabinet, which he will also keep control of after Tuesday.

One of the most bitter defeats for the Democrats came in Texas, where rising star Beto O’Rourke was defeated by incumbent Ted Cruz – a onetime foe of Trump who has since warmed to him – though the contest was closer than anticipated.

In Arizona, Republican Martha McSally looked set to triumph over Kyrsten Sinema as counting stopped early on Wednesday, though the result might not be announced until later in the week.

The seat was left vacant after Jeff Flake, a Republican critic of Trump, announced he was retiring from politics.

Clare McCaskill, a moderate Democrat senator for Missouri, was handed a thumping defeat on Tuesday by Josh Hawley, a Republican who has allied himself to Trump, who won by more than 10 percentage points.

As the dust settled on Wednesday, Democrats standing ready to return next year as chairmen of House Oversight and Judiciary Committees were sharpening their pens and preparing to drag Trump through his own swamp.

 ‘We probably will’ seek Trump’s tax returns, said Reps. Elijah Cummings and Jerrold Nadler.

As Tuesday headed to Wednesday, presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway told reporters at the White House: ‘I guess they could try.’

‘I don’t know that there will be much of an appetite … for their members to be spending all of their time, or even most of their time, or a fraction of their time investigating, instigating, trying to impeach or subpoena people,’ Conway said.

Nadler said it was ‘way too early’ to talk about impeaching Trump, but wouldn’t rule it out depending on the results of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s expansive Russia probe.

‘He’s going to learn that he’s not above the law,’ he said, according to CNN.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters that ‘the president’s agenda isn’t going to change regardless of whose party is there.’

Democrats will also find themselves empowered to launch probes into voting-rights matters and questions about whether Trump has violated the Constitution’s ‘Emoluments Clause’ that prohibits presidents from receiving income from foreign governments.

Security clearances in the Trump White House could also come under close examination, along with prescription drug prices, family separations along the U.S.-Mexico border, gun control and insurance coverage for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions.

As results rolled in from around the country, the Democrats made gains in suburban areas outside of Washington, Philadelphia, Miami, Chicago and Denver that fell to Trump in 2016.

In Florida, Trump's adopted home state, Ron DeSantis won the race to become state governor, defeating rival Andrew Gillum

Gillum said he regretting not being able to 'bring it home' in Florida after he lost the election with 49 per cent to 50 per cent

Gillum said he regretting not being able to ‘bring it home’ in Florida after he lost the election with 49 per cent to 50 per cent

Speaking alongside his tearful wife, Gillum urged Democrats not to give up the fight in Florida, which was a key battleground state in 2016 that ultimately went to Trump

Speaking alongside his tearful wife, Gillum urged Democrats not to give up the fight in Florida, which was a key battleground state in 2016 that ultimately went to Trump

Blackburn (above) shook off Swift's foray into politics to win election Tuesday night
Swift said she got involved in politics for women's issues and LBGT issues

Republican Marsha Blackburn (left) claimed victory in Tennessee despite an unexpected intervention by pop princess Taylor Swift (right), who urged people to vote for her Democrat rival Phil Bredesen

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin who ran for President against Trump in 2016 (pictured), lost his race against Democrat Tony EversScott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin who ran for President against Trump in 2016 (pictured), lost his race against Democrat Tony Evers
Marsha Blackburn defeats Bredesen in Tennessee’s senate race

But Trump tightened his grip on support in rural areas and among blue-collar workers. In Kentucky, one of the top Democratic recruits, retired Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath, lost her bid to oust to three-term Rep. Andy Barr.

History was working against the president in the Senate: 2002 was the only midterm election in the past three decades when the party holding the White House gained Senate seats.

As the news broke that the Republicans had achieved just that, Trump began retweeting quotes from later night news bulletins praising himself as a ‘magic man’.

Whether voters opposed or supported him, Trump certainly electrified the mid-term contest, which has been a lackluster event under previous administrations with voter turnout struggling to hit 40 per cent.

High turnouts were recorded across the nation on Tuesday following record spending on advertising. Two thirds of those who voted said that Trump was the reason they cast their ballot, either to support or oppose him.

Overall, 6 in 10 voters said the country was headed in the wrong direction, but roughly that same number described the national economy as excellent or good.

 Twenty-five percent described health care and immigration as the most important issues in the election.

Claire McCaskill (left), the incumbent Democrat in Missouri, lost her Senate seat to Republican challenger Josh Hawley, who attacked her for refusing to nominate Trump’s two Supreme Court picks

Stacey Abrams, who was bidding to become the first female African American governor in American history, has refused to concede a closely-fought contest in Georgia 

Abrams’s supporters cheer after learning she was making up ground on opponent Brian Kemp, though the election was still too close to call on Wednesday morning

The night was a record-breaker for women, who now hold more seats in the House than at any point in history. Among them is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 29-year-old Democrat who has come to embody what Trump brands the 'far left'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beats Republican Anthony Pappas

Trump encouraged voters to view the first nationwide election of his presidency as a referendum on his leadership, pointing proudly to the surging economy at recent rallies.

He bet big on a xenophobic closing message, warning of an immigrant ‘invasion’ that promised to spread violent crime and drugs across the nation. Several television networks, including the president’s favorite Fox News Channel, yanked a Trump campaign advertisement off the air on the eve of the election, determining that its portrayal of a murderous immigrant went too far.

The president’s current job approval, set at 40 percent by Gallup, was the lowest at this point of any first-term president in the modern era. Both Barack Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s numbers were 5 points higher, and both suffered major midterm losses of 63 and 54 House seats respectively.

Democrats, whose very relevance in the Trump era depended on winning at least one chamber of Congress, were laser-focused on health care as they predicted victories that would break up the GOP’s monopoly in Washington and state governments.

Yet Trump’s party will maintain Senate control for the next two years, at least.

In Texas, Sen Ted Cruz staved off a tough challenge from Democrat Beto O’Rourke, whose record-smashing fundraising and celebrity have set off buzz he could be a credible 2020 White House contender.

In Indiana, Trump-backed businessman Mike Braun defeated Democratic incumbent Joe Donnelly. In Missouri, Josh Hawley knocked off Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. And in Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn defeated former Gov. Phil Bredesen, a top Democratic recruit.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said that Trump has no plans to alter his political agenda despite losing the House to the Democrats

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said that Trump has no plans to alter his political agenda despite losing the House to the Democrats

Democrat voters in Georgia learn that Stacey Abrams is trailing her Republican opponent, though she has refused to concede

Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, cheers as she declares victory in the governor's race in Detroit, Michigan, one of the areas which was key to Trump's victory in 2016 
Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, cheers as she declares victory in the governor’s race in Detroit, Michigan, one of the areas which was key to Trump’s victory in 2016

A Democrat supporter puts her head in her hands as she learns that Republicans are projected to hold the Senate

What are the mid-terms and why do they matter?

Mid-term elections come mid-way through a President’s term in office, and typically serve as a referendum on their work so far while shaping how the rest of their term will play out.

The office of President is not on the ballot paper, however, and voters are instead asked to pick candidates for the two houses of government – the House and Senate – and state governor, who acts like a lesser President for their own state.

In the November 2018 mid-terms, all 435 seats in the House and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate were up for election, along with 36 out of 50 state governors.

The Republicans held majorities in both houses before the election, allowing them to pass legislation, nominate judges, and appoint members of Trump’s cabinet unimpeded.

The Democrats were hoping to win back control of both houses in a so-called ‘blue wave’ that would have left Trump a lame duck and made it extremely difficult for him to get anything done in his last two years.

Supporters of Democrat Beto O'Rourke, who was running for the Senate in Texas, wait to hear the result. He ultimately lost the race to incumbent Republican Ted Cruz

As it happened, a divided nation produced a divided result, with Democrats winning back control of the House but Republicans increasing their majority in the Senate.

For Trump, that means the business of governing will become more difficult, with Democrats vowing to frustrate his populist political agenda.

Democrats also gained control of several powerful House committees and have promised to use them to investigate Trump, including a potential subpoena of his tax records.

But any hopes of impeachment, which was whispered about in Democrat circles during the campaign, are firmly off the table since the Senate would be required to find Trump guilty of an impeachable offence – which Republicans will not do.

Good showings for candidates who closely aligned themselves with Trump and his views will also help to quieten his opponents within his own party, and having Democrats in the House could provide a useful scapegoat for failed policies.

While state governors cannot affect Trump’s national agenda in the same way that representatives or senators can, he will rely on them to help enact his policies at a local level – and in these races, Republicans also lost ground.

The Democrats gained seven seats from Republicans, flipping states like Kansas and Michigan where Trump won big in 2016, but lost out in high profile races in Florida and Georgia.

A man dressed as Donald Trump lends his support to Florida governor candidate Ron DeSantis, an ally of the President who ultimately won his election against Democrat Andrew Gillum

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6361843/Dems-House-midterm-elections-Republicans-control-Senate.html

 

Story 3: President Trump Fires  Attorney General Jeff Sessions By Accepting His Requested Letter of Resignation — Second Special Counsel To Investigate and Prosecute Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy? — — The 2020 Presidential Election Begins –Videos Videos

Jeff Sessions resigns as Attorney General

Special Report: Jeff Sessions resigns as Attorney General

Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired

Schumer says he finds timing of Sessions’ resignation ‘suspect’

Trump slams Jeff Sessions: ‘I don’t have an attorney general’

GOP lawmakers call on Sessions to resign

Embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns under pressure from Trump

  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions is leaving the Trump administration after more than a year of public criticism from his boss, President Donald Trump.
  • Trump has repeatedly hammered Sessions for his decision last year to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
  • Sessions’s chief of staff Matthew Whitaker will serve as acting attorney general, Trump announced. Whitaker also will assume oversight of the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and possible collusion by Trump’s campaign in that meddling.

Embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned at the “request” of President Donald Trump on Wednesday after more than a year of public criticism from the president.

Sessions’s chief of staff Matthew Whitaker will serve as acting attorney general, Trump announced.

Whitaker also will assume oversight of the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and possible collusion by Trump’s campaign in that meddling, according to the Justice Department.

Whitaker, who has publicly criticized the Mueller investigation, by law can serve as acting AG for a maximum of 210 days.

Whitaker will have the power to fire Mueller “for cause” as outlined under rules governing the special counsel’s office, if such cause is found.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein up till now has had oversight over the Mueller probe, as a result of Sessions’ move to recuse himself from the investigation in 2017.

Sessions, 71, had been repeatedly blasted by Trump for his recusal.

Trump has said that moment opened the door to special counsel Mueller’s probe, which the president has repeatedly called a “witch hunt.”

Sessions’ resignation was expected to happen sometime after Tuesday’s midterm elections, particuarly given the drumbeat of the president’s repeated criticism of the attorney general.

Bob Woodward’s recently published book about the Trump administration, “Fear,” says that Trump had called Sessions “mentally retarded” and a “dumb southerner.” Trump has publicly claimed, “I said neither” about Sessions.

“I don’t have an attorney general,” Trump told The Hill in an interview with that news site in September.

But the abruptness of the move, less than 24 hours after the close of the polls Tuesday, stunned Trump’s closet allies both inside and outside of the White House.

“I didn’t know this was coming, especially so soon after the midterms,” one source said on the condition of anonymity.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….We thank Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his service, and wish him well! A permanent replacement will be nominated at a later date.

Hours before the resignation was announced, Trump was asked about Sessions’ future in the administration.

“I’d rather answer that at a little bit different time,” Trump answered.

Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the White House received a resignation letter from Sessions earlier Wednesday and Trump accepted it.

Sessions’ letter to Trump, which is not dated, begins by saying, “At your request, I am submitting my resignation.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Getty Images
Attorney General Jeff Sessions

A spokesman for Mueller’s office declined to comment when contacted by CNBC about the resignation.

But Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is the odds on favorite to become the next speaker of the House of Representatives, called Sessions’ “firing” a “blatant attempt” by Trump to undermine Mueller.

Nancy Pelosi

@NancyPelosi

It is impossible to read Attorney General Sessions’ firing as anything other than another blatant attempt by @realDonaldTrump to undermine & end Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.

Nancy Pelosi

@NancyPelosi

It is impossible to read Attorney General Sessions’ firing as anything other than another blatant attempt by @realDonaldTrump to undermine & end Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.

Nancy Pelosi

@NancyPelosi

Given his record of threats to undermine & weaken the Russia investigation, Matthew Whitaker should recuse himself from any involvement in Mueller’s investigation. Congress must take immediate action to protect the rule of law and integrity of the investigation.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and Senate minority leader, said, “Protecting Mueller and his investigation is paramount.”

“It would create a constitutional crisis if this was a prelude to ending or greatly limiting the Mueller investigation and I hope President Trump and those he listens to will refrain from that,” Schumer said.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in a tweet wrote: “Americans must have answers immediately behind” Trump removing Sessions from the Justice Department.

“Why is the President making this change and who has authority over Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation? We will be holding people accountable,” Nadler wrote.

Additional reporting by Kevin Breuninger and Brian Schwartz of CNBC.

Read Jeff Sessions’ resignation letter here.

See the source image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trump-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1169-1170

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1168

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1163, October 26, 2018, Story 1: Bomb Device Suspect, Cesar Altier Sayoc, Arrested Trump Supporter — Red Capped Make America Great Again Native American Indian — Crazy Van Easy Rider — Busted — Videos — Story 2: Incoming Caravan of Illegal Alien Mob Moving in Mexico towards United States — Invasion of America By Illegal Aliens Continues — Where is The Wall? — Videos — Story 3: Advanced Estimate Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Increases By 3.5% In Third Quarter — Consumption Up By 4.0%, Investment Flat And Housing Construction Slump — Videos

Posted on October 27, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Assault, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Congress, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Eating, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, James Comey, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Middle East, Mike Pompeo, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, Movies, Music, National Interest, National Security Agency, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Social Security, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

He posted a photograph of himself wearing a MAGA hat in front of the US Capitol in 2017Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Real GDP: Percent change from preceding quarterA driver snapped a photo of this van, believed to belong to Sayoc. The van is seen covered in stickers expressing support for Trump, and disdain for his liberal critics

See the source image

Story 1: Bomb Device Suspect, Cesar Altier Sayoc, Arrested Trump Supporter — Red Capped Make America Great Again Native American Indian — Crazy Van Easy Rider — Busted — Videos —

Easy Rider (Peter Fonda & Jack Nicholson)

One suspect in custody in connection to suspicious packages

Arrest Made In Explosive Device Mailings

Suspicious packages reporting has a level of amateurishness: Sebastian Gorka

1 in custody in connection with suspected mail bomb campaign: Special Report

Tucker: When political debate turns into sectarianism

Easy Rider – The Weight

 

PICTURED: Trump-supporting, bodybuilding, Native American Florida strip-club worker is revealed as the ‘MAGAbomber’ who ‘sent suspicious packages to 12 liberals’

  • Federal authorities arrested a suspect in the mail bombing spree on Friday in South Florida
  • The suspect is reportedly a male in his 50s who has a history of threatening judges 
  • FBI discovered suspicious package addressed to Senator Cory Booker in Florida on Thursday night
  • Then a postal inspector intercepted another package to James Clapper in Manhattan Friday morning
  • The suspicious package was addressed to Clapper at headquarters of CNN, where he is a contributor
  • NYPD bomb squad’s Total Containment Vessel responded to postal facility in Midtown to remove package
  • Discoveries mark the 11th and 12th suspicious packages targeting outspoken critics of President Trump
  • FBI warns the public to be on the lookout for similar packages and says there could be more bombs 

The suspect in a mail bombing spree targeting critics of President Donald Trump has been identified.

Cesar Altier Sayoc was taken into custody on Friday morning in Plantation, Florida in connection with the 12 suspicious packages that have been discovered this week.

According to Sayoc’s Facebook page, he is a Trump fan who posted pictures and videos of himself at one of the President’s rallies in October 2016.

He is Native American, and according to a picture posted on his social media page, he is a member of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

In a post a year ago, Sayoc shared a photograph of Governor Rick Scott and Donald Trump, writing: ‘The greatest Governor in Country Fla Rick Scott and great friend of We Unconquered Seminole Tribe . Trump Trump Trump’

He shared bodybuilding pictures and appears to have worked in a strip club.

He expressed his dislike of Hillary Clinton and posted stories about incidents of Islamic terrorism.

The suspect in his 50s was arrested in front of an AutoZone store in Plantation, a police source tells DailyMail.com.

Michelle Taylor, a nurse at the Senior Medical Associates clinic, saw police taking a vehicle believed to be Sayoc’s into custody.

‘We’ve been in the office for an hour and we’re so nervous,’ she said. ‘The police were surrounding some kind of a van. Thank god we’re done with our patients for the day and there’s only two of us in here.’

He posted a photograph of himself wearing a MAGA hat in front of the US Capitol in 2017

Sayoc is seen at an event supporting Trump and wearing a 'MAGA' hat in this photo posted to Facebook in October 2016

A driver snapped a photo of this van, believed to belong to Sayoc. The van is seen covered in stickers expressing support for Trump, and disdain for his liberal critics

The person who took the photos was not aware of the connection to the investigation, but noted the odd amount of stickers

A witness who works at Marlins Insurance said dozens of police cars descended on the area around State Road 7 and SW 8th Street about 10am, a few feet away from her office.

‘It’s really bad,’ the woman said by telephone. She declined to give her name. ‘We heard a loud bang, like a bomb exploding. Police officers who told us to stay inside said they were arrested the guy who’s been sending bombs all over the place. It’s pretty scary but we’re inside trying to get some work done.’

The suspect is reportedly a former resident of New York who is living in Florida. The 12 mail bombs are all believed to have been handled by a regional mail sorting facility in southern Florida.

The suspect is known to law enforcement, and has a history of making terroristic threats to judges, sources said.

Heavy police activity was seen in Plantation, Florida, a town to the west of Fort Lauderdale and directly south of Sunrise, the location of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s office, which the bombs listed as a return address.

Police impounded a white panel van that is believed to be connected to the investigation.

The Department of Justice announced a press conference for 2.30pm at which further details are expected to be available.

Police impounded a white panel van (above) that is believed to be connected to the investigation

Investigators are seen impounding a white panel van in Plantation, Florida on Friday in connection with an arrest

The van as covered with a blue tarp and transported away by investigators after the arrest on Friday

Earlier in the day, the investigators said they had found two new packages believed to be part of the mail bombing spree, addressed to Senator Cory Booker and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

The package to Booker was found on Thursday night at a mail sorting facility in Florida, and the package addressed to Clapper was found at a postal facility in Manhattan on Friday.

The two new packages marked the 11th and 12th suspected mail bombs in a spree that has targeted critics of Trump.

Trump’s first public response to the latest suspicious packages was a tweet at 10.19am reading: ‘Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this ‘Bomb’ stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows – news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!’

Senator Cory Booker
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

The FBI found two new packages believed to be part of the mail bombing spree, addressed to Senator Cory Booker (left) and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right)

The suspicious package (above) addressed to James Clapper at the Time Warner Center was intercepted by postal inspectors at a Manhattan sorting facility on Friday morning

The suspicious package (above) addressed to James Clapper at the Time Warner Center was intercepted by postal inspectors at a Manhattan sorting facility on Friday morning

NYPD's Total Containment vessel arrives as law enforcement respond to the scene of a suspicious package at a postal facility on Friday in New York

The Total Containment Vessel is used to transport explosive devices and is designed to contain powerful blasts

The Total Containment Vessel is used to transport explosive devices and is designed to contain powerful blasts

The special NYPD vehicle is seen transporting the package addressed to James Clapper to a secure facility in the Bronx

The special NYPD vehicle is seen transporting the package addressed to James Clapper to a secure facility in the Bronx

NYPD Deputy Commissioner Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller was on scene during an investigation of a bomb addressed to James Clapper at a US Post Office on W 52nd Street on Friday in Manhattan

NYPD Deputy Commissioner Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller was on scene during an investigation of a bomb addressed to James Clapper at a US Post Office on W 52nd Street on Friday in Manhattan

FDNY set up a command post at an investigation of a bomb at a postal sorting facility in Midtown Manhattan on Friday

FDNY set up a command post at an investigation of a bomb at a postal sorting facility in Midtown Manhattan on Friday

A police dog assists in a suspicious package response at a postal facility in Manhattan on Friday morning

A police dog assists in a suspicious package response at a postal facility in Manhattan on Friday morning

Postal workers stand on the street after evacuating a sorting facility during a report of a suspicious package in Manhattan

Postal workers stand on the street after evacuating a sorting facility during a report of a suspicious package in Manhattan

Postal workers stand on the street after evacuating a Midtown Manhattan postal facility on Friday

Postal workers stand on the street after evacuating a Midtown Manhattan postal facility on Friday

The facility was evacuated after inspectors intercepted a suspicious package addressed to James Clapper

The facility was evacuated after inspectors intercepted a suspicious package addressed to James Clapper

The map above shows the locations of 12 suspicious packages that have all been linked to a mail bombing spree

The map above shows the locations of 12 suspicious packages that have all been linked to a mail bombing spree

The package to Clapper was addressed to CNN’s headquarters in the Time Warner Center in Midtown Manhattan, but was intercepted before delivery.

A photo of the package showed that it matched notable characteristics of the previous mail bombs, none of which have exploded.

Clapper joined CNN as a contributor after stepping down as the nation’s most senior intelligence official last year.

‘At least they got the correct spelling of my name and they got the right network,’ Clapper said in remarks to CNN, referring to a mail bomb sent to CNN earlier this week and addressed to ‘John Brenan’.

John Brennan, a former CIA director, is a contributor for MSNBC.

‘This is definitely domestic terrorism, no question about it in my mind,’ Clapper said in an interview with the cable network. ‘This is not going to silence the administration´s critics.’

Clapper said that he had been on vacation with his wife, and had warned the neighbors who were collecting his mail to be on the lookout for suspicious packages as the mail bomb spree developed this week.

Like the other targets in the mail bomb spree, Clapper has been harshly critical of Trump. In a speech last year, he said that Trump was guilty of ‘ignorance or disrespect’.

First respondents are seen on the scene where suspicious package was found in Midtown. There were no reports of injuries and the stretcher is believed to be a precaution

Police respond to a report of a suspicious package at a postal facility in Midtown Manhattan on Friday morning

Police respond to a report of a suspicious package in the Manhattan borough of New York

Police swarmed the area outside a Manhattan postal facility after a package was found

The package intercepted on Friday was addressed to Clapper care of CNN, but was spotted by postal inspectors at a sorting facility before delivery.

The NYPD bomb squad was on scene at the postal facility at West 52nd Street and 8th Avenue on Friday morning.

The NYPD’s Total Containment Vessel was spotted at the scene by about 9.30am.

Streets in the area were closed off and postal workers were seen waiting on the sidewalks after the facility was evacuated.

The containment vehicle departed the area at 10am transporting the suspected bomb to a secure police facility in Rodman’s Neck in the Bronx.

Police respond to a report of a suspicious package addressed to James Clapper in Manhattan

Streets were shut down and the facility evacuated after a suspicious package was found

Streets were shut down and the facility evacuated after a suspicious package was found

Police respond to a report of a suspicious package in the Manhattan borough of New York on Friday

On Thursday, a local police bomb squad and canine units joined federal investigators to examine a sprawling U.S. mail distribution center at Opa-Locka, northwest of Miami, Miami-Dade County police said.

Investigators believe that all of the suspicious packages were sorted at the facility, which processes mail regionally in South Florida.

It was at the Opa-Locka facility that the 11th bomb was discovered, addressed to Senator Booker.

Booker is a Democrat from New Jersey. Like Clapper and the other targets of the mail bombs in the recent spree, he is an outspoken critic of Trump.

The identity and motives of the bomber have not been revealed, however, with the FBI saying it is pursuing the case as the agency’s highest priority.

No one has claimed responsibility for the bombs.

A police car sits outside New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker's office in Camden, New Jersey on Friday. The FBI says a suspicious package addressed to Booker has been recovered in Florida and is similar in appearance to recent mail bombs

A police dog is loaded into an SUV outside New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker's office in Camden, New Jersey

A police dog is loaded into an SUV outside New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker’s office in Camden, New Jersey

A police officer and dog are shown outside a postal facility on Thursday in Opa-locka, Florida. The search uncovered a suspicious package addressed to Senator Cory Booker

A police officer and dog are shown outside a postal facility on Thursday in Opa-locka, Florida. The search uncovered a suspicious package addressed to Senator Cory Booker

Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC on Friday that the mail bombs were stoking fear across the county and that U.S. leaders, including Trump, must reassure the public.

Elected officials and others need to say that this is not who we are as a country, Warner said. ‘That would be a heck of a lot stronger if that message also came from the White House.’

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said that Florida appeared to be the starting point for at least some of the bomb shipments.

‘Some of the packages went through the mail. They originated, some of them, from Florida,’ she said during an interview with Fox News Channel on Thursday.

‘I am confident that this person or people will be brought to justice.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6321331/Suspected-mail-bomber-identified-Cesar-Altier-Sayoc.html

Story 2: Incoming Caravan of Illegal Alien Mob Moving in Mexico towards United States — Invasion of America By Illegal Aliens Continues — Where is The Wall? — Videos —

US Military Will Stop Migrant Caravan Of Illegal Immigrants Heading To Border (Full Compilation)

Will migrant caravan photos influence voters before midterms?

Nielsen on response to migrant caravan, pipe bomb threat

Honduran migrants stranded on bridge between Mexico and Guatemala

Life Inside the Migrant Caravan: ‘Everyone Is Tired’ | Dispatches

‘The Five’ reacts to growing migrant caravan crisis

Geraldo, Gorka spar over how to deal with migrant caravan

Story 3: Advanced Estimate Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Increases By 3.5% In Third Quarter — Consumption Up By 4.0%, Investment Flat And Housing Construction Slump — Videos

Strong GDP growth is sign of middle-class tax law working, says Rep. Kevin Brady

Consumer Spending Helps GDP Slow Less Than Expected

Today News – US economic growth slows less than expected in Q3

Early North American trade on 26.10.2018: USD, EUR

GDP grew at 3.5% in the 3rd quarter, but some areas of the economy that aren’t fairing as well.

Today News – Trumps trade war took a stunning bite out of the US economy

The Truth About US GDP Growth

What Would Happen If USA Stopped Paying Its Debt?

Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2018 (advance estimate)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter of 2018 (table 1), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 4.2 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see “Source Data for the Advance Estimate” on page 2). The “second” estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 28, 2018.

Real GDP: Percent change from preceding quarterThe increase in real GDP in the third quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, state and local government spending, federal government spending, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from exports and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).

The deceleration in real GDP growth in the third quarter reflected a downturn in exports and a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment. Imports increased in the third quarter after decreasing in the second. These movements were partly offset by an upturn in private inventory investment.

Current dollar GDP increased 4.9 percent, or $247.1 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $20.66 trillion. In the second quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 7.6 percent, or $370.9 billion (table 1 and table 3).

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the second quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 2.0 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.

Personal Income (table 8)

Current-dollar personal income increased $180.4 billion in the third quarter, compared with an increase of $180.7 billion in the second quarter. Accelerations in rental income, wages and salaries, and nonfarm proprietors’ income were offset by a downturn in farm proprietors’ income and a slowdown in dividend income.

Disposable personal income increased $155.0 billion, or 4.1 percent, in the third quarter, compared with an increase of $168.9 billion, or 4.5 percent, in the second quarter. Real disposable personal income increased 2.5 percent, the same increase as in the second quarter.

Personal saving was $999.6 billion in the third quarter, compared with $1,054.3 billion in the second quarter. The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 6.4 percent in the third quarter, compared with 6.8 percent in the second quarter.

Source Data for the Advance Estimate

Information on the source data and key assumptions used for unavailable source data in the advance estimate is provided in a Technical Note that is posted with the news release on BEA’s Web site. A detailed “Key Source Data and Assumptions” file is also posted for each release. For information on updates to GDP, see the “Additional Information” section that follows.

https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/gross-domestic-product-3rd-quarter-2018-advance-estimate

Beach Boys – Barbara Ann – Jack Benny – 1965 – (Remaster Live) – Bubblerock – HD

Good Vibrations the Lost Studio Footage

The Beach Boys- California Girls (1965)

Beach Boys – I can hear music 1969

Biography – Brian Wilson

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1163

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1150, October 3, 2018 — Story 1: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Announces The United States Termination of Treaty of Amity With Islamic Republic of Iran — Long Overdue — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser At Rally and FBI Sends Supplemental Background on Judge Kavanaugh To White House and Senate — Expect Senate Confirmation Vote Saturday — Videos — Story 3: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Views on U.S. Economy and Monetary Policy — Videos — Story 4: Job Market Booming With Private Payroll Surge of 230,000 in September 2018 — Videos

Posted on October 3, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, Agenda 21, American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Coal, Coal, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, European Union, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, France, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Netherlands, News, Nuclear, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Rape, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Social Security, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Terror, Terrorism, The 2013 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Trade Policy, United Nations, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

See the source imageImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmationImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmationSee the source imageImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmationImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmationImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmationImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmationImage result for cartoons kavanaugh fbi confirmation

Story 1: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Announces The United States Termination of Treaty of Amity With Islamic Republic of Iran — Long Overdue — Videos —

The United Nation’s Top Court Ordered The Trump Administration To Lift Sanctions On

Iran | TIME

USA: US to cancel 1955 treaty with Iran on economic ties, consular rights – Pompeo

Bolton: Iran made a mockery of the Treaty of Amity

John Bolton Says U.S. Will Review All Agreements That Expose It To The World Court

UN court orders US to lift some Iran sanctions

USA: US to cancel 1955 treaty with Iran on economic ties, consular rights – Pompeo

Watch Now: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo holds press conference, live stream

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its Order in the case of Iran v. USA

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its Order in the case of Iran v. USA

Iran Seeks Ruling of UN’s Highest Court to Lift US Sanctions

Iran today takes the USA to the Court of Justice in the Hague for imposing sanctions

US and Iran wait for the world court ruling on the legitimacy of US sanctions against Iran

Nigel Farage reacts to Trump trading barbs with Iran

Iran nuclear deal will remain valid regardless of U.S. decision, says EU policy chief

What comes next for the Iran nuclear deal?

The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Future of the JCPOA

Trump clashes with EU over Iran sanctions

Trump no nonsense approach on Iran is the right strategy: Gen. Jack Keane

Trump sanctions may spell the end for Iranian Revolution: John Hannah

President Donald Trump Delivers Remarks On Iran Deal – May 8, 2018 | CNBC

What is the International Court of Justice? The Role and Activities of the ICJ

US urges World Court to dismiss Iran’s lawsuit

Iran ‘Violated Its Obligations,’ U.S. Says As It Defends Sanctions | NBC News

US calls ruling a defeat for Iran, ends treaty

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the United States is terminating a 1955 friendship treaty with Iran after it was cited in a ruling against US sanctions by the International Court of Justice

The United States on Wednesday called an international court ruling against its Iran sanctions a defeat for Tehran as it terminated a 1955 treaty on which the case was based.

The International Criminal Court ordered the United States to lift sanctions on medicine, food and civilian airplane spare parts, just as President Donald Trump tries to squeeze Iran’s economy.

But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that the UN court did not rule more broadly against US sanctions and he insisted that the United States already exempted humanitarian goods from the sanctions.

“The court’s ruling today was a defeat for Iran. It rightly rejected all of Iran’s baseless requests,” Pompeo told reporters.

Accusing Iran of “abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes,” Pompeo announced that the United States was ending a friendship treaty signed when Iran was ruled by the pro-US shah.

“This is a decision, frankly, that is 39 years overdue,” Pompeo said, referring to the time since the 1979 Islamic revolution transformed Iran from one of the closest allies to a determined foe.

“Given Iran’s history of terrorism, ballistic missile activity and other malign behaviors, Iran’s claims under the treaty are absurd,” he said.

The Treaty of Amity with Iran, signed in 1955 and ratified by the US Senate a year later, lays out practicalities for unfettered economic relations and consular rights between the two countries.

The US withdrawal will have limited direct effect, with the two countries not even having diplomatic relations.

But Iran has repeatedly cited the treaty to press claims from the United States, including when the US Navy shot down an Iran Air civilian plane in 1988, killing 290 people.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6236363/US-calls-ruling-defeat-Iran-ends-treaty.html

 

KEVIN LAMARQUE / REUTERS

nistration has been tightening the screws on Iran ever since the U.S. withdrew in May from the nuclear deal. It has imposed sanctions, increased its hostile rhetoric, and threatened its own allies for working with Tehran. Now comes one more item on that list: On Wednesday, the Trump administration tore up the little-known, Eisenhower-era Treaty of Amity with the Islamic Republic on the same day the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that U.S. sanctions on Iran must exempt humanitarian items.

In announcing the decision concerning the 1955 treaty, Mike Pompeo, the U.S. secretary of state, said at the State Department, “This is a decision, frankly, that is 39 years overdue.”

The more than six-decade-old accord survived the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran that was followed by the takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and the hostage-taking of 52 Americans, including diplomats, for 444 days. It also survived what has mostly been low after low in the intervening decades, including near weekly chants of “Death to America” in the Islamic Republic, round after round of crippling U.S. sanctions, and even the shooting down, by the U.S. military, of an Iranian airliner with 290 people on board. As Farshad Kashani wrote in The National Interest, the two countries have used the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanism, which relies on the ICJ, at various times since 1988, when the Iran Air flight was shot down—most recently in July.

That’s when Iran brought a case at The Hague–based court alleging violations of the Treaty of Amity, challenging, among other things, the U.S. withdrawal from the multilateral nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic. But the court’s ruling Wednesday was much narrower in scope, dealing only with the sale of “humanitarian” goods to Iran, which the court said the U.S. should not sanction. Pompeo said that “existing exceptions, authorizations, and licensing policies for humanitarian-related transactions and safety of flight will remain in effect.” But, he added, “we’re disappointed that the court failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any orders related to these sanctions measures with the United States.” The ICJ’s orders are legally binding but not enforceable.

The Trump administration is meanwhile preparing to impose more punitive measures on the Islamic Republic next month. At the United Nations last week, Donald Trump asked “all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues.”

The Trump administration says it wants countries that buy Iranian oil to reduce their imports to zero, and has even threatened to sanction its partners who do business with Iran if they don’t stop. Those partners, which include European countries, Russia, and China, are working to devise their own system to work with Iran in order to keep the Islamic Republic in the nuclear agreement under which it agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for political and economic incentives. Additionally, the administration has set up an Iran Action Group whose work is centered on nuclear activities, terrorism, and the detention of American citizens in Iran.

The U.S. says the nuclear agreement rewarded Iran despite its malign activities. It accuses the Islamic Republic of supporting terrorism, of pursuing a ballistic-missile program, of supporting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime, and of fomenting unrest in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. Indeed, Iran’s influence in Iraq has become a key point of friction between the two countries as the fragile Iraqi state tries to form a government. Both countries have a strong influence in Iraq that they are keen to preserve. In past years, they have maintained a tacit understanding on their respective allies in the country.

But last week, the U.S. pulled American diplomats from the consulate in Basra, just days after accusing Iran of not preventing rockets being fired at the facility. On Wednesday, Pompeo repeated those remarks, holding Tehran responsible.

“Iran is the origin of the current threat to Americans in Iraq,” he said. “Our intelligence in this regard is solid. We can see the hand of the ayatollah and his henchmen supporting these attacks on the United States.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/pompeo-iran-treaty-of-amity/572050/

 

Pompeo announces termination of 1955 treaty with Iran after sanctions ruling

Last Updated Oct 3, 2018 2:14 PM EDT

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Wednesday that the United States would be terminating a 1955-era treaty of amity with Iran that regulates economic and consular ties between the two countries. Pompeo called it a move that was  “39 years overdue.”

Ties between the two nations have been strained for decades but have come to a head since the Trump administration moved to pull out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The administration has admonished Iran and the regime’s leadership for its “malign behavior” and for pursuing nuclear ambitions.

The move to end the treaty comes after the United Nations’ top court on Wednesday ordered the United States to lift sanctions on “humanitarian” goods to Iran that Mr. Trump re-imposed after pulling out of the nuclear pact. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously ruled that Washington “shall remove by means of its choosing any impediments arising from the measures announced on May 8 to the free exportation to Iran of medicines and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities” as well as airplane parts, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf wrote.

The court said sanctions on goods “required for humanitarian needs… may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran.”

Pompeo said Iran had brought a “meritless case” to the ICJ, alleging violations of the 1955 pact, and he suggested Iran wants to challenge the U.S. decision to pull out of the nuclear deal.

“Iran has attempted to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions as necessary to protect our national security and Iran is abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes,” said Pompeo.

Pompeo said in the meantime, the U.S. will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people, but called on Iranian leadership to spend money on its own people, instead of “fomenting terror around the world.”

“Those are dollars the Iranian leadership is squandering, they could be providing humanitarian assistance to their own people but have chosen a different path,” he said.

In addition to leaving the amity treaty, national security adviser John Bolton announced during Wednesday’s press briefing that the U.S. will also withdraw from the Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in connection with a case brought by the Palestinians to the ICJ challenging the United States’ embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem earlier this year.

“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the US to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice — admin will conduct a review of all its involvement with the International Court of Justice,” he said.

Bolton told reporters that the U.S. remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, “and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention.”

The administration’s latest comments came after President Trump chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council last week and emphasized the importance of keeping the world free of the scourge of chemical weapons. The meeting focused on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in Iran.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pompeo-speaks-to-reporters-at-state-department-live-stream/

Bolton calls U.N. world court ‘politicized,’ U.S. to limit exposure

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States is taking steps to avoid exposure to binding decisions by the International Court of Justice, the U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday as he accused the U.N. court of being “politicized and ineffective.”

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton answers a question from a reporter about how he refers to Palestine during a news conference in the White House briefing room in Washington, U.S.,
October 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier on Wednesday said that Washington was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran, after the International Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, did not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation.

The ICJ, based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, is the United Nations’ venue for resolving disputes between nations.

There have been mounting concerns among U.S. allies about the Trump administration’s commitment to multilateralism.

In the nearly two years since being elected, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a nuclear agreement between six powers and Iran, pulled out of a global climate accord, left the U.N. cultural agency, and threatened NATO military allies that the United States would “go its own way” if members did not spend more on defense.

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton answers questions from reporters after announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Vienna protocol and the 1955 “Treaty of Amity” with Iran as White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders looks on during a news conference in the White House briefing room in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

Wednesday’s ruling by the International Court handed a small victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the Trump administration violated the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

Bolton, citing what he called “Iran’s abuse of the ICJ,” said that the United States would withdraw from the “optional protocol” under the 1961 Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations.

“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction, dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,” Bolton said on Wednesday. “The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.”The decision to withdraw from the optional protocol follows a complaint brought by the Palestinians in September, which challenged Washington’s decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Vienna Convention is an international treaty setting out diplomatic relations between states. It is often cited as a means to provide diplomatic immunity.

In 2005, the Bush administration took issue with the ICJ after it ruled that the execution of a Mexican national in Texas breached U.S. obligations under international law.

The Palestinians argued that the U.S. government’s placement of its embassy in Jerusalem violated an international treaty and that it should be moved.

“This really has less to do with Iran and the Palestinians than with the continued consistent policy of the United States to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which we think is politicized and ineffective,” Bolton said.

He added: “I’d like to stress the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention.”

Palestine was recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 2012 as a non-member observer state, though its statehood is not recognized by either Israel or the United States.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-diplomacy-treaty/bolton-calls-u-n-world-court-politicized-u-s-to-limit-exposure-idUSKCN1MD2CP

Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (United States–Iran)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran was signed in Tehran on August 15, 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957.[1]

On 3 October 2018, following on the same day of a ruling by the International Court of JusticeUnited States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States “is terminating” the treaty.[2] On the same day, the termination of the treaty with the Pahlavi Iran was reiterated by John Bolton.[3]

References

International Court of Justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

International Court of Justice
Cour internationale de justice
International Court of Justice Seal.svg

International Court of Justice Seal
Established 1945 (PCIJ dissolved in 1946)
Country Worldwide193 state parties
Location The HagueNetherlands
Coordinates 52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″ECoordinates52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″E
Authorized by
Judge term length 9 years
No. of positions 15
Website www.icj-cij.org
President
Currently Abdulqawi Yusuf
Since 6 February 2018
Lead position ends 5 February 2020
Vice President
Currently Xue Hanqin
Since 6 February 2018
Lead position ends 5 February 2020

The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ; commonly referred to as the World Court)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The HagueNetherlands.[2]

Activities

The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, seat of the ICJ

Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the court.[3]

The court’s workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. After the court ruled that the United States‘s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[4] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States used in the Nicaragua case.[5]

Composition

Public hearing at the ICJ.

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of people nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4–19 of the ICJ statute. Elections are staggered, with five judges elected every three years to ensure continuity within the court. Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election to complete the term.

No two judges may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the membership of the court is supposed to represent the “main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world”. Essentially, that has meant common lawcivil law and socialist law (now post-communist law).

There is an informal understanding that the seats will be distributed by geographic regions so that there are five seats for Western countries, three for African states (including one judge of francophone civil law, one of Anglophone common law and one Arab), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian states and two for Latin American and Caribbean states.[6] For most of the court’s history, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (FranceRussiaChina, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge serving, thereby occupying three of the Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. Exceptions have been China not having a judge on the court from 1967 to 1985, during which time it did not put forward a candidate, and British judge Sir Christopher Greenwood being withdrawn as a candidate for election for a second nine-year term on the bench in 2017, leaving no judges from the United Kingdom on the court.[7] Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security Council but failed to get a majority in the UN General Assembly.[7] Indian judge Dalveer Bhandari instead took the seat.[7]

Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be “elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character” who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt with specifically in Articles 16–18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post or act as counsel. In practice, members of the court have their own interpretation of these rules and allow them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by a unanimous vote of the other members of the court.[8] Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua case, the United States issued a communiqué suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the court because of the presence of judges from Eastern bloc states.[9]

Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and Advisory Opinions are by majority, and, in the event of an equal division, the President’s vote becomes decisive, which occurred in the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Opinion requested by WHO), [1996] ICJ Reports 66. Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions.

Ad hoc judges[

Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases before the court. The system allows any party to a contentious case (if it otherwise does not have one of that party’s nationals sitting on the court) to select one additional person to sit as a judge on that case only. It is thus possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case.

The system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases. For example, if a state knows that it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the state’s perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of little practical consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not always) vote in favour of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out.[10]

Chambers

Generally, the court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years, it has on occasion sat as a chamber. Articles 26–29 of the statute allow the court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear particular disputes. In 1993, a special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal specifically with environmental matters (although it has never been used).

Ad hoc chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used to hear the Gulf of Maine Case (Canada/US).[11] In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the court appointed judges to the chamber acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may either less authority than full Court judgments or diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might encourage greater recourse to the court and thus enhance international dispute resolution.[12]

Current composition

As of 22 June 2018, the composition of the court is as follows:[13][14]

Name Nationality Position Term began Term ends
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf  Somalia Presidenta 2009 2027
Xue Hanqin  China Vice-Presidenta 2010 2021
Yuji Iwasawa  Japan Member 2018 2021
Peter Tomka  Slovakia Member 2003 2021
Mohamed Bennouna  Morocco Member 2006 2024
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade     Brazil Member 2009 2027
Nawaf Salam  Lebanon Member 2018 2027
Ronny Abraham  France Member 2005 2027
Joan E. Donoghue  United States Member 2010 2024
Giorgio Gaja  Italy Member 2012 2021
Julia Sebutinde  Uganda Member 2012 2021
Dalveer Bhandari  India Member 2012 2021
James Crawford  Australia Member 2015 2024
Kirill Gevorgian  Russia Member 2015 2024
Patrick Lipton Robinson  Jamaica Member 2015 2024
Philippe Couvreur  Belgium Registrar 2014 2021
a 2018–2021.

Presidents

# President Start End Country
1 José Gustavo Guerrero 1946 1949  El Salvador
2 Jules Basdevant 1949 1952  France
3 Arnold McNair 1952 1955  United Kingdom
4 Green Hackworth 1955 1958  United States
5 Helge Klæstad 1958 1961  Norway
6 Bohdan Winiarski 1961 1964  Poland
7 Percy Spender 1964 1967  Australia
8 José Bustamante y Rivero 1967 1970  Peru
9 Muhammad Zafarullah Khan 1970 1973  Pakistan
10 Manfred Lachs 1973 1976  Poland
11 Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga 1976 1979  Uruguay
12 Humphrey Waldock 1979 1981  United Kingdom
13 Taslim Elias 1982 1985  Nigeria
14 Nagendra Singh 1985 1988  India
15 José Ruda 1988 1991  Argentina
16 Robert Jennings 1991 1994  United Kingdom
17 Mohammed Bedjaoui 1994 1997  Algeria
18 Stephen Schwebel 1997 2000  United States
19 Gilbert Guillaume 2000 2003  France
20 Shi Jiuyong 2003 2006  China
21 Rosalyn Higgins 2006 2009  United Kingdom
22 Hisashi Owada 2009 2012  Japan
23 Peter Tomka 2012 2015  Slovakia
24 Ronny Abraham 2015 2018  France
25 Abdulqawi Yusuf 2018  Somalia

Jurisdiction

  Parties upon becoming a UN member
  Parties prior to joining the UN under Article 93
  UN observer states that are not parties

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the court’s statute.[15] Non-UN members may also become parties to the court’s statute under the Article 93(2) procedure. For example, before becoming a UN member state, Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a party, and Nauru became a party in 1988.[16] Once a state is a party to the court’s statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the three types of ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions.[17]

Contentious issues

File:Eerste na-oorlogse zitting van het Internationaal Hof van Justititie Weeknummer 48-09 - Open Beelden - 30541.ogv

First gathering after Second World War, Dutch newsreel from 1946

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases although the court may receive information from public international organizations. That does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if a state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in cases of “diplomatic protection”, bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations.[18]

Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the court in contentious cases. (See Procedure below.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the court’s jurisdiction may be founded:

  • First, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the court (jurisdiction founded on “special agreement” or “compromis“). This method is based on explicit consent rather than true compulsory jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the court’s jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court and are thus more likely to comply with the court’s judgment.
  • Second, 36(1) also gives the court jurisdiction over “matters specifically provided for… in treaties and conventions in force”. Most modern treaties contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ.[19]Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and did not comply with the judgment.[20] Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.[21]
  • Third, Article 36(2) allows states to make optional clause declarations accepting the court’s jurisdiction. The label “compulsory” sometimes placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since declarations by states are voluntary. Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such as exclusion from jurisdiction certain types of disputes (“ratione materia“).[22] The principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had a declaration in force.[23] Of the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration. In the court’s early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the Nicaragua Case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the court since the 1980s.[citation needed] Industrialized countries, however, have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in recent years. Examples include the United States, as mentioned previously, and Australia, which modified its declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries (most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor, which gained their independence two months later).[24]
  • Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice‘s statute. Article 37 of the Statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
  • In addition, the court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (forum prorogatum). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction is established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads on the merits. The notion arose in the Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (1949), in which the court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.

Incidental jurisdiction

Until rendering a final judgment, the court has competence to order interim measures for the protection of the rights of a party to a dispute. One or both parties to a dispute may apply the ICJ for issuing interim measures. In the Frontier Dispute Case, both parties to the dispute, Burkina Faso and Mali submitted an application to the court to indicate interim measures.[25] Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the Article 41 of the Statute of it.[26] Such as the final judgment, the order for interim measures of the court are binding on state parties to the dispute. The ICJ has competence to indicate interim measures only if the prima facie jurisdiction is satisfied.

Advisory opinions

Audience of the “Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo”

An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. The UN Charter grants the General Assembly or the Security Council a power to request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question. Other organs of the UN rather than GA and SC may not request an advisory opinion of the ICJ unless the General Assembly authorizes them. Other organs of the UN only request an advisory opinion of the court regarding the matters falling into the scope of their activities.[27] On receiving a request, the court decides which states and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the court’s help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates.

In principle, the court’s advisory opinions are only consultative in character but they are influential and widely respected. Certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, but inherently, they are non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the court’s authoritative views on important issues of international law. In arriving at them, the court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states.

An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.[28]

Advisory opinions have often been controversial because the questions asked are controversial or the case was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section advisory opinions in the List of International Court of Justice cases article. One such well-known advisory opinion is the Nuclear Weapons Case.

ICJ and the Security Council

Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. That occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the United States’ noncompliance with the court’s decision before the Security Council.[9] Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council has never done that so far.

The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was considered by the court in 1992 in the Pan Am case. The court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the United Kingdom and United States. The problem was that these sanctions had been authorized by the Security Council, which resulted in a potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council and the judicial function of the court. The court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention, could not be prima facieregarded as appropriate since the action was ordered by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Nevertheless, the court declared the application admissible in 1998.[29] A decision on the merits has not been given since the parties (United Kingdom, United States, and Libya) settled the case out of court in 2003.

There was a marked reluctance on the part of a majority of the court to become involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring it potentially into conflict with the Council. The court stated in the Nicaragua case that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the Security Council and adjudication by the ICJ. However, when there is room for conflict, the balance appears to be in favour of the Security Council.

Should either party fail “to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court”, the Security Council may be called upon to “make recommendations or decide upon measures” if the Security Council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the court’s powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the court’s ruling and by the Security Council’s unwillingness to impose consequences. However, in theory, “so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal”, and “by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party.”

For example, the United States had previously accepted the court’s compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after Nicaragua v. United States, withdrew its acceptance following the court’s judgment that called on the US to “cease and to refrain” from the “unlawful use of force” against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was “in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua” and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.[9]

Examples of contentious cases

  • A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law.[30]
  • A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them.[31]
  • A complaint by Iran after the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser.[32]
  • A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area.[33]
  • A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December 2004 because of lack of jurisdiction, the FRY not being a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application.[34]
  • A complaint by the Republic of Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that Greece is, by vetoing its accession to NATO, in violation of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995[35] between the two countries. The complaint was decided in favour of Macedonia on 5 December 2011.[36]
  • A complaint by the Democratic Republic of the Congo that the DRC’s sovereignty had been violated by Uganda and that DRC had lost billions of dollars worth of resources,[37] was decided in favour of the DRC.[38]
  • A complaint by the Republic of India regarding death penalty awarded to Indian citizen by a Pakistani military court. [39] Pakistan arrested Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian citizen for alleged espionage and subversive activities.

Law applied

When deciding cases, the court applies international law as summarized in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, which provides that in arriving at its decisions the court shall apply international conventions, international custom and the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” It may also refer to academic writing (“the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations”) and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law although the court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisisArticle 59 makes clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The court’s decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(1)(d), however, the court may consider its own previous decisions.

If the parties agree, they may also grant the court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono (“in justice and fairness”),[40] granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. That provision has not been used in the court’s history. So far, the International Court of Justice has dealt with about 130 cases.

Procedure

The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in the Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).[12]

Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant, which files a written memorial setting out the basis of the court’s jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the court’s jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case.

Preliminary objections

A respondent that does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the court may raise preliminary objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the court can address the merits of the applicant’s claim. Often, a separate public hearing is held on the preliminary objections and the court will render a judgment. Respondents normally file preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility refers to a range of arguments about factors the court should take into account in deciding jurisdiction, such as the fact that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a “legal dispute”.

In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before the court. If the case necessarily requires the court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction, the court does not proceed to issue a judgment on the merits.

If the court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent then is required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant’s claim. Once all written arguments are filed, the court holds a public hearing on the merits.

Once a case has been filed, any party (usually the applicant) may seek an order from the court to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. Such orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory injunctions in United States law. Article 41 of the statute allows the court to make such orders. The court must be satisfied to have prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before it grants provisional measures.

Applications to intervene

In cases in which a third state’s interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state “with an interest of a legal nature” may apply; however, it is within the court’s discretion whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare, and the first successful application occurred only in 1991.

Judgment and remedies

Once deliberation has taken place, the court issues a majority opinion. Individual judges may issue concurring opinions (if they agree with the outcome reached in the judgment of the court but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority). No appeal is possible, but any party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the court’s judgment.[41]

Criticisms

The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with criticisms of the United Nations, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include the following:[42][43][44]

  • “Compulsory” jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another. Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
  • Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court or appeal a national supreme court’s ruling. UN agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, may not have appropriate backing by a state.
  • Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction.
  • The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound.[45] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.

See also

Notes …

Further reading

  • Dunne, Michael. “Isolationism of a Kind: Two Generations of World Court Historiography in the United States,” Journal of American Studies (1987) 21#3 pp 327–351.
  • Rosenne S., “Rosenne’s the world court: what it is and how it works 6th ed (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003).
  • Kwiatkowska, Barbara, “Decisions of the World Court Relevant to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”. Relevant to the UNCLOS, dedicated to Former ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel (Brill, 2010)
  • Van Der Wolf W. & De Ruiter D., “The International Court of Justice: Facts and Documents About the History and Work of the Court” (International Courts Association, 2011)
  • Wilde, Ralph and Charlesworth, Hilary and Schrijver, Nico and Krisch, Nico and Chimni, B. S. and Gowlland-Debbas, Vera and Klabbers, Jan and Yee, Sienho and Shearer, Ivan, United Nations Reform Through Practice: Report of the International Law Association Study Group on United Nations Reform (December 11, 2011).
  • Kolb, Robert, The International Court of Justice (Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2013).
  • Bowett, D W. The International court of justice : process, practice and procedure (British Institute of International and Comparative Law: London, 1997).
  • Sienho Yee, Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent Cases, 7 Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2016), 472–498.
  • Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2d. ed. October 2012, Oxford University Press).

External links

Lectures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Story 2: President Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser At Rally and FBI Sends Supplemental Background on Judge Kavanaugh To White House and Senate — Expect Senate Confirmation Vote Saturday — Videos —

See the source image

Trump mocks Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Senate testimony

At a “Make America Great Again” rally Tuesday night in Mississippi, President Trump mocked testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who is Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s most prominent accusers of sexual assault. Ford appeared Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Kavanaugh report could be finished tomorrow, FBI says

Tucker on claims made by Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend

Kavanaugh hearings have energized our base: RNC Chair

Ronna McDaniel: Republicans are going on offense and defense

Can FBI be trusted in Kavanaugh investigation?

Dershowitz: Rules have been called off on Kavanaugh

Ingraham: Academic resistance to Kavanaugh

What the FBI might be looking for in the Brett Kavanaugh probe

Trump expands scope of FBI probe into Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh rejects classmate’s ‘belligerent’ characterization of college years

Republican Sen. Kennedy Wants Kavanaugh’s FBI Report Made Public

Exclusive: Ex-boyfriend of Kavanaugh accuser speaks out

RECAP: All 3 ‘Witnesses’ Named By Ford And Questioned By FBI Deny Knowledge Of Party

Trump governs from a centrist view: Tucker Carlson

The Vicious Treatment of Judge Kavanaugh Guarantees Red Wave Devastation in Midterms and Trump 2020

 

The FBI confidential Kavanaugh report: Who’s allowed to read it and where

All 100 senators will have secure access to the new information, but not their staffs. They can’t speak publicly about what’s in the file.
by Frank Thorp V and Garrett Haake / 
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., leaves a closed meeting in the Capitol on Russia sanctions on July 31, 2018.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., leaves a closed meeting in the Capitol’s secure room on Russia sanctions on July 31, 2018.Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc.

WASHINGTON — The FBI’s supplemental background investigation will be delivered soon to Capitol Hill and added to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s current background investigation file.

What will be delivered, according to aides and senators, are the “302” forms of the FBI interviews, which summarize the contents of the interviews. The FBI will not be delivering findings or a conclusion as to who’s telling the truth in the case.

All 100 Senators will have access to the new information, but not their staffs. There also are 10 Judiciary Committee staffers who have access to the Kavanaugh file, which is a paper report — there are no pdf’s or emails of it. And it will not be made public.

OCT.03.201806:58

When the supplemental background investigation is delivered, it’s unclear how the information will be disseminated to all 100 Senators in a timely fashion considering that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to vote this week.

There are not multiple copies of the background investigation file, and senators cannot go pick it up and bring it home with them. They need to either go to a secure area designated in the Judiciary Committee offices, or a designated staffer can bring it to a senator and then return it.

Republican senators said Wednesday that the file will be held in the Senate SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), which is the classified area of the Capitol Visitor’s Center. The SCIF could be used so more senators can be accommodated than in the Judiciary Committee offices, which are fairly small.

According to committee aides and a document dictating how the file is to be handled, “The Security Manager shall maintain in a locked safe a log that reflects the date, time, and particular FBI background investigation report received by the Committee.”

The information in the background investigation file is not marked top secret or classified, but it is not to be leaked to even characterized. Senators are “not allowed to share any details whatsoever,” a committee aide said.

That rule will likely be tested.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/who-s-allowed-read-fbi-s-confidential-kavanaugh-report-how-n916441

 

Trump’s Mocking of Kavanaugh Accusers Stuns Senators Before Vote

  • Shannon Pettypiece

(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump mocked two of the women who have come forward with claims that Brett Kavanaugh engaged in sexual assault and other misconduct in the 1980s, earning bipartisan criticism from U.S. senators currently weighing the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation.

Speaking Tuesday night at a rally in Southaven, Mississippi, Trump attacked the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford, who last week testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh drunkenly assaulted her during a high school party more than 30 years ago.

Trump's Mocking of Kavanaugh Accusers Stuns Senators Before Vote

The president, who days ago said Ford’s testimony was “very credible,” ridiculed her memory to cheers in the audience, suggesting certain details she didn’t recall were evidence that she wasn’t telling the truth.

“How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where was the place? I don’t remember,” Trump said, mocking Ford’s answers during last week’s hearing.

The remarks drew a rebuke Wednesday not just from Democrats but also Senator Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican who forced an additional FBI investigation into the accusations against Kavanaugh by threatening to withhold his vote for confirmation.

Flake said Trump’s comments were “kind of appalling” in an interview with NBC News.

“There is no time and no place for remarks like that,” Flake said. “But to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right.”

Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and key undecided vote in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle, was also critical of Trump.

“The president’s comments were just plain wrong,” Collins said in a statement.

A third undecided Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was asked whether Trump’s comments would affect her decision on whether to back Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

“I am taking everything into account and I think the comments by the president yesterday mocking Dr. Ford were wholly inappropriate,” Murkowski said.

Their remarks echoed those of Democrats, who condemned Trump as insensitive to Ford and women who had faced sexual harassment and assault. Ford, a California psychology professor, told the Senate that she is “100 percent” certain Kavanaugh was her attacker.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer assailed Trump’s comments.

“President Trump’s outright mockery of a sexual assault survivor, riddled as it was with falsehoods, was reprehensible, beneath the office of the presidency and beneath common decency from one person to another,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “He’s ruining the norms of America. He’s so degrading the way people treat each other.”

Beto O’Rourke, the party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas, tweeted that Ford “should be treated with dignity and respect — not demeaned and belittled by the President of the United States.”

Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, tweeted that the remarks were “sadly what we expect from the president.”

“For a brief moment this week, I respected his relatively good comments about having a full investigation,” Jayapal said. “That lasted for a nanosecond.”

And Angus King, an independent U.S. senator from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, said in an interview with CNN that Trump’s comments “made me feel sort of sick.” The senior senator from King’s state, Republican Susan Collins, is seen as a crucial swing vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Ford’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, called the president’s comments “a vicious, vile and soulless attack.”

“Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well?” he tweeted. “She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice.”

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong backer of Kavanaugh, offered a milder criticism of the president while speaking to the Atlantic Festival on Wednesday. “President Trump went through a factual rendition that I didn’t particularly like, and I would tell him, knock it off. You’re not helping,” the senator said.

‘Scary Time’

On Monday, Trump said Kavanaugh’s testimony last week — which immediately followed Ford’s — showed that the nominee had “a little bit of difficulty” with alcohol when he was younger, undercutting Kavanaugh’s own portrayal of his drinking habits in high school and college.

Earlier Tuesday, the president previewed his change in tone as he departed the White House, saying “it’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of.” When asked whether he had a message for American women, Trump said: “Women are doing great.”

Trump's Mocking of Kavanaugh Accusers Stuns Senators Before Vote

At the Mississippi rally, where Trump was promoting the candidacy of Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, Trump also turned his ire toward Julie Swetnick, who claims Kavanaugh took part in efforts at parties during high school to get girls intoxicated so that groups of boys could have sex with them.

“This woman had no clue what was going on, and yet she made the most horrible charges,” Trump said, pointing out that Kavanaugh went to Yale as apparent evidence that the claims were spurious.

Kavanaugh has denied Swetnick and Ford’s claims.

Midterm Effect

The controversy around Kavanaugh’s nomination has erupted just a month before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. Trump is logging multiple trips each week to rally support for Republican candidates he needs to win, and on Tuesday showed he’s ready to stoke voters by vociferously fighting for his nominee amid an FBI investigation into the allegations.

It isn’t clear how Trump’s mockery of the women will play politically. The Kavanaugh hearing crystallized what has become a central divide in American politics. On one side: women who for decades have suffered as their stories of sexual assault and harassment went ignored or ridiculed. On the other: conservative men aggrieved by a system they see as rigged against them and rife with unfair and reputation-destroying accusations.

Opinions of Ford’s testimony — on social media and television networks — were that she was powerful and believable. Her vivid, specific and heartbreaking account invited contrast with the angry bickering over Senate rules and procedures by lawmakers, as well as Kavanaugh’s subsequent combative testimony.

Kavanaugh’s repeated references to liking beer — and initial attempts to avoid answering a question on whether he had ever blacked out from alcohol use — have been the subject of parody, including a skit on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” Yale University classmate Charles Ludington released a statement saying Kavanaugh’s testimony — in which he eventually said he’d never blacked out — was a “blatant mischaracterization.”

The White House agreed on Monday to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation question more people in connection with the allegations that Kavanaugh was sexually abusive toward women following growing criticism that the probe was too constrained. But the bureau isn’t doing its own deep dive into the nominee’s alcohol use or whether he gave false testimony to a Senate panel last week, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Senate Majority Mitch McConnell has said the Senate will hold a confirmation vote for Kavanaugh this week.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/treasuries-slide-asia-stocks-set-to-nudge-higher-markets-wrap

McConnell vows Republicans won’t be intimidated by Kavanaugh protesters

Published: Oct 3, 2018 1:07 p.m. ET

Senate majority leader cites harassment at airports, homes

By ROBERTSCHROEDER

WHITE HOUSE REPORTER
Reuters
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushed back at protesters who are confronting Republicans over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying members of the GOP won’t be prevented from taking a vote on President Donald Trump’s pick.

‘I want to make it clear to these people who are chasing my members around the hall here, or harassing them at the airports, or going to their homes: we will not be intimidated.’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Kentucky Republican McConnell made his vow from the floor Wednesday as senators prepare to vote on the nomination of Kavanaugh this week. The judge has been accused of sexual assault, and the vote was delayed to allow for an FBI investigation. He has denied the charges.

The Hill reports McConnell and Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, were both confronted at Reagan National Airport outside Washington on Monday by women who said they were survivors of sexual assault. Protesters have also followed senators coming in and out of hearings this week.

Republicans hold a slim 51-seat majority in the Senate, so Kavanaugh’s nomination can afford no more than one GOP defection. In the event of a tie, Vice President Mike Pence would vote.

On Tuesday night, Trump mocked college professor Christine Blasey Ford, one of Kavanaugh’s accusers. Key GOP senators condemned the president’s comments.

Kaitlan Collins

@kaitlancollins

What the key senators think of President Trump ridiculing Christine Blasey Ford:
Flake: “Kind of appalling.”
Collins: “Just plain wrong.”
Murkowski: “Wholly inappropriate and unacceptable.”
But will it affect their votes on Kavanaugh? Flake says it won’t his.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcconnell-vows-republicans-wont-be-intimidated-by-kavanaugh-protesters-2018-10-03

Story 3: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Views on U.S. Economy and Monetary Policy — Videos —

LIVE: Fed Chair Jerome Powell Speaks at the Atlantic Festival – Oct. 3, 2018

What keeps US Fed’s Powell up at night? Everything

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell doesn't get much sleep worrying about potential risks to the economy

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell doesn’t get much sleep worrying about potential risks to the economy

Is inflation about to rise? Are interest rates too high? Or too low? Are economic risks lurking? These are the fears that keep US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell from getting a good night’s sleep.

While he was generally upbeat about the US economy, predicting that the good news could continue “effectively indefinitely,” when asked Wednesday what keeps him up at night, Powell said, “Basically everything.”

“Nobody wants a central banker who sleeps well. What good is that?” Powell told a forum hosted by The Atlantic.

Concerns about getting monetary policy right top the list but Powell said, “It’s a world full of risk. I probably lose sleep over different things every night.”

But even so, he noted that the US economy was seeing very low, and falling, unemployment along with moderate inflation.

“There is really no reason to think this cycle can’t continue for quite some time,” he said.

Whenever the next crisis comes, he predicted it will not look like the last one — and there are no signs of financial instability or banking issues — but would be something like a cyber-attack or global event.

Rising protectionism and slowing of an important economy like China would be “bad for American workers and the American economy,” he said.

But if President Donald Trump’s trade confrontations — which so far include cranking up tariffs on half of the goods imported from China — result in lower tariffs and better trade rules, “that will be good for us.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6237419/What-keeps-US-Feds-Powell-night-Everything.html

Jerome Powell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Jerome Powell
Jerome H. Powell.jpg
16th Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Assumed office
February 5, 2018
President Donald Trump
Deputy Richard Clarida
Preceded by Janet Yellen
Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Assumed office
May 25, 2012
President Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Preceded by Frederic Mishkin
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance
In office
1992–1993
President George H. W. Bush
Preceded by Robert R. Glauber
Succeeded by Frank N. Newman
Personal details
Born Jerome Hayden Powell
February 4, 1953 (age 65)
Washington, D.C., U.S.
Political party Republican[1]
Spouse(s)
Elissa Leonard (m. 1985)
Children 3
Residence Chevy Chase, Maryland, U.S.
Education Princeton University (AB)
Georgetown University (JD)
Net worth $112 million[2][3]

Jerome Hayden “Jay” Powell (born February 4, 1953) is the 16th and current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, serving in that office since February 2018. He was nominated to the Fed Chair position by President Donald Trump, and confirmed by the United States Senate.[4][5]

Powell earned a degree in politics from Princeton University in 1975 and a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 1979. He moved to investment banking in 1984, and has since worked for several financial institutions. He briefly served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance under President George H. W. Bush in 1992. More recently, he was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center from 2010 to 2012. He has served as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since 2012.

Early life and education

Powell was born on February 4, 1953 in Washington, D.C., as one of six children to Patricia (née Hayden; 1926–2010)[6] and Jerome Powell (1921–2007),[7] a lawyer in private practice and a World War II veteran.[8][9] His maternal grandfather, James J. Hayden, was Dean of the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America and later a lecturer at Georgetown Law School.[10] He had five siblings, Susan, Matthew, Tia, Libby and Monica.[8]

In 1972, Powell graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit university-preparatory school. He received a Bachelor of Arts in politics from Princeton University in 1975, where his senior thesis was titled “South Africa: Forces for Change.”[11] In 1975–76, he spent a year as a legislative assistant to Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker (R),[12][13] who had been named by Ronald Reagan as his probable vice presidential running mate on the 1976 ticket, had Reagan succeeded in securing the GOP nomination.

Powell earned a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1979, where he was editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Law Journal.[14]

Career

In 1979, Powell moved to New York City and became a clerk to Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 1981 to 1983, Powell was a lawyer with Davis Polk & Wardwell, and from 1983 to 1984, he worked at the firm of Werbel & McMillen.[13]

From 1984 to 1990, Powell worked at Dillon, Read & Co., an investment bank, where he concentrated on financing, merchant banking, and mergers and acquisitions, rising to the position of vice president.[13][15]

Between 1990 and 1993, Powell worked in the United States Department of the Treasury, at which time Nicholas F. Brady, the former chairman of Dillon, Read & Co., was the United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1992, Powell became the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance after being nominated by George H. W. Bush.[13][15][12] During his stint at the Treasury, Powell oversaw the investigation and sanctioning of Salomon Brothers after one of its traders submitted false bids for a United States Treasury security.[16] Powell was also involved in the negotiations that made Warren Buffett the chairman of Salomon.[17]

In 1993, Powell began working as a managing director for Bankers Trust, but he quit in 1995 after the bank got into trouble when several customers suffered large losses due to derivatives. He then went back to work for Dillon, Read & Co.[15]

From 1997 to 2005, Powell was a partner at The Carlyle Group, where he founded and led the Industrial Group within the Carlyle U.S. Buyout Fund.[14][18]

After leaving Carlyle, Powell founded Severn Capital Partners, a private investment firm focused on specialty finance and opportunistic investments in the industrial sector.[19]

In 2008, Powell became a managing partner of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity and venture capital firm that invests in sustainable energy.[19]

Between 2010 and 2012, Powell was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C., where he worked on getting Congress to raise the United States debt ceiling during the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. Powell presented the implications to the economy and interest rates of a default or a delay in raising the debt ceiling.[18] He worked for a salary of $1 per year.[2]

Federal Reserve Board of Governors]

Powell speaks in 2015

In December 2011, along with Jeremy C. Stein, Powell was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Barack Obama. The nomination included two people to help garner bipartisan support for both nominees since Stein’s nomination had previously been filibustered. Powell’s nomination was the first time that a president nominated a member of the opposition party for such a position since 1988.[1] He took office on May 25, 2012, to fill the unexpired term of Frederic Mishkin, who resigned. In January 2014, he was nominated for another term, and, in June 2014, he was confirmed by the United States Senate in a 67-24 vote for a 14-year term ending January 31, 2028.[20]

In 2013, Powell made a speech regarding financial regulation and ending “too big to fail“.[21] In April 2017, he took over oversight of the “too big to fail” banks.[22]

Chair of the Federal Reserve[edit]

Powell sworn in as chair in 2018

On November 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Powell to serve as the Chair of the Federal Reserve.[23]

On December 5, 2017, the Senate Banking Committee approved Powell’s nomination to be Chair in a 22–1 vote, with Senator Elizabeth Warren casting the lone dissenting vote.[24] His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on January 23, 2018 by a 84–13 vote.[25] Powell assumed office as Chair on February 5, 2018.

Economic philosophy

Monetary policy

A survey of 30 economists in March 2017 noted that Powell was slightly more of a monetary dove than the average member of the Board of Governors.[citation needed] However, The Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer rated Powell as neutral (i.e. neither a hawk nor a dove). Powell has been a skeptic of round 3 of quantitative easing, initiated in 2012, although he did vote in favor of implementation.[26]

Financial regulation

Powell testifies before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2018

Powell “appears to largely support” the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, although he has stated that “we can do it more efficiently”.[26] In an October 2017 speech, Powell stated that higher capital and liquidity requirements and stress tests have made the financial system safer and must be preserved. However, he also stated that the Volcker Rule should be re-written to exclude smaller banks.[26]

Housing finance reform

In a July 2017 speech, Powell said that, in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the status quo is “unacceptable” and that the current situation “may feel comfortable, but it is also unsustainable”. He warned that “the next few years may present our last best chance” to “address the ultimate status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” and avoid “repeating the mistakes of the past”. Powell expressed concerns that, in the current situation, the government is responsible for mortgage defaults and that lending standards were too rigid, noting that these can be solved by encouraging “ample amounts of private capital to support housing finance activities”.[27]

Personal life

In 1985, Powell married Elissa Leonard.[9] They have three children[14] and live in Chevy Chase Village, Maryland, where Elissa is vice chair of the board of managers of the village.[28] In 2010, Powell was on the board of governors of Chevy Chase Club, a country club.[29]

Based on public filings, Powell’s net worth is estimated to be as much as $112 million.[2][3] He is the richest member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.[30]

Powell has served on the boards of charitable and educational institutions including DC Prep, a public charter school, the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University, and The Nature Conservancy. He was also a founder of the Center City Consortium, a group of 16 parochial schools in the poorest areas of Washington, D.C.[18]

Powell is a registered Republican.[1]

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Powell

Story 4: Job Market Booming With Private Payroll Surge of 230,000 in September 2018 — Videos

ADP payrolls data doesn’t take Hurricane Florence into account, says Moody’s Mark Zandi

What Are Non Farm Payrolls?

U.S. Private Employers Boost Hiring; Activity Accelerates

 

ADP Research Institute®

September 2018: ADP Employment Reports

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT

230,000

Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment

View full report ›

SMALL BUSINESS REPORT

56,000

Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees

View full report ›

NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT

-5,700

Change in U.S. franchise employment

View full report ›

 

Previous ADP Employment Reports

AUGUST 2018

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT

163,000

Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment

View full report ›

SMALL BUSINESS REPORT

21,000

Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees

View full report ›

NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT

20,700

Change in U.S. franchise employment

View full report ›

JULY 2018

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT

219,000

Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment

View full report ›

SMALL BUSINESS REPORT

21,000

Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees

View full report ›

NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT

15,100

Change in U.S. franchise employment

View full report ›

JUNE 2018

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT

177,000

Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment

View full report ›

SMALL BUSINESS REPORT

21,000

Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees

View full report ›

NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT

13,800

Change in U.S. franchise employment

View full report ›

MAY 2018

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT

178,000

Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment

View full report ›

SMALL BUSINESS REPORT

21,000

Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees

View full report ›

NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT

29,500

Change in U.S. franchise employment

View full report ›

 

About the Employment Reports

The ADP Research Institute® works in close collaboration with Moody’s Analytics and its experienced team of labor market researchers to publish monthly employment reports.

Report FAQs

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/

 

‘Rip-roaring hot’ jobs market sees private payrolls surge by 230,000, highest since February

  • Private payrolls rose by 230,000 in September, according to the most recent count by ADP and Moody’s Analytics.
  • That was well ahead of expectations for 185,000 and the 168,000 jobs reported in August.
  • Moody’s economist Mark Zandi said the current pace suggests an unemployment rate of close to 3 percent in a year.

ADP September payrolls up 230,000

ADP September payrolls up 230,000  

Job growth surged in September to its highest level in seven months as the economy put up another show of strength, according to a report Wednesday from ADP and Moody’s Analytics.

Private companies added 230,000 more positions for the month, the best level since the 241,000 jobs added in February and well ahead of the 168,000 jobs added in August.

The total was well ahead of the 185,000 jobs expected by economists surveyed by Refinitiv (formerly Thomson Reuters).

Construction grew by 34,000 as goods-producing industries overall contributed 46,000 to the final count.

“This labor market is rip-roaring hot,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told CNBC. “The risk that this economy overheats is very high, and this is one more piece of evidence of that.”

If the current pace continues, Zandi said he expects the unemployment rate to fall near 3 percent over the next year. The headline jobless rate currently is at 3.9 percent.

The ADP/Moody’s count comes two days ahead of the Labor Department’s closely watched nonfarm payrolls report. Economists also expect that report to show job growth of 185,000.

The jump came despite the disruption of Hurricane Florence, which ravaged the Carolinas and was expected to dent the jobs count. The nature of ADP’s methodology is such that it doesn’t include the storm victims because it only counts employees on payroll and doesn’t account for those displaced by temporary events.

“This overstates the case a little bit,” Zandi said. He added that the actual count could come down about 25,000 once the storm impact is considered.

Job gains were spread across industries, as services led with 184,000. Professional and business services contributed 70,000, while education and health services was next with 44,000, and trade, transportation, and utilities added 30,000. Leisure and hospitality and financial services each saw growth of 16,000.

There were several weak notes, however. Manufacturing added just 7,000, its weakest reading in a year, while Zandi said retail and mortgage banking also were weak.

Businesses with between 51 and 499 employees added the most by size, with 99,000 new hires. Large businesses added 75,000 while small firms contributed 56,000.

The August private payrolls count was revised up by 5,000.

The report comes at a strong time for the economy, which is coming off 4.2 percent GDP growth in the second quarter a number that could be above 4 percent for the third quarter as well. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in a speech Tuesday characterized the economy outlook among forecasters as “remarkably positive.”

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download