#my disinformation campaign never sleeps

[moonrpg]

ooh happy birthday emily! 🍰🍓🌟🎉🎉🎈 i hope today is fun ^_^ 🎉

THANK U SO MUCH LULU!! you are so kind :)

🌷

[kyemeruthie]

Too little, too late?

It has been some months since I last posted here. A lot of things happened. Went back home to teach after studying for a year, organized a month-long training, volunteered for campaigns until the final days before our elections yesterday.

Last night I cannot sleep. I'm trying to sing Rosas in my mind, praying for a miracle. I've always prayed for a victory against the son of the dictator, even with the littlest of margins. However, we may be confirming what surveys have been telling us all along. My heart is pounding while I try to sleep. I've been fidgeting, feeling hungry and woozy at the same time. I tried reading but Marie Lu's Legend also deals with a plague and a torturous Republic. So I closed my eyes but here I am wide awake, typing words that seeks refuge and meaning.

I outlined the lessons I'd be recording and teaching for the next few weeks. Hoping I'd find yet another resolve to speak and resist; but also knowing that our state universities as bastions of academic freedom and expression are on the verge of losing it to a possible resurgence of the dictator's son. It is scary.

I wanted to cry, to let the tears flow; but even then, it won't. I'm holding onto the hope that our people's movement would translate into resistance, even at the slimmest numbers. I have not checked Twitter and closed messaging apps with my friends since 11pm last night. There remains a quiet hum in the streets, telling us that the days would continue.

Have our efforts been too little, too late? We did our best, to my mind. But maybe, the very disinformation I am studying has found fertile ground among many Pinoys. They remained disenfranchised and unheard, and so maybe, that message of unity have resonated, that promise of gold or even the aspiration of living a bit better took hold.

Time and again, we cannot blame such fervor. There's never that "bobo" vote. Our choices reflect our values and aspirations. The majority vote may be different from ours, but still this is the beauty and damnation of democracy: that we speak from the overflow of our hearts. Indeed, we cannot discount the fact that fraudulent activities and further disenfranchisement of voter rights have occurred. We must make every effort to demand accountability from these kinds of actions.

May be rambling here. Sleep evades me still. Later on, we must carry on; with greater resistance and charge even with fear beckoning us from behind. We must continue to teach in the face of historical revisionism; to deliberate and demand for critical debates instead of relying on propaganda speeches and evasive statements.

There are many stories that I've held onto amid these trying times. Frodo was ready to give up towards the end of The Two Towers, but Sam beckon us towards hope:

"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness, and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end, because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it'll shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something... That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo...and it's worth fighting for."

More recently, in my daily devotions, the Word of God asks us to hold on. The people of Israel found an honest and virtuous judge with Deborah. And last night, I found some grounding from Jesus' unfailing promise: that He delivers. Fear can be overwhelming, even the mighty David trembled; but God tells us to trust his power and deliverance. In the same thread, we must always thank God for leaders who deliver. He has overcome the world for His, and I trust His sovereignty in all these trying times.

[atheistforhumanity]

Hello, I'd love to know what your views on communism are.

Hello Anon, 

This is a great question. Thank you for asking me. For anyone whofollows my blog you know that I’m definitely a leftist and havepromoted Democratic Socialism. Communism is something that Ifind very constructive if not fully functional. The first time Itried to answer this question, I wanted to be detailed, but thatwould be much too lengthy for this platform. So I will do my best tobe concise in my answer.

Communism is known to people for the abolition of privateproperty. Specifically, Marx wanted to make all land public and forall rents to go toward the public good. Let me briefly discuss thisidea. To understand Marx's goal, we must understand the reasoningbehind it. What Marx was against was capital. The existence ofcapital monetizes everything, even people. In Feudalism and nowCapitalism, capital has been a tool of control over the masses. Thepoor must rent shelter from the land lords, the fields must beworked, but for the person who owns the land, the ore must besmelted, but for the person who owns the mine, and so on. The view ofpersonal ownership over things that could be public goods and meansis what has created the class system in every society around theworld. Capitalism says that personal ownership is the highest form offreedom, yet the proletariat owns nothing and by design will likelyown nothing their entire life. The point is that as long as we havethis idea of property where virtually everything is controlled by thevery few that “own” the land, the resources, and the production,then they will always be empowered to exploit the masses. The massesthen become a commodity, as Marx said, that must sell themselves tothose with capital. And those with capital do not value the laborerany more than what is required keep them alive and working. We havean extremely unfair, unjust, and uneven system in societies aroundthe world.

Yes, I agree that a change in property and ownership are needed. Ido believe that a home should be unconditional to all. To say that'snot possible is ludicrous, because we have more empty homes thanhomeless people. One reason I think we need change is so that shelterand security are no longer carrots that can be waved over the workershead to control the masses. If everyone had a secure home, then thisstabilizes the people and closes the gap of inequality. Instantly,the laborer has more bargaining power when he's not in danger ofsleeping on the street. It's not fair or realistic to say that such achange in bargaining power is needed, because generation aftergeneration the capital holders have shown they will pay people aslittle as possible and fight to keep that number low. It is capitalthat gives them the power to exploit people's situation.

And to quickly look at the production side of this. The idea thata person can own a company and therefore “earn” all of it'sprofit is a denial of the reality of labor and our most basic socialcontracts. Ownership itself cannot produce anything, so how do wejustify withholding this title from the people who do produce capitaland profit? Because ownership cannot produce then laborers shouldalways share ownership of the capital created. If capital did notexist, then the dynamic of employer and employee could not exist. Wemust recognize that in the origin of capital, capital could not beearned it could only be taken. Land was the first type of capitalever, and there was no one to obtain that capital from. It was takenby force, by tribes, individuals, and nations. America is built oncapital that was taken by force, and in fact slaves were the capitalused for investment to obtain the capital of resources and industry.The only reason anyone has capital is because it was taken by forceby someone in the past who becomes the ruling class and capital staysin the hands of that social stratosphere, and they pretend that theyearned it. In light of this larger view of capital, I see no reasonto allow it to be squandered and held over our heads.

Ideally, I would like to see a world where land becomes public andthe means of production are fairly controlled by the people who makeit possible. If you're wondering what this would look like, think ofStar Trek. Star Trek is a world where no one needs to buy a home,work for wages, or pay for their basic needs. Through miraculouslyadvanced production they eliminated the concepts of private propertywe hold today. I believe this is absolutely possible, but we haveourselves in such a contradictory system that a transition straightinto such a philosophy would be near impossible.

Without rambling too much, I want to talk about some things Idon't agree with in Communism. Renditions of Communism around theglobe have leaned toward curbing individual freedoms through bothcorruption and rigidity. I not believe that there should be one partyin government that prevents other parties from forming orparticipating. As an American, I see the ability to form, challenge,and dissolve political parties as a primary component to democracy.While I think that the proletariat must be allowed to share in theprofit and capital of production, we cannot hinder the individual'sentrepreneurial aspirations by nationalizing every single company. Idon't believe that automatic nationalizing of all companies is theanswer to our problem. One thing that Marx wanted was for the stateto have a type of monopoly, and I don't believe this is wise. I wouldnever trust any one entity to wield so much power. Matter of fact,turning land public from private could only be successful in ademocracy where oversight of the use of land by the people exists.

I believe we can achieve similar goals to what Marx envision withnationalizing by using a strong progressive tax system (which is inthe manifesto), making adjustments to our property laws, legislatingour way to a more progressive income dynamic, breaking down the nearmonopolies that exist, strengthening both labor and consumerprotections, and by eliminating money in politics.

Marx wanted to see the proletariat rise to a position of“supremacy” in government, basically meaning the people havingmore power then the small ruling class. In democracies we absolutelyhave the possibility for that to be achieved today, but the war ofinformation and ideas has prevented us from achieving that. Campaignsof disinformation and misplaced loyalties are holding us back.

Unlike Marx, I would never want the government to hold a monopolyover currency and banking. Ideally, I would like to a see a worldwithout money, but that's not happening any time soon. The productionand security of currency should always be a joint effort betweenpublic and private, and should hold checks and balances as does ourdemocracy. Is that we have? No, not quite, but it's better thanallowing any one entity to hold so much financial power. Again, Idon't believe we need the nationalization of all banks, I believe weneed stronger laws regulating the entities that exist in competition.With stronger regulation, better economic policies, and maintainingbalanced control over wealth and currency we can vastly improve onour current situation.

There is so much more to Communism and so much more I could say,but I don't want this to become too long. In summary, where I agreemost with Marx is in his desire to abolish class in society, as wellas economic inequality. I share some of his methods or at least thegoals he wants to achieve, but I often have different views of howthings could be achieved, especially in the context of modernsociety. The one positive take away from Communism that everyoneshould get behind is that the proletariat needs more power,economically, politically, and socially. The core of all societalproblems is the existence of a ruling class and a working class.Until those become one in the same, we will suffer the same issuesendlessly.

[furbyfubar]

How's Sweden? 🇪🇺🇸🇪❤️

In what context? Do you mean for the country as a whole or what? Big question...

Never mind, I get few enough asks here that I can give you a more comprehensive answer. I'll use it as an excuse to take stock of my personal trends against those of my country? Sorry not sorry for the incoming wall of text. Note, this is why you shouldn't say "How do you do?" to anyone from Sweden; we're tragically likely to give you an honest answer!

Weather for Sweden: You're UK based, so lets go by stereotypes and start with talking about the weather I suppose? It's winter, so the weather here is *usually* quickly summed up as "dark". Right now Sweden has between ~7 hours 15 minutes of time between sun up and sun down in the far south of Sweden, and "fuck you" minutes of sun on the far north, where it's currently polar night until about two weeks into January. On top the normal lack of sun, Sweden got an early Autumn this year and had less actually sunny days than usual in October and November due to clouds. So yeah, vitamin D deficiency for about 25% of the population according to my doctor. And many of the ones avoiding a deficiency are doing it by eating supplements. On a longer time scale, ”climate” not “weather”... Yeah, we’ve been having heat records broken and all that shit here the past few years as as well while having some winters be worse due to the Gulf stream being messed up..

Rating: 3.5/10  – It sucks, but it's not much worse than the expected level of suckiness?Weather for me personally: I'm based in Stockholm and we're currently at 6½h of sun up time per day, but like I said, it’s been cloudy. Not so cold so far though. The problem for me personally is that when the sun goes down at 14:52 I often miss out on the sun completely due to my fucked up sleeping patterns. Or the sun is up but covered while I’m going to work and that's it for sunlight that day. I'd likely suffer from winter depression if only I could separate it from my normal depression. We’ve had some snow that stays on the ground, but we’re somewhat surprisingly not in the hell that is streets filled with snow-water slosh yet.

Rating: 3.5/10 – I don’t think the weather sucks more or less for me than it does for the country on average. (Places north of the polar circle excluded; I would really no be able to stand months of polar night.)

Health for Sweden: Sweden made #6 on the Bloomberg 2019 Healthiest Country Index, up two positions from 2017. Up from a score of 88.92 to 90.24 out of 100, so apparently it's not just other countries having worse health, things have gotten a bit better here.Rating: 9.24/10 – Well, Bloomberg hopefully put a lot more effort into their score than I’ll ever do, so I’ll just re-scale and steal it. 

Health for me personally: I had to basically skip a year due depression and exhaustion. Not being able to work due to a non-functioning brain obviously sucks, but to bring this back to how Sweden is: Being able to be on sick leave for almost a year and thus being able to focus on getting medication that works for me and not being worried about getting evicted for not making rent is a blessing. I'm back to working part time since October while still on sick leave for 50%, trying to ease me back in to the productive work force. So far going well. If I’d been forced to somehow work or starve, or live off my parents or something instead, I’m pretty sure I’d either be much deeper in depression right now, or be dead. I’ve still not really found meds that work great for me, but I'm feeling much better than I was a year ago.

Rating: 3/10 – I'm as optimistic as a clinically depressed person gets to be.

Status politically for Sweden (as I see it personally): It's getting more fucked by the day. The Moderate party just broke their campaign promise to not cooperate with the Sweden Democrats, a party born from neo-Nazi and white power movements. For UK context, think of the British National Party. Now imagine them going from a fringe group in the '90s to getting 20% of the votes in recent polls. They've been doing this all while having a whole bunch of scandals that would've hurt or killed the credibility of any non-fascist party. They're racist, homo- and transphobic, and operate their own alternative media that have ties to Russian disinformation efforts. So yeah, as a gay guy who's seen the inside of a few history books: Outlook not great.

Rating: 2/10 – If only because it can still get worse. Think first act of Cabaret.

Love life for Sweden: Hmm, check in on satwcomic.com I suppose?

Love life for me personally: Yes please? I've been single for longer than I'm willing to admit. I've barely dated anyone for ages due to my aforementioned depression making me not feel like someone worth dating. Also, there's some types of vitamin D deficiencies that eating supplements won't cure...

Rating: I really don't want to put a number on this so I won’t. Honestly, graphing out my love life numerically doesn't sound all that productive. But somewhere at the edge of the Bell curve is the guy for me?

Economically for Sweden: Sweden's been in a upward business cycle since 2016, but it's ebbing out and is expected to be balanced sometime next real. Ie, things have been good, but things aren't quite yet bad. Rating: 5.5/10 – I suppose? Not really my area of expertise.

Economically for me personally: Not complaining at all on this front. I got an IT job four years ago after having worked part time in retail for a bunch of years and having been a student before that. I've managed to not raise my monthly expenses even nearly as much as my pay went up. So while I’m not wealthy, I'm still surprised by being able to have a savings account that grows steadily and still having more spending money over each month.

My rating: 8/10 – This quote by Charles Dickens comes to mind: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.” 

Social life in Sweden: According to this article I just Googled up from half remembering reading in 2015, “The expat quality of life survey" published by HSBC, Sweden was the worst country for the category "Making friends". Looking at the data on HSBC's website we're apparently no longer dead last as a place to be making friends, we're now 31st out of the 33 countries listed, with Japan at 32nd place and Saudi Arabia last at 33rd. The United Kingdom is at 29th.

It is close to impossible to make friends here by talking to random strangers in most situations, as only weird people talk to strangers. Of course that mentality is self-fulfilling since if you assume any stranger talking to you is weird, drunk, or high, you will not want to make friends with strangers that talk to you, and you won't want to talk to strangers more than you have to or risk being branded weird. Even striking up random conversations at a pub will be more difficult here. 

But don’t despair, there’s a trick! Find the few social situations where Swedes want to talk to people they don't know: This is done by joining some organization or club of some sort. It doesn't really matter if it's a board gaming group, a student group, doing volunteer work for the local Pride or some other NPO or if it's a club for people who really like a certain breed of dogs. Once we've decided that we're among our own kind of people (and I don't mean "other Swedes") we'll happily talk to strangers, and not only about subjects related to that specific organization. Step two is converting them to be your friends and not just some randos you can talk to at some club meeting. I’m sad to say that traditionally this is done with alcohol, either by dragging people along to a pub/bar, or by inviting them or being invited by them to some sort of party. Without alcohol the fallback is fika. If the organization you’ve joined is something that you will naturally be spending time doing outside of the organization or club meetings that’s also ideal. Once you’ve invited or been invited to a few things outside of the organization it’s not strange to invite them to other social things than what the organization cares about.

For fairness to anyone reading this that didn’t read the article: I should probably also mention that the same HSBC study had Sweden as the top country in Europe for “overall quality of life” for expats here. And third best in the world, just behind Singapore and New Zealand in the same category. "Swedes make great friends but terrible strangers”.

My rating for making friends in Sweden is : 3/10 - Join a club, any club.

Social life for me personally: I have a few great close friends and a bunch more not quite as close friends who are also great. Come to think of it, many of them I've met through one of the three different organizations I've been most active in, and most of the rest I met through those friends. I'm really thankful for having friends who are still around even after I've spent way too much time feeling too bad to be very social or friendly at all.

My rating of my friends: 10/10 - No, I'm not biased.OK, so let’s average those numbers up and pretend the averages mean something!

Sweden: 5.81Me:  6.63Wait what? I’m winning?

[furiousocelot]

Hey guys,

I know this is a shit, but it's been a hard week and I haven't been able to sleep well, and I think it's time to explain to the cute ones from my own country what is really happening in Brazil, because I know how manipulating can be the media.

As you see, english is not my first language, so I'm sorry if say something wrong.

Without further ado-

.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula, is a former metalworker, ex-unionist, ex-convict and Brazilian politician. He affiliated with the Workers' Party (PT). He was in government, as president, from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2010, being the successor of Dilma Rousseff, also from the PT, and who ruled from January 1, 2011 until August 31, 2016, when she was impeached, in other words, Brazil was, for more or less, 13 years being governed by the Workers' Party, not by people, but by a very well organized group.

Jair Messias Bolsonaro is a retired military and Brazilian politician, currently affiliated with the Liberal Party (PL). He was in government, as president, from January 1, 2019, to the present time. And he is just a guy.

I don't particularly like either one, but if there's one thing the dystopian books have taught me, it's that it's much saber fir the public one lonely man, than the group that controls the media.

And now I'm sure of it, because that's what has happened.

Jovem Pan, a Brazilian commercial radio and TV network with programming focused on journalism, entertainment and sports broadcasts, controlled by the Jovem Pan Groupis, since Monday, 17, under censorship instituted by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE). The TSE plenary joined the broadcaster in three decisions handed down in judgment in the virtual plenary this week due to statements by the broadcaster's commentators considered distorted or offensive to Lula, for using a phrase saying that Lula is a thief, friend of a dictator, ex-convict and unconvicted.

Also, the Electoral Justice ordered the removal of advertising pieces from President Jair Bolsonaro’s campaign with the theme “Lula most voted in prisons” and “Lula defends crime” from all Jovem Pan platforms. By 4 votes to 3, the ministers decided that the station's journalists cannot talk about the matter, under penalty of a daily fine for the channel and journalists of R$ 25,000.

And it's funny because the media, since Bolsonaro became president, has been calling him a fascis, in addition to the most recent lie that Lula's election campaigns, which have claimed that President Bolsonaro is a pedophile, a rumor caused by a phrase taken out of context, but even after all the meanness of the media he never ordered his censures. And Lula only for a few months being criticized demanded censorship of Jovem Pan.

And there's more, your friendship with dictators is no lie:

TSE maintains censorship of the Gazeta do Povo post that cites Lula's support for Ortega, dictator of Nicaragua.

Sanseverino responded to a request for censorship from Lula’s coalition, which claimed that, together, the posts promoted a “repeated smear campaign” against PT, “with the aim of instilling in voters the idea that he persecutes and threatens Christians, as well as as his ally and friend, the Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega”. In the decision, the minister says that the posts, presented to the TSE by Lula’s coalition, have “manifestly untrue content in which the disinformation is spread that the candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defended the invasion of churches, would persecute Christians, as well as would support the Nicaraguan dictatorship”.

Now we know that's a great bullshit, because after all:

Nicaragua's dictator Daniel Ortega congratulated Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for winning the second round of presidential elections in Brazil this Sunday and returning to power after ruling the country between 2003 and 2010 for two terms.

"With great joy we celebrate your well-deserved victory, asking God to give you health, strength and lots of affection to build together and encourage the future of your great country, the well-being of families, and continue to contribute to the search for peace in the world. ", said the Sandinista leader in a letter to Lula, whom he called "brother and companion".

.

Deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) reported this Tuesday (1st), that her social media accounts (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Telegram, TikTok and LinkedIn) were suspended, by decision of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE). And is "prevented from connecting with more than 9 million followers". "When you live in a dictatorship, the first thing is to try to silence the voices of the opposition", wrote the parliamentarian.

One of the last posts by the parliamentarian on Twitter was praising the demonstration of truck drivers, who block several roads across the country in support of President Jair Bolsonaro. "Stay, don't faint," she wrote. According to the parliamentary advice, "Article 53 of the Federal Constitution ensures that parliamentarians are inviolable, civilly and criminally, for any of their opinions, words and votes."

.

And there's more:

Do you remember the time I said Lula is an ex-convict? So...

The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) continues to surprise with authoritarian decisions and this time decided to censure retired minister Marco Aurélio Mello for saying that former president Lula was not acquitted of the crimes of passive corruption and money laundering, for which he was convicted in the 13th federal court in Curitiba, the conviction was confirmed by the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) and by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).

So, yeah, this is our future president.

.

The Brazilian Association of Radio and Television (Abratel) released this Wednesday, 19, a note against the decision of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) that prevented Jovem Pan from reporting facts involving the convictions of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), candidate for the Presidency of the Republic.

"ABRATEL believes that any decision to be taken on this issue should always be taken in line with the preservation of press freedom and the democratic rule of law. We hope that institutions respect the history of professional communication vehicles based in our country."

.

Also Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters (Abert) considered the escalation of judicial decisions that interfere in the programming of broadcasters worrying, with the restriction of the free circulation of journalistic content, ideas and opinions.

“The restrictions established by the electoral legislation cannot serve as an instrument for the relativization of the concepts of freedom of the press and of expression, principles of our democracy and the rule of law”, said the association.

.

And now there has also been censorship on social networks all over Brazil.

Recent decisions by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) at the request of the PT campaign, in the second round of Elections 2022, have caused concern among jurists. In a report by Record TV, radio and television associations also spoke out about these court decisions and spoke of curtailing press freedom.

Political analyst Paulo Kramer sees an indication of "media regulation" in the current scenario. "It's very bad for democracy and freedom of expression. I regret that the TSE is taking this path", he defined.

The censored channels were: Dr. News, Folha Política, Foco do Brasil and Brasil Paralelo.

In the Electoral Judicial Investigation Action filed at the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), this Sunday (16), the campaign of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), in addition to trying to silence supporters of President Jair Bolsonaro (PL), asks the censorship and blocking of the Brasil Paralelo media platform, a company that produces documentaries and promotes courses on the internet.

Also in the petition, Lula's lawyers ask for the prior censorship of the documentary "Who ordered to kill Jair Bolsonaro", which will be released by the company on the 24th. They also require the removal of the air from the video "Who ordered to kill Celso Daniel"

For those who don't know who Celso Daniel is, he was the former mayor of Santo André, in São Paulo, and he was found dead on January 18, 2002, in Juquitiba, in the metropolitan region of São Paulo, two days after being kidnapped. He had just assumed his second term as mayor and was coordinating Lula's (PT) victorious campaign for the presidency of the Republic. The newspapers at the time defined the deaths as "mysterious" and the theory of an alleged file burning related to the homicides was created.

That's a bit suspicious, right, or it's just me?

And for the uninformed, President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) was stabbed in Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, on September 6, 2018, during a public campaign act. And look how curious, the author of the crime, Adélio Bispo de Oliveira, was improperly acquitted - when the defendant is considered unaccountable - by the Federal Court of Minas Gerais, in 2019. That is, he is not sentenced to a sentence, but begins to serve some security measure.

Well, so far suspected of one murder and another of an attempt. Just another day in Brazil.

.

President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) returned to comment this Wednesday (26/10) about the alleged manipulation of radio inserts of his campaign. In a press conference in Teófilo Otoni (MG), the chief executive claimed to have “irrefutable evidence of the manipulation of insertions” and that the case “is not closed”.

The president also complained that it was “difficult to contest a close election with a partial TSE”, which “has collaborated all the time with everything the PT judges there”.

What happened is that there was a suspicion that the radios were publishing less Bolsonaro electoral propaganda than Lula, and that is why the President of the Republic asked the TSE for an investigation, which denied the request.

.

Former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) defended this Tuesday (5th) a “regulation” of digital media to separate “the wheat from the chaff” in order to try to prevent the spread of fake news on the internet. The statement was given in an interview with radio Lagoa Dourada, in Ponta Grossa, Paraná.

Lula was asked if he considered social media a “land without law”. “People in secret do things they wouldn't have the courage to do in person. So the provocation, the offenses, the false reports, the fake news are things that have gained a lot of space on the internet”, said the PT.

As a solution, the former president defended control over the content disseminated on the networks.

Like, why does he want to regulate the media, what does he have so much to hide from the people? That's what we always say in Brazil: Out of debt, out of danger.

.

And all this has been happening in a country whose constitution guarantees its citizens freedom of thought, according to Article 5, item 4 and further guaranteed by Article 220, which states that the manifestation of thought, creation, expression and information, under any form, process or vehicle shall not be subject to any restriction, subject to the provisions of this Constitution.

.

People who voted against President Bolsonaro talk about how much of a dictator he is, but the truth is that at no time during his government did he present any position on censorship, even when they accused him of atrocities, for God's sake, they made a football replica of his head and used it in a game in São Paulo, and the guy did absolutely nothing, but when they decide to speak ill of the ex-convict, all that's left is to censor people's brains.

.

So far, TSE has censored 60 content that links Lula to corruption, PCC, Ortega and PT-sensitive topics.

.

So that's it folks, our future president, thank you to everyone who voted for him.

A kiss and remember, do the L.

[jdmainman123]

Oh oh now I'm listening whitey YOU F***** UP THE GAME FOR A BLACK GIRL

I'm glad you're finally being honest with me now. Yacht fish here

YEAH IT'S TOO LATE FOR YOU AND HER FANTASY MAKEOVER IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK BACK AT THE MAP OVER UTAH THROUGH BOSTON HER BLOOD AND WHITEY'S BLOOD WAS SMEARED ALL OVER THE EARTH

Because he chose her second 2nd that's right he placed her number two after his first family that's when he fell in love with the black girl OH WAIT ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS IS THE ONE THAT FELL IN LOVE WITH WITH THE SEX FROM THE FIRST WIFE I F***** THE GAME UP FOR HER 10 YEARS LATER HE HAS A BLACK FAMILY ONE DAY HE SNAPS AND MURDERS THE ENTIRE BLACK FAMILY

Because you remember the sex with the first white hair white skin wife

NO NO WE'VE BEEN HERE MONITORING GOLD SON F**** UP LIFE FOR A BLACK HAIR WHITE SKIN GIRL it's the same archive he came in to the beach for 2 months had sex with her a brand new woke girl an example AND AFTER 2 MONTHS LEFT HER AND NEVER CAME BACK AGAIN

I guess he really didn't like black girls he just like the idea of how much black girls loved him. There it is YEAH BUDDY THIS IS THE ONE GUYS #REPORT you guys have to remember why whitey made you guys you guys have to remember why whitey made this black girl WELL HOW DID YOU GUYS CALL IT THE LURE #LURE he loved the fact that this girl couldn't resist white skinned dick

So he made his own personal FAN

But we know cold son f***** up the game for her the black girl UNFORTUNATELY GOLD SUN WAS MURDERED yeah that's right for walking around and covid came in and they needed the white hair white skin boys and girls to make a family with the blackskins and they had an unlimited arsenal calling the black skin girls dead

And I said not in a hundred years would a family come into my city meet offer them safety and refuge thrown out of their City be able to come into my city and talk trash about a p****YOU GUYS ARE IGNORING THE SCIENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO GOLD SONS FAMILY because she has a vagina and you guys have penises makes her always better than you and it went into the fact

Of you guys forced her little brother to turn against her. Offering him white hair white skin girl p****. Order pizza I called it I CALLED WHATEVER IT WASN'T

And you can't do that to her

SO SO FAR KANSAS AND WHAT IS IT PHOENIX OR TENNESSEE AND IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE SOUTH CAROLINA'S AIRPORT Whitey's weapon of choice has been I have the best white hair white skin daughter in the world and there's nothing you n****** can do about it

AND THAT'S FINE THAT'S FINE BUT YOU CAN'T WALK AROUND AND TELL BLACK PEOPLE THEY CAN'T MAKE THEIR OWN WHITE HAIR WHITE SKIN GIRL there's there's no limit to the possibilities like we have this white skin redhead girl with blue eyes. Bright red p**** hairs AND YOU DON'T SEE ME GOING AROUND TELLING PEOPLE THEY CAN'T MAKE GIRLS THAT LOOK JUST LIKE HER

Are my blue hair babies all my boys and girls have natural blue hairs and yes her p**** hairs are as blue as the sky

BUT BOTTOM LINE WE REMEMBERED HOW GOLDSON F***** A GAME UP FOR HER THE BLACK GIRL THE PROBLEM WAS THEY BUILT A 3/4 IS WHERE is where Mommy came into court and said keep it and she spit in my face and this was in Chicago

And if you turned around and said never mind I'll find someone else like you

AND THEN THE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN CAME OUT Chicago calls we don't want any more black girls in our city from your cities and then all holy war broke loose

So if my money's right when you guys called the white hair white skin girls called out the black skin men

IT WAS ONE OF THE SIGNALS AT THE SATELLITE PICKED OUT WE DON'T WANT ANY BLACK GIRLS BACK IN OUR CITY IS WHAT THEY SAID AND THAT'S VERY UNFAIR

If we could just find a way for them to stop making so many girls. Jesus every f****** Brown satellite maker in desert city gets his own building full of sleeping baby girls and then he has to make his own building for the boys to murder in front of this 3 year old girl and we got to imagine Jason's incident must have been like Disney world you must have had to recreate it at 13 years old FOR HER TO REMEMBER

So here's what I'm offering two black girls born on my beach for one of those white hair white skin girls born here in Phoenix. Final Offer

[yes-justice-seeking]

Open Letter to Secretary Pompeo of the USA

Dear Secretary Pompeo,

Regardless many questions and doubt ringing in my heart and mind, I, a freedom-loving Chinese in Canada, have been touched again by your speech given at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum yesterday. 

https://www.state.gov/communist-china-and-the-free-worlds-future/

I am writing to you because I trust the commitment that you made yesterday:“ we must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party“ and I give you my words: I’ve never been and will never be a CCP member.

As a Paralegal in Quebec, Canada, upholding no thing but the truth, the Human Rights and the rule of laws, I’ve been voicing out on YouTube what I believe for more than two years, yet my experience proves again and again that the YouTube has been deeply infiltrated by the CCP.

Inside Moles Turned YouTube a  Bullying and Financial Strangling Totalitarian Online-State!

YouTube restricted my revenue from $120 to $66 per video following my videos digging into #Huawei, and then to $1.53 per video by arbitrarily limiting the monetization or may be other secret technique for no good reason. 

BTW, I did catch the YouTube calculate the view amount in a fraudulent way, please see the video below from 4:48：

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuGI4No5Azg

On July 17, 2020, I uploaded a video in which I demonstrated the facts that beside her other strange behaviors, # 豆小豆 (@keepmoving223) who is leading a massive attack against #GuoWengui, aka #郭文贵, has been co-operating closely with the YouTube channel #图森破 that is hosted in China. I am NOT defending for #Guowengui but he is clearly the CCP’s No. 1 enemy abroad and the CCP seems to run out of patience. Further more, a whistle-blowing video shows that the YouTuber  #图森破 is apparently propagandizing the CCP’s brutal policy in Hong Kong! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1rTwbXUieI

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1286195103057547265

https://twitter.com/common_civil/status/1277969868843651083

“Go to send a message to the people of Hong Kong: if you don’t like it, get out! You B****! I am working with the CCP that is none of your business! I am defending for it, so what? Haha... You B****! My research tells me that there are lots of Hong Kong people wish the PLA to take over...Can the Hong Kong people change the Basic Law? You B****! You want to change the CCP or what?  There is no way for the Dual universal suffrage!”

https://twitter.com/common_civil/status/1277969868843651083

https://twitter.com/common_civil/status/1277969868843651083

In the following days, # 豆小豆  responded in a CCP-style insulting way with blatant disinformation but failed to contest the key issues.  #图森破 also had an online stream show in which name calling is not surprised. Welcome to the CCP-lized free-world!

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1286479133409591299

My original tweet:

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1286109885189455872

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxL2NDsN1Q&feature=youtu.be

I wouldn’t write you this letter if YouTube’s financial strangling against me didn’t reach a new level: compare with the video that I uploaded a day before of which the view amount is “806″ and the revenue is $2.89; the above-mentioned video has “1.1K” view amount but the revenue is only #0.04!  Many victims being suppressed by the CCP, such as Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Denise Ho (何韵诗) and  Anthony Wong (黄秋生) who won 38th Hong Kong Film Awards with ZERO dollar remuneration for his performance in the film because of the secret punishment imposed on him must be familiar with this type of suppression. It is not only the suppression or financial strangling to death but also the CCP-style humiliation!

Click to enlarge the image

Meanwhile, I noticed an insulting comment to my video that I can’t delete/hide it. I can see it when I do not log into my YouTube channel; when I log in, the comment doesn’t show. A comment is not visible to the channel holder and it happened to be a slander? What’s the odd?  

What did I question about #豆豆?

Please read the blog blow for the background:

Doesn’t the #CCP plot things for the US Presidential Election?

Fact 1: # 豆小豆 prepared herself with a rush catch-up of the Whistle-Blowing Movement/爆料革命 before she joined GuoWengui’s team in or about March, 2020 and turned to against the team at the end of June. 

Fact 2: The pretext she gave for her withdrawal was urgent due to her mother’s medical treatment, yet her following tweets suggest that it may not be true:

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1282862783625924610

Fact 3: Based on her own narrative, she decided to quit on June 4, but 2 days after, she made a donation to the Rule of Law Foundation which is also controlled by GuoWengui’s team. She then submitted a withdrawal request on June 7. However, 3 days after, she asked a registration to the higher level in Guo’s team. Aren’t her back forward and back forward moves suspicious like a “fishing” approach? We don’t have an answer to this question but she later on admitted that she had prepared 18 account IDs in order to surveil Guo’s team after being excluded. Does she look like a young girl as she proclaimed: “too simple too naive for being defrauded by Guo Wengui”? Or she acted like a sophisticated agent?

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1282886813569495040

Fact 4: Despite her proclaim of being “too young too simple and has not much knowledge about the politics”, when she was in GuoWengui’s team, she posted “As a classic realistic animal, human beings have no actual memory of the pain that they’ve never experienced. In a contradiction situation, when tensions hit a climax, the stronger party will report selectively, create a new opponent and hand it to the weaker party, so that the weaker party will have an illusion that "fighting side by side with the stronger party and relying on each other" is the best and the only choice. The psychological effect will lead the weaker party to seek psychological and physical balance and have a fake comfortable feeling, voluntarily rationalize the conflict between them and drift their mind into a fantasy that their pain is not painful and may be beautiful.人作为典型的现实主义动物，对非切身之痛是没有实际记忆的。矛盾中强势方在冲突加剧时给与选择性报道并建立一个新的对立方将矛盾抛过去，会使弱势方产生“与强势方并肩作战并互相依靠”的错觉，心理暗示效果导致弱势方本能寻求心理和生理的平衡舒适，主动并迅速将原有矛盾合理化，继而淡化、美化过去的痛苦。" 

I think it perfectly interpreted how the #CCP brain-washes and psychologically fools people in pain, isn’t it? The #CCP allegedly has a cyber army to mislead people to think in the way that the CCP designed for them and this is probably the theory behind it.

https://twitter.com/hoyodoudou/status/1232783014406610950

Fact 5: She called “250/stupid” to the oversea Chinese people who feel having a duty to change/save the country.

Fact 6: More important, she seems to be two-faced, CCP-style. She referred Mr. Kyle Bass “What kind of thing Bass is?” few hours after she tweeted “Dear Chairman of Rule of Law Foundation @Jkylebass ... ...“

Click to enlarge the image

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1286529476252381185

Also, on June 16, #豆小豆 called the Whistle-Blowing Movement led by GuoWengui “the biggest lie I’ve ever seen”, 4 days later, she tweeted “we have to learn from Uncle Guo (GuoWengui)”.

Click here to enlarge the image

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1292276765260312576

Fact 7: On July 4, 2020, #豆小豆 posted a message exchange between her and someone unknown. Apparently, she doesn’t want to release the identity of the person. However, the “other person” said “I am going to sleep, good night” when #豆小豆‘s cellphone shows 15:29. Note that  #豆小豆 is in the US where the afternoon is the night in Beijing. The conversation shows that the “other person” raised doubt about the authenticity of @PeterNavarro45 and #豆小豆 took it as an instruction.

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1279500121487609857

Fact 8: On Aug. 7, she made herself clear that her intention is to influence the American legal system to which people may ask her influence is in favor of whom? The CCP?

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1292179826691002370

Fact 9: Evidence shows that there has been and still have undercover agents in GuoWengui’s team co-operating with the anti-GuoWengui campaign:

Click there to enlarge the image

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1292702767707049985

The reason that I feel strongly the CCP behind the massive attack against #GuoWengui through complaint in connection with the GTV private offering is that I raised an alarm bell for the high risk of the investment on May 9, 10 and 11: 

Doesn’t the #CCP plot things for the US Presidential Election?

Many of those who seem to have a close tie with the CCP were aware of the alarm but chose to down play/ignore it until the massive attack became available with enough victims. Since her stand up against #GuoWengui, # 豆小豆 has been endorsed and co-operated by lots of pro-Beijing social media. Meanwhile, many #CCP 50 cents-warrior-like twitter accounts with “0 following and 0 follower”  have been doing the same: support # 豆小豆 and attack #郭文贵 as you can see below:

Click to enlarge the image

Speaking of # 豆小豆 ’s complaint filed with multiple American authorities against #GuoWengui and the GTV private offering, based on an email from SEC, saying “GTV is not publicly traded and does not file reports with the SEC” which corresponds to the “private offering” by the private issuer,  #豆小豆 called #Guo Wengui, #Steve Bannon and Kyle Bass liar on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/jangeer01/status/1288685117095911429/photo/1

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1288757111531347968

It remind me of how the #CCP reacted after #MengWanzhou has been arrested due to the US-Canada extradition treaty： ignorantly and brazenly.

If you’re familiar with the CCP, you must know that taking advantage and abusing a system for greed or evil purpose always interest them a lot. Here is an example: #豆小豆 admitted that she is abusing Twitter to harass people that she hates.

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1289109054338416642

As of today, July 30, 2020,  #豆小豆  @keepmoving223 publicly solicited information about me and then denied that she is collecting “personal information”. Isn’t such nonsense denial very #CCP? The information does include “personal information” and if you can obtain it through public sources, you wouldn’t act as police or FBI, isn’t it?

click to enlarge the photo

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1289094520550952962

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1289081065936625664

https://twitter.com/keepmoving223/status/1289039013576241155

Meanwhile, William/威廉  @lolococo2018, a “director” of an anti-GuoWengui group, openly collected age information about Dr. Limeng Yan, the COVID19 whistle-blower fled to the US. The tweets below have been deleted after the private information was released publicly but I saved it.

Click to enlarge the image

https://twitter.com/detecti28108231/status/1289089325343416321

The original tweets have been deleted but the crime is done! 

Isn’t it odd those may be deemed as unpleasant to the CCP are being targeted on the same day and in the same way?

In conclusion, I will say, it is true that  “if there is one thing I(we) learned, communists almost always lie”.  Will you take an action to live up to your commitment to “engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party”?

Expecting your attention and action, I remain with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

律政悟空，IForYou, A freedom-loving Chinese nobody

（to be updated） 

How Bold The CCP Is?!

Doesn’t the #CCP plot things for the US Presidential Election?

What May Be the CCP’s Next Move?

CCP’s Ruling Theory

It’s good for you to realize that “communists almost always lie“ and 

[omfgtrump]

It’s All Deception

To hear people speak about the “I” word like it’s a hand-wringing experience boils the blood. The idea that this is a painful thing for the nation is laughable. What’s painful for this nation is The Don, a president, who at every turn defiles the office, using it to enrich himself, and sow division through white supremacist rhetoric.

The Don is the laughing stock of the world and his actions have mitigated America’s standing; his love for dictators and denigration of our allies has made the world a more dangerous place.

His attacks on the media, courts, and the rule of law are odious and threaten the very foundation our democracy is built on. As some have said: his presidency is an existential threat to our constitution.

He has committed tax and insurance fraud and money laundered.

He has already been named as a co-conspirator in violating campaign finance laws by paying off two women; his partner in crime, Michael Cohen, is already serving prison time.

Everyday he and his family members are making money on the presidency in violation of the Emolument’s clause.

So please let’s dispense with the crocodile tears that the “I” word is traumatic for our country. Trauma is what we are experiencing every day during his tenure as president.

Before I rejoice too much in the impending execution of the “I” word, let’s mention some other “I” words that define The Don, that as an ensemble, make the ultimate “I” word imminent.

Incompetent. Ignorant. Ignoramus. Insufficient. Ignoble. Imperious. Invalid. Immoral (though I prefer amoral for The Don and immoral for his Republican cronies!) Imperialist. Inciter. Inept (oh, I said incompetent already.) Imbecilic. Incarcerated (Let’s hope!) Invidious. Indolent. (After golf today I am just watching TV until I go to sleep.). Illicit.

And that brings me to the sum of all the above: Impeachment!

Like with Nixon, we now have a smoking gun. If you recall, it was the turning over of the missing part of the tape, in which Nixon admits his actions, that turned public opinion and forced Republican members to support a conviction. To avoid that humiliating process Nixon resigned in infamy. Only time will tell whether the immoral, please don’t tweet about me Mr. President Republicans, will find a way out of their perverse loyalty to The Don.

Let’s start with a damning part of the whistler blower statement:

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election,” the whistle-blower wrote. “This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president’s main domestic political rivals. The president’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

After all that has transpired it is The Don’s grandiose “shake down man” mentality that has brought him to this moment. The Don has lived by the credo: even if I do something wrong and I get caught, there will never be any consequences.

Let’s imagine The Don’s conversation with the President of the Ukraine.

The Don: “Hey buddy, if you want me to deliver the goods, I got a favor I wanna ask you. I want you to do some digging on Sloppy Joe and his son Hunter.”

Ukrainian President: “Mr. President, the Ukrainians do not want to get involved in your politics.”

The Don: “I got something you want and you can get something I need. That’s how the world works, Zelly.”

Ukrainian President: “If we don’t get the stuff you already promised us, the Russians are emboldened.”

The Don: “Not my problem, Zelly. Think it over. I’m sure you and Putin will work it out.”

So, have we arrived at the “smoking gun” moment?

Not according to Fox News and Republican sycophants.

Here’s number one ass-licker Lindsey Graham:

“As to the whistle-blower complaint — the transcript speaks for itself — no quid-pro-quo. The Democrats bought a pig in a poke.” (As far as I am concerned, the only pig that needs a poke is Lindsey Graham.)

Here’s number two ass licker, Devin Nunes:

“Once again, the Democrats, their media mouthpieces and a cabal of leakers are ginning up a fake story, with no regard to the monumental damage they’re causing. ”

Number one Xenophobe and serial killer Stephen Miller:

According to Miller the whistle-blower is a “deep-state operative” who is part of a cabal of “unelected bureaucrats who think they need to take down this president.”

“Mr. Trump was the one searching for wrongdoing by pursuing corruption allegations against Mr. Biden and Democrats. “The president is the whistle-blower here. And this individual is a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government.”

And how about his media buddies on Fox News?

Here’s Sean Hannity:

“The radical, destructive, delusional Democratic Party and the media mob, their allies in crime, which has now descended into complete and utter madness.”

Mark Levin, who has a Fox News show and also a radio host:

“There’s a lot of disinformation and misinformation,” he warned. “I’m here to help us walk through this and defend this nation against a tyranny in our midst.”

“Democrats and the mainstream media had created an “unreality” that was designed to humiliate the president, to try and dispirit you, and to drag down his poll numbers and defeat him.”

Rush Limbaugh:

“Everything you’re seeing is deception.”

And now for The Don himself:

“What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening,” “stick with us, and don’t believe what “you see from these people, the fake news.”

At the U.N., The Don went all dignified.

“These animals in the press. They’re animals actually. Some of the worst human beings you’ll ever meet. They’re scum, many of them are scum.”

And here he is again, impressing world leaders:

“I didn’t do anything. I don’t know if I’m the most innocent person in the world. I just said I’m the most presidential except for possibly Abe Lincoln when he wore the hat — that was tough to beat. Honest Abe, when he wore that hat, that was tough to beat. But I can’t do that, that hat wouldn’t work for me. Yeah, I have better hair than him.”

The startling thing about that statement is he actually suggested that it was possible that someone besides him was “most presidential.” Well, not really, as it is all about the hat. Take off Lincoln’s hat and go head to head on the hair and Lincoln fades to distant second.

I heard a rumor the U.N. General Assembly was trying to pass a resolution that gave each country the right to vote on impeaching The Don.

I wonder what it would sound like for almost all the countries in the world to yell: “Impeach, Impeach!” in hundreds of languages at the same time. I just hope Republican senators can stand up on the Senate floor and say it in English!

Up next: Rudy G., Mike Pompous and William, Lower the Barr, get their day in court!

    from WordPress https://ift.tt/2pcnU1t via IFTTT

[fitnesshealthyoga-blog]

New Post has been published on https://fitnesshealthyoga.com/baby-boomers-swearing-by-marijuana-as-miracle-cure-for-ageing-problems/

Baby boomers swearing by marijuana as miracle cure for ageing problems

Barbara Buck first tried cannabis when she was 17, and loved how it made her feel — more motivated and distinctly less depressed and anxious. But she had to give it up for 15 years because of random drug testing when she worked in the recreational therapy field with the elderly.

Now 54 with a new career path as a realtor, she’s one of the many people finding cannabis to be a great healer later on in life.

“The benefits for me have been wonderful,” she told INSIDER. “I make edibles for sleep and a pain salve that works wonderfully on sore joints and muscles. I don’t have depression issues and haven’t since using cannabis again.”

Buck also uses CBD — a molecule from cannabis that doesn’t make you feel intoxicated — to stay calm and clear-headed if she has a stressful day at work.

“For me cannabis just makes my life better,” she said. “It’s also been a Godsend for menopause symptoms. Cannabis and CBD help to regulate my mood, and help with hot flushes and sleep like nothing else I’ve tried.”

Cannabis, which can be smoked, taken orally with oils, teas, and edibles, or absorbed through the skin with balms and salves, contains hundreds of different molecules. Research over the past few years has tried to decipher their different uses and effects on the human body. Running alongside the science are the people taking their health into their own hands, passing on through word of mouth how cannabis products help with their ailments and wellness.

One demographic that appears to be reaping the benefits is the over-50s, who, after a period of changing attitudes, are now embracing it as a miracle cure for some of the problems that come with ageing.

How cannabis can help older people

Marc Lewis, the CEO of Remedy Review, an online hub full of the latest research and information about cannabis, told INSIDER that certain molecules can “empower your body to better regulate itself,” so it should be no surprise older people find it to be helpful with their aches and pains.

“We talk to a lot of people who just want a little more relaxation, but then quite a few people are using these products for pain and sleep,” he said. “I think also in some conversations with older folks, the feeling is maybe that they can treat pain or improve quality of life without the side effects of other medications.”

Jonas Duclos, the founder of CBD420, which manufactures and sells CBD-based products, told INSIDER that most people over 50 who contact him are looking for a solution to the general discomforts of getting older. Sometimes, it’s a last resort because traditional pharmaceuticals are causing them more harm than good, upsetting their stomach, damaging their liver, and causing other uncomfortable side effects for people with already sensitive systems.

“Cannabis and CBD work as a great anti-inflammatory for the organs as well — the stomach will be better, digestion will be better, all those things,” said Duclos. “And that creates a tremendous change for older people in pain.”

Leading US medical cannabis campaigner Dr Frank D’Ambrosio told INSIDER a review of his practice demographics revealed that 40% of his new patients are aged 50 and above, and cannabis has been incredibly effective for them.

“Older patients, who invariably suffer from age-related disease processes and thereby incur expensive pharmaceutical costs, see cannabis as a cost-effective way to decrease their needs for a host of medications,” he said.

“The biggest drawback that I have seen is not medically related. Years of disinformation propagated against this healing herb by the powers that be to the elder population has left them fearful to recognize cannabis as a medicine.”

Read more: People use cannabis products for health problems like Parkinson’s, epilepsy, and acne — but misinformation and out-of-date regulations are stopping most from benefiting

Duclos said being able to bring more comfort to older people is a duty, and they shouldn’t be written off just because their body isn’t working quite as well as it did before.

“Honestly, if anything, I think it’s pretty amazing that we can help these people who have actually been working really hard their whole life, who when they retire, they can’t do things because they’re in pain all the time,” he said.

“We’re all going to get old. So taking care of those people is actually taking care of our future selves.”

Jonas Duclos.

CBD420

A 70-year-old French CBD420 client who chose to go by the name Mrs. Y.P. told INSIDER she suffered with fibromyalgia, arthritis, and incontinence for 20 years before she decided to try the “CBD that everyone kept talking about.”

“Not only were the pains from fibromyalgia gone, but it also reduced the pain from arthritis,” she said. “To my surprise, it also fixed my bladder issues. I used to need 4-5 diapers a day, but now — none! It changed my life.”

Regulations are out-of-date and inconsistent

Meanwhile, Mr. T.P., who is 64 and also lives in France, has used cannabis to help with the spasms and pain caused by Parkinson’s disease. He wasn’t comfortable trying cannabis with high amounts of THC — the chemical that makes you high — from the black market, so instead started growing the plant himself.

“The police destroyed it and charged me,” he said. “Cannabis is very illegal here … The police are everywhere and they’re making a lot of arrests. I’m really afraid to be arrested again, but the pain and discomfort is too much, so I take the risk of treating myself with CBD.”

He added that it’s nearly impossible to find safe and reliable cannabis products in France. That’s where CBD420 comes in, because it allows people can order CBD oils and teas online.

In France, CBD420 products are legal under EU law, but they’re illegal under French law, so there’s a lot of confusion and inconsistency about what authorities rely on.

Duclos believes these unreliable and out-of-date laws and regulations are the biggest barrier stopping many people from accessing cannabis, because they lead to the spread of misinformation.

“For us, it’s extremely important that people know what they can expect from the plant, and that there are ways to use it very safely, and to raise awareness about the products themselves,” he said. “There’s still a lot to do in terms of quality and misinformation, and there’s no standards and controls, so it’s very difficult to navigate on the web.”

It’s hard to really know which companies are being fair and transparent about their products and which aren’t, he added. For instance, cannabis is legal in nine states in the US for recreational use, and in 31 others for medicinal use only. But making it legal doesn’t mean products will automatically be clean and high quality.

Read more: A man’s heart attack may have been triggered by a cannabis lollipop that was 12 times stronger than a typical joint

“For us in Switzerland we’ve found many companies who aren’t honest about what they’re working with,” Duclos said. “It’s important to bring that information out there, how to identify a product, how to ask the right questions.”

Someone in their 20s and 30s will probably have a better chance of rifling through all the information online to find the products they want, compared to someone who’s older and less tech-savvy.

Hero Images / Getty

Cannabis products don’t all deliver the same effects, and if someone buys an oil with very high THC content it could give them an intense high they might not enjoy. It may even scare them into never using any cannabis products again — even the ones without psychoactive effects.

“That’s why I spend hours on the phone with older people,” Duclos said. “For me it’s a pleasure to spend a lot of time explaining to those people what they’re working with. And it’s even more satisfying when two months later, they call and say it changed the way they perceive their future, because they’re going to be able to do more things.”

When people have a bad experience with cannabis, it fuels its negative image, and adds to social stigma. This can have a wide ripple effect, pushing interest underground and indirectly stifling scientific advancement.

Anecdotal stories vs data

Research has shown CBD’s medicinal effects. One small study suggested it could help with epilepsy, and a large review found it is effective in relieving chronic pain. There’s also some evidence that cannabis can reduce the nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, and the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

But so far, many of the perceived wellness benefits of cannabis products are anecdotal, meaning the data isn’t there to back them up yet.

Duclos believes the taboo around drugs like cannabis means people are reluctant to come forward about their experiences, though it’s in the personal stories where the most interesting impact can be seen.

James Malaspino from Florida, for instance, was recommended cannabis for treating his symptoms after a massive right side hemorrhagic stroke. He told INSIDER it left him with limited control over parts of his left arm and leg, severe tremors, and “left neglect,” which is a lack of awareness of the left side of the body.

“The first time I tried CBD, I immediately felt like I had better sensation, improved control, and almost complete negation of the tremors,” he said. “The most incredible thing was that after a few months I started getting impulses to do things like use my left arm to close the microwave or slide it normally into a shirt sleeve instead of pulling the sleeve onto the left arm with my right hand.”

Read more: Here’s what marijuana actually does to your body and brain

Malaspino is now in his 40s, but has never been particularly bothered by cannabis or those who used it, except for thinking “stoned people always seemed kinda stupid.” But since he found it to be such a helpful part of his recovery, he started recommending it to others, including his 74-year-old father who has been dealing with cancer on-and-off for about a decade.

But he quickly found there is still taboo, “especially in the older ‘Reefer Madness’ silent generation,” who grew up with an overly dramatic 1930s propaganda film about how marijuana could cause accidents, suicide, rape, murder, and a descent into madness.

“Multiple people were trying to get [my father] to try cannabis for his nausea, appetite, and so on without success,” Malaspino said. “It was not until I made him a bunch of CBD chocolates for Christmas that he was willing to even try it.”

Petri Oeschger / Getty

His friend’s 90-year-old mother with brain cancer was also vehemently against trying CBD for her symptoms, for no other reason than that she saw drugs as illegal, and therefore wrong. But for people like Malaspino, with everything he’s learned about cannabis, it’s hard to imagine ever going back.

“The low THC strains are like magic for my stroke symptoms,” he said. “So far I’ve seen it help friends with PTSD, anxiety, arthritis, even someone who had a root canal told me that it was better than the Oxycontin they were prescribed.”

What does the science say?

According to Lewis from Remedy Review, the latest research has found that CBD empowers your endocannabinoid system, which helps regulate mood, appetite, pain, and other major physiological functions.

“Your body’s natural state is to be balanced — it’s not to be anxious, or to be in pain — and what CBD does is it gives you the ability to achieve that natural balance,” he said. “That’s what the science is telling us, it’s that CBD helps your body be its best self, if that makes sense, more so than actually treating a symptom.”

For example, research has shown how cannabis can be used as an anti-inflammatory with the potential to treat skin conditions like psoriasis. With psoriasis, the body over-reacts and creates too many skin cells, so CBD doesn’t exactly repair the patch of dry and irritated skin, but rather helps your body to regulate itself and work better, Lewis said.

A recent survey from Remedy Review found that 9% of 1,000 seniors asked had used CBD for health reasons. Out of these, over 65% said they had a good quality of life compared to just 31% who said the same before trying CBD.

Among the reasons listed for using CBD were inflammation, chronic pain, and poor sleep quality, but many seniors also use it for anxiety and depression.

“The Anxiety and Depression Association of America estimates that nearly 18.1% of the US population over the age of 18 suffers from an anxiety disorder, and only 36.9% of those suffering choose to get treatment,” the report says. “It’s encouraging, then, that some seniors are attempting to self-heal with this type of nontraditional ‘treatment.'”

Read more: Researchers are studying women who use marijuana while pregnant. Lots of expecting moms already partake in the practice.

Buck, for example, tried many different antidepressants, but she said they caused weight gain and blunted emotions. By the time she started smoking again in 2010, medical cannabis was legal in her state, so she tried her hand at growing plants. She then became a medical caregiver, supplying up to five patients with her 0.3% THC content cannabis.

Buck was always open-minded about cannabis, and now uses it both socially and for her health. She said it’s just like when people enjoy cigars, craft beer, wine, or bourbon when they relax, without the attached stigma. But she is also aware not everyone sees it that way.

“The worry I have about what people will think is more regarding my professional life in real estate,” she said. “In my personal life I don’t shout it from the rooftops but I will be candid with people, especially if they have a negative attitude toward it with no experience with it.”

Cannabis could change someone’s future

If you want to guide the older people in your life towards trying cannabis for their wellness, Lewis said it’s best to start with organic products that have been tested recently, with a brand that is transparent about where the original plant came from. It’s also important to guide them through what different cannabinoids are meant to do.

“I think the first thing we have to tackle is trying to separate CBD and THC,” he said. “Marijuana will make you intoxicated, CBD will not. And even then I think we’re only starting to scratch the surface.”

He added a caution that substances work differently for everybody, and a dose for one person won’t necessarily be the equivalent dose for another.

“You have to start slow and work your way towards a dose that works for you,” he said. “If you take a gummy bear or capsule, your body has to digest that, so it may take a couple of hours for you to feel any effects, whereas an oil or a vape pen you might feel pretty quickly.”

In other words, if you don’t feel the effects, be patient and give it time to work.

If you’re recommending cannabis to someone who is on a lot of medication already, Lewis said you should also speak to a doctor beforehand about any possible drug interactions.

“I don’t want people to turn away from talking to healthcare professionals because they’re not up to speed on what everyone’s buying,” he said. “It seems the market and consumers are well ahead of the science which isn’t always a good thing.”

Johnce / Getty

When someone does find a product that works for them, it can change their life. Duclos has even seen with his own parents.

“For three years my mother was on medical leave because of her hips and neck,” he said. “And thanks to CBD she’s not only back at work, but she’s gone skiing with my dad. To me, that’s mind-blowing.”

It can also just mean living life with a bit more enjoyment. Years of suffering from pain, loneliness, and isolation in their old age would make anyone bitter, Duclos said.

“It’s going to sound ridiculous, but cannabis is a great way to help people socialize,” Duclos said. “CBD helps against anxiety, helps against stress … It’s part of wellbeing and creates a better environment and better physical comfort. All those elderly people could have all that instead of suffering.”

Source link

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/read-james-comey-senate-intelligence-hearing-full-transcript/

READ: James Comey Senate Intelligence Hearing Full Transcript

Whether you watched it or not, you more than likely heard about former FBI Director James Comey's testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. He quickly refuted many of President Donald Trump's claims. Senator John McCain certainly brought much attention on himself with his strange line of questioning that he later blamed on not getting enough sleep. Below is the full transcript of James Comey questions and answers. SEN. RICHARD BURR: I call this hearing to order. Director Comey, I appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today, and more importantly I thank you for your dedicated service and leadership to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Your appearance today speaks to the trust we have built over the years and I'm looking forward to a very open and candid discussion today. I'd like to remind my colleagues that we will reconvene in closed session at 1:00 P.M. today, and I ask that you reserve for that venue any questions that might get into classified information. The director has been very gracious with his time, the vice chairman and I worked out a very specific timeline for his commitment to be on the hill, so we will do everything we can to meet that agreement. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence exists to certify for the other 85 members of the United States Senate and the American people that the intelligence community is operating lawfully, and has the necessary authorities and tools to accomplish its mission, and keep America safe. Part of our mission, beyond the oversight we continue to provide to the intelligence community and its activities, is to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The committee's work continues. This hearing represents part of that effort. Jim, allegations have been swirling in the press for the last several weeks and today is your opportunity to set the record straight. Yesterday, I read with interest your statement for the record, and I think it provides some helpful details surrounding your interactions with the president. It clearly lays out your understanding of those discussions, actions you took following each conversation and your state of mind. I very much appreciate your candor, and I think it provides helpful details surrounding your interactions with the president. It clearly lays out your understanding of those discussions, actions you took following each conversation and your state of mind. I very much appreciate your candor, and I think it's helpful as we work through to determine the ultimate truth behind possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Your statement also provides texture and context to your interactions with the president, from your vantage point, and outlines a strained relationship. The American people need to hear your side of the story, just as they need to hear the president's descriptions of events. These interactions also highlight the importance of the committee's ongoing investigation. Our experienced staff is interviewing all relevant parties and some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. We will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the American people to make their own judgment. Only then will we as a nation be able to move forward and to put this episode to rest. There are several outstanding issues not addressed in your statement that I hope you'll clear up for the American people today. Did the president's request for loyalty, your impression, let the one-on-one dinner of January 27th was and I quote “at least in part” an effort to create some patronage relationship and March 30th phone call asking what you could do to lift the cloud of Russia investigation in any way alter your approach of the FBI's investigation into general Flynn or the broader investigation into Russia, and possible links to the campaign? In your opinion did potential Russian efforts to establish a link with individuals in the Trump orbit rise to the level we could define as collusion or was it a counter-intelligence concern? There's been a significant public speculation about your decision-making related to the Clinton email investigation. Why did you decide publicly, to publicly announce, FBI's recommendations that the Department of Justice not pursue criminal charges? You have described it as a choice between a bad decision and a worse decision. The American people need to understand the facts behind your action. This committee is uniquely suited to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections. We also have a unified bipartisan approach to what is a highly charged partisan issue. Russian activities during 2016 election may have been aimed at one party's candidate, but as my colleague senator Rubio says frequently, in 2018 and 2020, it could be aimed at anyone, at home or abroad. My colleague, Senator Warner and I, have worked to stay in lock step on this investigation. We've had our differences on approach, at times, but I've constantly stressed that we need to be a team, and I think Senator Warner agrees with me. We must keep these questions above politics and partisanship. It's too important to be tainted by anyone trying to score political points. With that, again, I welcome you director, and I turn to the vice chairman for any comments he might have. SEN. MARK WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and let me start by again absolutely thanking all the members of the committee for the seriousness in which they've taken on this task. Mr. Comey, thank you for agreeing to come testify as part of this committee's investigation into Russia. I realize this hearing has been obviously the focus of a lot of Washington, in the last few days. But the truth is, many Americans who may be tuning in today probably haven't focused on every twist and turn of the investigation. So I'd like to briefly describe, at least from this senator's standpoint, what we already know, and what we're still investigating. To be clear, this investigation is not about relitigating the election. It's not about who won or lost. And it sure as heck is not about Democrats versus Republicans. We are here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple. Not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process, our presidential election. Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids, and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership, and ultimately in ourselves. And that's not just this senator's opinion. It is the unanimous determination of the entire U.S. intelligence community. So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and candidly as some other colleagues mentioned, why they were so successful, and more importantly we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they can't do it again. The chairman mentioned elections in 2018 and 2020, in my home state of Virginia, we have elections this year in 2017. Simply put, we cannot let anything or anyone prevent us from getting to the bottom of this. Now Mr. Comey, let me say at the outset, we haven't always agreed on every issue. In fact I've occasionally questioned some of the actions you've taken, but I've never had any reason to question your integrity, your expertise, or your intelligence. You've been a straight shooter with this committee and have been willing to speak truth to power, even at the risk of your own career, which makes the way in which you were fired by the president ultimately shocking. Recall we began this entire process with the president and his staff first denying that the Russians were ever involved and then falsely claiming that no one from his team was ever in touch with any Russians. We know that's just not the truth. Numerous Trump associates had undisclosed contacts with Russians before and after the election, including the president's attorney general, his former national security adviser and his current senior adviser, Mr. Kushner. That doesn't even begin to count the host of additional campaign associates and advisers who have also been caught up in this massive web. We saw Mr. Trump's campaign manager, Mr. Manafort, forced to step down over ties to Russian back entities. The national security adviser, General Flynn, had to resign over his lies about engagements with the Russians, and we saw the candidate himself express an odd and unexplained affection for the Russian dictator while calling for the hacking of his opponent. There's a lot to investigate. Enough, in fact, that director Comey publicly acknowledged that he was leading an investigation into those links between Mr. Trump's campaign and the Russian government. As the director of the FBI, Mr. Comey was ultimately responsible for conducting that investigation, which might explain why you're sitting now as a private citizen. What we do know was at the same time that this investigation was proceeding, the president himself appears to have been engaged in an effort to influence or at least co-opt the director of the FBI. The testimony Mr. Comey submitted for today's hearing is very disturbing. For example, on January 27th, after summoning Director Comey to dinner, the president appears to have threatened director's job while telling him "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty." At a later meeting, on February 14th, the president asked the attorney general to leave the Oval Office, so that he could privately ask Director Comey again "To see way clear to letting Flynn go." That is a statement that Director Comey interpreted as a request that he drop the investigation connected to general Flynn's false statements. Think about it. The president of the United States asking the FBI Director to drop an ongoing investigation. And after that, the president called the FBI Director on two additional occasions, March 30th and April 11th and asked him again "To lift the cloud on the Russian investigation." Now, Director Comey denied each of these improper requests. The loyalty pledge, the admonition to drop the Flynn investigation, the request to lift the cloud on the Russian investigation. Of course, after his refusals, Director Comey was fired. The initial explanation for the firing didn't pass any smell test. So now Director Comey was fired because he didn't treat Hillary Clinton appropriately. Of course that explanation lasted about a day, because the president himself then made very clear that he was thinking about Russia when he decided to fire Director Comey. Shockingly, reports suggest that the president admitted as much in an Oval Office meeting with the Russians the day after director Comey was fired. Disparaging our country's top law enforcement official as a “nutjob,” the president allegedly suggested that his firing relieved great pressure on his feelings about Russia. This is not happening in isolation. At the same time, the president was engaged in these efforts with Director Comey, he was also at least allegedly asking senior leaders of the intelligence community to downplay the Russia investigation or to intervene with the director. Yesterday we had DNI Director Coats and NSA Director Admiral Rogers, who were offered a number of opportunities to flatly deny those press reports. They expressed their opinions, but they did not take that opportunity to deny those reports. They did not take advantage of that opportunity. My belief, that's not how the President of the United States should behave. Regardless of the outcome of our investigation into the Russia links, Director Comey's firing and his testimony raise separate and troubling questions that we must get to the bottom of. Again, as I said at the outset, I've seen firsthand how seriously every member of this committee is taking his work. I'm proud of the committee's efforts so far. Let me be clear. This is not a witch hunt. This is not fake news. It is an effort to protect our I can from a new threat that quite honestly will not go away any time soon. So Mr. Comey, your testimony here today will help us move towards that goal. I look forward to that testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Thank you, vice chairman. Director has discussed when you agreed to appear before the committee it would be under oath. I'd ask you to please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: I do. BURR: Please be seated. Director Comey you're now under oath. And I would just note to members, you will be recognized by seniority for a period up to seven minutes, and again, it is the intent to move to a closed session no later than 1:00 P.M. With that director Comey, you are recognized, you have the floor for as long as you might need. COMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Warner, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. I've submitted my statement for the record, and I'm not going to repeat it here this morning. I thought I would just offer some very brief introductory remarks and I would welcome your questions. When I was appointed FBI Director in 2013, I understood that I served at the pleasure of the president. Even though I was appointed to a 10-year term, which Congress created in order to underscore the importance of the FBI being outside of politics and independent, I understood that I could be fired by a president for any reason or for no reason at all. And on May the ninth, when I learned that I had been fired, for that reason I immediately came home as a private citizen. But then the explanations, the shifting explanations, confused me and increasingly concerned me. They confused me because the president and I had had multiple conversations about my job, both before and after he took office, and he had repeatedly told me I was doing a great job, and he hoped I would stay. And I had repeatedly assured him that I did intend to stay and serve out the years of my term. He told me repeatedly that he had talked to lots of people about me, including our current Attorney General, and had learned that I was doing a great job, and that I was extremely well-liked by the FBI workforce. So it confused me when I saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the Russia investigation, and learned again from the media that he was telling privately other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russian investigation. I was also confused by the initial explanation that was offered publicly that I was fired because of the decisions I had made during the election year. That didn't make sense to me for a whole bunch of reasons, including the time and all the water that had gone under the bridge since those hard decisions that had to be made. That didn't make any sense to me. And although the law required no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple. And I am so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I'm so sorry that the American people were told them. I worked every day at the FBI to help make that great organization better, and I say help, because I did nothing alone at the FBI. There no indispensable people at the FBI. The organization's great strength is that its values and abilities run deep and wide. The FBI will be fine without me. The FBI's mission will be relentlessly pursued by its people, and that mission is to protect the American people and uphold the constitution of the United States. I will deeply miss being part of that mission, but this organization and its mission will go on long beyond me and long beyond any particular administration. I have a message before I close for my former colleagues of the FBI but first I want the American people to know this truth. The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is and always will be independent. And now to my former colleagues, if I may. I am so sorry that I didn't get the chance to say goodbye to you properly. It was the nor of my life to serve beside you, to be part of the FBI family, and I will miss it for the rest of my life. Thank you for standing watch. Thank you for doing so much good for this country. Do that good as long as ever you can. And senators, I look forward to your questions. BURR: Director, thank you for that testimony, both oral and the written testimony that you provided to the committee yesterday and made public to the American people. The chair would recognize himself first for 12 minutes, vice chair for 12 minutes, based upon the agreement we have. Director, did the special counsel's office review and/or edit your written testimony? COMEY: No. BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections? COMEY: None. BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the D triple C systems and the subsequent leaks of that information? COMEY: No, no doubt. BURR: Do you have any doubt the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files? COMEY: No. BURR: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered? COMEY: I'm confident. When I left as director I had seen no indication of that whatsoever. BURR: Director Comey, did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. Elections? COMEY: Not to my understanding, no. BURR: Did any individual working for this administration, including the justice department, ask you to stop the Russian investigation? COMEY: No. BURR: Director, when the president requested that you, and I quote "Let Flynn go," General Flynn had an unreported contact with the Russians, which is an offense, and if press accounts are right, there might have been discrepancies between facts and his FBI testimony. In your estimation, was general Flynn at that time in serious legal jeopardy, and in addition to that, do you sense that the president was trying to obstruct justice or just seek for a way for Mike Flynn to save face, given that he had already been fired? COMEY: General Flynn at that point in time was in legal jeopardy. There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts, and the contacts themselves, and so that was my assessment at the time. I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense. BURR: Director, is it possible that, as part of this FBI investigation, the FBI could find evidence of criminality that is not tied to the 2016 elections, possible collusion, or coordination with Russians? COMEY: Sure. BURR: So there could be something that fits a criminal aspect to this that doesn't have anything to do with the 2016 election cycle? COMEY: Correct, in any complex investigation, when you start turning over rocks, sometimes you find things that are unrelated to the primary investigation that are criminal in nature. BURR: Director, Comey, you have been criticized publicly for the decision to present your findings on the email investigation directly to the American people. Have you learned anything since that time that would have changed what you said or how you chose to inform the American people? COMEY: Honestly, no. It caused a whole lot of personal pain for me but as I look back, given what I knew at the time and even what I've learned since, I think it was the best way to try to protect the justice institution, including the FBI. BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “steel dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I'm not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the steel document? COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation. BURR: Director, the term we hear most often is collusion. When people are describing possible links between Americans and Russian government entities related to the interference in our election, would you say that it's Normal for foreign governments to reach out to members of an incoming administration? COMEY: Yes. BURR: At what point does the normal contact cross the line into an attempt to recruit agents or influence or spies? COMEY: Difficult to say in the abstract. It depends upon the context, whether there's an effort to keep it covert, what the nature of the request made of the American by the foreign government are. It's a judgment call based on a whole lot of facts. BURR: At what point would that recruitment become a counterintelligence threat to our country? COMEY: Again, difficult to answer in the abstract, but when a foreign power is using especially coercion, or some sort of pressure to try and co-opt an American, especially a government official, to act on its behalf, that's a serious concern to the FBI and at the heart of the FBI's counterintelligence mission. BURR: So if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement? COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened. BURR: And when you read the dossier, what was your reaction, given that it was 100% directed at the president-elect? COMEY: Not a question I can answer in open setting, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Okay. When did you become aware of the cyber intrusion? COMEY: The first cyber — there was all kinds of cyber intrusions going on all the time. The first Russian-connected cyber intrusion I became aware of in the late summer of 2015. BURR: And in that time frame, there were more than the DNC and the D triple C that were targets? COMEY: Correct, a massive effort to target government and nongovernmental, near governmental agencies like nonprofits. BURR: What would be the estimate of how many entities out there the Russians specifically targeted in that time frame? COMEY: It's hundreds. I suppose it could be more than 1,000, but it's at least hundreds. BURR: When did you become aware that data had been exfiltrated? COMEY: I'm not sure exactly. I think either late '15 or early '16. BURR: And did you, the director of the FBI, have conversations with the last administration about the risk that this posed? COMEY: Yes. BURR: And share with us, if you will, what actions they took. COMEY: Well, the FBI had already undertaken an effort to notify all the victims, and that's what we consider the entities attacked as part of this massive spear-phishing campaign so we notified them in an effort to disrupt what might be ongoing, and then there was a series of continuing interactions with entities through the rest of '15 into '16, and then throughout '16, the administration was trying to decide how to respond to the intrusion activity that it saw. BURR: And the FBI in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate, did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked, or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the day that that they had collected? COMEY: In the case of the DNC, and I believe the D triple C, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high class entity, that had done the work but we didn't get direct access. BURR: But no content. COMEY: Correct. BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counter-intelligence standpoint? COMEY: It is but what was briefed to me by the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016. BURR: Let me go back if I can very briefly to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the email. Was your decision influenced by the attorney general's tarmac meeting with the former president, Bill Clinton? COMEY: Yes. In ultimately conclusive way that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the justice department. BURR: Were there other things that contributed to that, that you can describe in an open session? COMEY: There were other things that contributed to that. One significant item I can't but know the committee's been briefed on, there's been some public accounts of it which are nonsense but I understand the committee has been briefed on the classified facts. Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly. BURR: Director, my last question, you're not only a seasoned prosecutor. You've led the FBI for years. You understand the investigative process. You've worked with this committee closely, and we're grateful to you, because I think we've mutually built trust in what your organization does, and what we do. Is there any doubt in your mind that this committee carry out its oversight role in the 2016 Russia involvement with the elections in parallel with the now special counsel set up? COMEY: No, no doubt. It can be done. Requires lots of conversations but Bob Mueller is one of the this country’s great, great pros and I'm sure you'll be able to work it out with him to run it in parallel. BURR: Thank you. I turn it over to the vice chairman. WARNER: Thank you, director Comey, again, for your service. Your comments to your FBI family, I know were heartfelt. Know that there are some in the administration who tried to smear your reputation. You had Acting Director McCabe in public testimony a few weeks back, and in public testimony yesterday reaffirm that the vast majority in FBI community had great trust in your leadership, and obviously trust in your integrity. I want to go through a number of the meetings that you referenced in your testimony, and let's start with the January 6th meeting in Trump Tower, where you went up with a series of officials to brief the President-elect on the Russia investigation. My understanding is you remained afterwards to brief him, on again, "Some personally sensitive aspects of the information you relayed." Now you said after that briefing you felt compelled to document that conversation that you actually started documenting it as soon as you got into the car. Now you've had extensive experience at the department of justice and at the FBI. You've worked under presidents of both parties. What was about that meeting that led you to determine that you needed to start putting down a written record? COMEY: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances, first, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president. The subject matter I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI's core responsibility, and that relate to the president, president-elect personally, and then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before, but had led me to believe I got to write it down and write it down in a very detailed way. WARNER: I think that's a very important statement you just made. Then, unlike your dealings with presidents of either parties in your past experience, in every subsequent meeting or conversation with this president, you created a written record. Did you feel that you needed to create this written record of these memos, because they might need to be relied on at some future date? COMEY: Sure. I created records after conversations that I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn't, I did it for nearly all of them especially the ones that were substantive. I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the Independence of our investigative function. That's what made this so difficult is it was a combination of circumstances, subject matter and the particular person. WARNER: And so in all your experience, this was the only president that you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point, using your words, he might put out a non-truthful representation of that meeting. COMEY: That's right, senator. As I said, as FBI director I interacted with President Obama, I spoke only twice in three years, and didn't document it. When I was Deputy Attorney General I had a one one-on-one with President Bush been I sent an email to my staff but I didn't feel with president bush the need to document it in that I way. Again, because of the combination of those factors, just wasn't present with either President Bush or President Obama. WARNER: I think that is very significant. I think others will probably question that. Now, the chairman and I have requested those memos. It is our hope that the FBI will get this committee access to those memos so again, we can read that contemporaneous rendition so that we've got your side of the story. Now I know members have said and press have said that a great deal has been made whether the president asked and indicated whether the president was the subject of any investigation, and my understanding is prior to your meeting on January 6th, you discussed with your leadership team whether you should be prepared to assure then President-elect Trump that the FBI was not investigating him personally. Now, I understand that your leadership team, agreed with that but was that a unanimous decision? Was there any debate about that? COMEY: Wasn't unanimous. One of the members of the leadership team had a view you that although it was technically true we did not have a counter-intelligence file case open on then President-elect Trump. His concern was because we're looking at the potential, again, that's the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was President Trump, President-elect Trump's campaign, this person's view was inevitably his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work. And so he was reluctant to make the statement. I disagreed. I thought it was fair to say what was literally true. There was not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump, and I decided in the moment to say it, given the nature of our conversation. WARNER: At that moment in time, did you ever revisit that as in the subsequent sessions? COMEY: With the FBI leadership team? Sure. And the leader had that view that didn't change. His view was still that it was probably although literally true, his concern was it could be misleading, because the nature of the investigation was such that it might well touch, obviously it would touch, the campaign, and the person that headed the campaign would be the candidate, and so that was his view throughout. WARNER: Let me move to the January 27th dinner, where you said "The president began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI director.” He also indicated that “lots of people" again your words, "Wanted the job." You go on to say the dinner itself was "Seemingly an effort to" to quote have you ask him for your job and create some "patronage" relationship. The president seems from my reading of your memo to be holding your job or your possibility of continuing your job over your head in a fairly direct way. What was your impression, and what did you mean by this notion of a patronage relationship? COMEY: Well, my impression, and again it's my impression, I could always be wrong but my common sense told me what was going on is, either he had concluded or someone had told him that you didn't, you've already asked Comey to stay, and you didn't get anything for it. And that the dinner was an effort to build a relationship, in fact, he asked specifically, of loyalty in the context of asking me to stay. As I said, what was odd about that is we'd already talked twice about it by that point and he said I very much hope you'll stay. In fact, I just remembered sitting a third, when you've seen the. IC tour of me walking across the blue room, and what the president whispered in my ear was "I really look forward to working with you." So after those encounters — WARNER: That was a few days before your firing. COMEY: On the Sunday after the inauguration. The next Friday I have dinner and the president begins by wanting to talk about my job and so I'm sitting there thinking wait a minute three times we've already, you've already asked me to stay or talked about me staying. My common sense, again I could be wrong but my common sense told me what's going on here is, he's looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job. WARNER: Again, we ail understand, I was a governor, I had people work for me but this constant requests and again quoting you, him saying that he, despite you explaining your independence, he said “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Have you ever had any of those kind of requests before from anyone else you've worked for in the government? COMEY: No, and what made me uneasy at that point I'm the director of the FBI. The reason that Congress created a t10-year term is so that the director is not feeling as if they're serving at, with political loyalty owed to any particular person. The statue of justice has a blindfolds on. You're not supposed to peek out to see there your patron was please pleased with what you're doing. That's why I became FBI director to be in of that position. That's why I was uneasy. WARNER: February 14th, seems strange, you were in a meeting, and your direct superior the attorney general was in that meeting as well, yet the president asked everyone to leave, including the attorney general to leave, before he brought up the matter of general Flynn. What was your impression of that type of action? Have you ever seen anything like that before? COMEY: No. My impression was something big is about to happen. I need to remember every single word that is spoken, and again, I could be wrong, I'm 56 years old, I've been, seen a few things, my sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn't be leaving which was why he was leaving and I don't know Kushner well but I think he picked up on the same thing so I knew something was about to happen that I needed to pay very close attention to. WARNER: I found it very interesting that, that in the memo that you wrote after this February 14th pull-aside, you made clear that you wrote that memo in a way that was unclassified. If you affirmatively made the decision to write a memo that was unclassified, was that because you felt at some point, the facts of that meeting would have to come clean and come clear, and actually be able to be cleared in a way that could be shared with the American people? COMEY: Well, I remember thinking, this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work. I need to document it and preserve it in a way, and this committee gets this but sometimes when things are classified, it tangled them up. WARNER: Amen. COMEY: It's hard to share within an investigative team. You have to be careful how you handled it for good reason. If I write it such a way that doesn’t include anything of a classification, that would make it easier for to us discuss within the FBI and the government, and to hold onto it in a way that makes it accessible to us. WARNER: Well again it's our hope particularly since you are a pretty knowledgeable guy and wrote this in a way that it was unqualified this committee will get access that unclassified document. I this I it will be important to our investigation. Let me ask you this in closing. How many ongoing investigations at any time does the FBI have? COMEY: Tens of thousands. WARNER: Tens of thousands. Did the president ever ask about any other ongoing investigation? COMEY: No. WARNER: Did he ever ask about you trying to interfere on any other investigation? COMEY: No. WARNER: I think, again, this speaks volumes. This doesn't even get to the questions around the phone calls about lifting the cloud. I know other members will get to that, but I really appreciate your testimony, and appreciate your service to our nation. COMEY: Thank you, Senator Warner. I'm sitting here going through my contacts with him. I had one conversation with the president that was classified where he asked about our, an ongoing intelligence investigation, it was brief and entirely professional. WARNER: He didn't ask to you take any specific action? COMEY: No. WARNER: Unlike what we did vis-à-vis will Flynn and the Russia investigation? COMEY: Correct. WARNER: Thank you, sir. BURR: Senator Risch? SEN. JAMES RISCH: Thank you very much. Mr. Comey, thank you for your service. America needs more like you and we really appreciate it. Yesterday, I got and everybody got the seven pages of your direct testimony that is now a part of the record here. And the first — I read it, and then I read it again, and all I could think was number one, how much hated the class of legal writing when I was in law school, and you are the guy that probably got the A after reading this. I find it clear. I find it concise, and having been a prosecutor for a number of years and handling hundreds, maybe thousands of cases and read police reports, investigative reports, this is as good as it gets, and I really appreciate that. Not only the conciseness and the clearness of it, but also the fact that you have things that were written down contemporaneously when they happened, and you actually put them in quotes so we know exactly what happened and we're not getting some rendition of it that's in your mind. COMEY: Thank you, sir. RISCH: You're to be complimented. COMEY: I had great parents and great teachers who beat that into me. RISCH: That's obvious, sir. The chairman walked you through a number of things that the American people need to know and want to know. Number one, obviously, we all know about the active measures that the Russians have taken. I think a lot of people were surprised at this. Those of us that work in the intelligence community, it didn't come as a surprise, but now the American people know this, and it's good they know this, because this is serious and it's a problem. I think secondly, I gather from all this that you're willing to say now that, while you were director, the president of the United States was not under investigation. Is that a fair statement? COMEY: That's correct. RISCH: All right, so that's a fact that we are rely on? COMEY: Yes, sir. RISCH: I remember, you talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the "New York Times" wrote an article that suggested that the trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out? COMEY: I do, it was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance in their communications. RISCH: Correct. That upset you to the point where you surveyed the intelligence community to see whether you were missing something in that. Is that correct? COMEY: That's correct. I want to be careful in open setting, but — RISCH: I'm not going to go any further than that, so thank you. In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual. Do you recall that? COMEY: Yes. RISCH: Okay. So again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement? COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don't. The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and going on are not talking about it. We don't call the press to say, hey, you don't that thing wrong about the sensitive topic. We have to leave it there. I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense around what influenced me to make the July 5th statement. Nonsense. But I can't go explaining how it is nonsense. RISCH: Thank you. All right. So those three things we now know regarding the active measures, whether the president is under investigation and the collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. I want to drill right down, as my time is limited, to the most recent dust up regarding allegations that the president of the United States obstructed justice. Boy, you nailed this down on page 5, paragraph 3. You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There's 28 words now in quotes. It says, quote, I hope -- this is the president speaking — I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is good guy. I hope you can let this go. Now, those are his exact words, is that correct. COMEY: Correct. RISCH: You wrote them here and put them in quotes. COMEY: Correct. RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go? COMEY: Not in his words, no. RISCH: He did not order you to let it go? COMEY: Again, those words are not an order. RISCH: He said, I hope. Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome? COMEY: I don't know well enough to answer. The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction. RISCH: Right. COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it. RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said. COMEY: Correct. RISCH: He said, I hope. COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct. RISCH: You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement? COMEY: I don't as I sit here. RISCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Feinstein? SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, I just want you to know that I have great respect for you. Senator Cornyn and I sit on the judiciary committee and we have the occasion to have you before us. You're a man of strength and I regret the situations we all find ourselves in. I just want to say that. Let me begin with one overarching question. Why do you believe you were fired? COMEY: I guess I don't know for sure. I believe — I think the president, at his word, that I was fired because of the Russia investigation. Something about the way I was conducting it, the president felt created pressure on him that he wanted to relieve. Again, I didn't know that at the time. I watched his interview. I read the press accounts of his conversations. I take him at his word there. Look, I could be wrong. Maybe he's saying something that's not true. I take him at his word, at least based on what I know now. FEINSTEIN: Talk for a moment about his request that you pledge loyalty and your response to that and what impact you believe that had. COMEY: I don't know for sure because I don't know the president well enough to read him well. I think it was — first of all, relationship didn't get off to a great start, given the conversation I had to have on January 6th. This didn't improve the relationship because it was very, very awkward. He was asking for something, and I was refusing to give it. Again, I don't know him well enough to know how he reacted to that exactly. FEINSTEIN: Do you believe the Russia investigation played a role? COMEY: In why I was fired? FEINSTEIN: Yes. COMEY: Yes. I've seen the president say so. FEINSTEIN: Let's go to the Flynn issue. The senator outlined, “I hope you could see your way to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” But you also said in your written remarks, and I quote, that you “had understood the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December,”. Please go into that with more detail. COMEY: Well, the context and the president's word are what led me to that conclusion. As I said in my statement, I could be wrong, but Flynn had been forced to resign the day before. And the controversy around general Flynn at that point in time was centered on whether he lied to the vice president about his nature of conversations with the Russians, whether he had been candid with others in the course of that. So that happens on the day before. On the 1, the president makes reference to that. I understood what he wanted me to do was drop any investigation connected to Flynn's account of his conversations with the Russians. FEINSTEIN: Now, here's the question, you're big. You're strong. I know the oval office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn't you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you. COMEY: It's a great question. Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in. The only thing I could think to say, because I was playing in my mind -- because I could remember every word he said -- I was playing in my mind, what should my response be? That's why I carefully chose the words. Look, I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes. I remember saying, “I agree he is a good guy,” as a way of saying, I'm not agreeing with what you asked me to do. Again, maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance. That's how Ed myself. I hope I'll never have another opportunity. Maybe if I did it again, I'd do it better. FEINSTEIN: You describe two phone calls that you received from president trump. One on March 30th and one on April 11. He, quote, described the Russia investigation as a cloud that was impairing his ability, end quote, as president, and asked you, quote, to lift the cloud, end quote. How did you interpret that? What did you believe he wanted you to do? COMEY: I interpreted that as he was frustrated that the Russia investigation was taking up so much time and energy. I think he meant of the executive branch, but in the public square in general. It was making it difficult for him to focus on other priorities of his. But what he asked me was actually narrowing than that. I think what he meant by the cloud — and, again, I could be wrong — but the entire investigation is taking up oxygen and making it hard for me to focus on what I want to focus on. The ask was to get it out that I, the president, am not personally under investigation. FEINSTEIN: After April 11th, did he ask you more ever about the Russia investigation? Did he ask you any questions? COMEY: We never spoke again after April 11th. FEINSTEIN: You told the president, I would see what we could do. What did you mean? COMEY: It was kind of a cowardly way of trying to avoid telling him, we're not going to do that. That I would see what we could do. It was a way of kind of getting off the phone, frankly, and then I turned and handed it to the acting deputy attorney general. FEINSTEIN: So I want to go into that. Who did you talk with about that, lifting the cloud, stop the investigation back at the FBI, and what was their response? COMEY: The FBI, during one of the two conversations — I'm not remembering exactly — I think the first, my chief of staff was sitting in front of me and heard my end of the conversation because the president's call was a surprise. I discussed the lifting the cloud and the request with the senior leadership team who, typically, and I think in all the circumstances, was the deputy director, my chief of staff, the general counsel, the deputy director's chief counsel and, I think in a number of circumstances, the number three in the FBI and a few of the conversations included the head of the national security branch. The group of us that lead the FBI when it comes to national security. FEINSTEIN: You have the president of the United States asking you to stop an investigation that is an important investigation. What was the response of your colleagues? COMEY: I think they were as shocked and troubled by it as I was. Some said things that led me to believe that. I don't remember exactly. But the reaction was similar to mine. They're all experienced people who never experienced such a thing, so they were very concerned. Then the conversation turned to about, so what should we do with this information? That was a struggle for us. Because we are the leaders of the FBI, so it's been reported to us, and I heard it and now shared it with the leaders of the FBI, our conversation was, should we share this with any senior officials at the justice department? Our primary concern was, we can't infect the investigative team. We don't want the agents and analysts working on this to know the president of the united States has asked, and when it comes from the president, I took it as a direction, to get rid of this investigation because we're not going to follow that request. So we decided, we have to keep it away from our troops. Is there anyone else we ought to tell at the justice department? We considered whether to tell -- the attorney general said we believe rightly he was shortly going to recuse. There was no other senate confirmed leaders in the justice department at that point. The deputy attorney general was Mr. Boente, acting shortly in the seat. We decided the best move would be to hold it, keep it in a box, document it, as we'd already done, and this investigation is going to do on. Figure out what to do with it down the road. Is there a way to corroborate it? It was our word against the president's. No way to corroborate this. My view of this changed when the prospect of tapes was raised. That's how we thought about it then. FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Director Comey, the meeting in the oval office where he made the request about Mike Flynn, was that only time he asked you to hopefully let it go? COMEY: Yes. RUBIO: And in that meeting, as you understood it, he was asking not about the general Russia investigation, he was asking specifically about the jeopardy that Flynn was in himself? COMEY: That's how I understood it. Yes, sir. RUBIO: As you perceived it, while he hoped you did away with it, you perceived it as an order, given the setting, the position and some of the circumstances? COMEY: Yes. RUBIO: At the time, did you say something to the president about, that is not an appropriate request, or did you tell the white house counsel, it's not an appropriate request? Someone needs to tell the president he can't do these things. COMEY: I didn't, no. RUBIO: Why? COMEY: I don't know. I think — as I said earlier, I think the circumstances were such that it was — I was a bit stunned and didn't have the presence of mind. I don't know. I don't want to make you sound like I'm captain courageous. I don't know if I would have said to the president with the presence of mind, sir, that's wrong. In the moment, it didn't come to my mind. What came to my mind is be careful what you say. I said, I agree Flynn is a good guy. RUBIO: On the cloud, we keep talking about this cloud, you perceive the cloud to be the Russian investigation in general? COMEY: Yes, sir. RUBIO: His specific ask was you'd tell the American people what you'd told him, told the leaders of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, he was not personally under investigation? COMEY: Yes, sir. RUBIO: What he was asking you to do, would you have done here today? COMEY: Correct. Yes, sir. RUBIO: Again, at that setting, did you say to the president, it would be inappropriate for you to do so and then talk to the White House counsel or somebody so hopefully they'd talked to him and tell him he couldn't do this? COMEY: First time I said, I'll see what we can do. Second time, I explained how it should work, that the White House counsel should contact the deputy attorney general. RUBIO: You told him that? COMEY: The president said, okay. I think that's what I'll do. RUBIO: To be clear, for you to make a public statement that he was not under investigation wouldn't be illegal but you felt it could potentially create a duty to correct if circumstances changed? COMEY: Yes, sir. We wrestled with it before my testimony, where I confirmed that there was an investigation. There were two primary concerns. One was it creates a duty to correct, which I've lived before, and you want to be very careful about doing that. And second, it is a slippery slope. If we say the president and the vice president aren't under investigation. What is the principled investigation for stopping? So the leaderrship, at justice, acting attorney general Boente said, you're not going to do that. RUBIO: On March 30th during the phone call about general Flynn, you said he abruptly shifted and brought up something that you call, quote, unquote, the McCabe thing. Specifically, the Mccabe thing as you understood it was that Mccabe's wife had received campaign money from what I assume means Terry McAuliffe? COMEY: Yes. RUBIO: Close to the Clintons. Did he say, I don't like this guy because he got money from someone close to Clinton? COMEY: He asked me about McCabe and said, how is he going to be with me as president? I was rough on him on the campaign trail. RUBIO: Rough on Mccabe? COMEY: By his own account, he said he was rough on McCabe and Mrs. McCabe on the campaign trail. How is he going to be? I shared with the president, Andy is a pro. No issue at all. You have to know people of the FBI. They're not — RUBIO: So the president turns to you and says, remember, I never brought up the McCabe thing because you said he was a good guy, did you perceive that to be a statement that, I took care of you. I didn't do something because you told me he was a good guy. So I'm asking you potentially for something in return. Is that how you perceived it? COMEY: I wasn't sure what to make of it. That's possible. It was so out of context I didn't have a clear view of what it was. RUBIO: On a number of occasions here, you bring up — let's talk about the general Russia investigation, OK? Page 6 of your testimony you say, the first thing you say is, he asked what we could do to, quote, unquote, lift the cloud, the general Russia investigation, you responded, we are investigating the matter as quickly as we could and there would be great benefit if we didn't find anything for having done the work well. He agreed. He emphasized the problems it was causing him. He agreed it'd be great to have an investigation, all the facts came out and we found nothing. He agreed that would be ideal, but this cloud is still messing up my ability to do the rest of my agenda. Is that an accurate assessment? COMEY: Yes, sir. He went farther than that. He said, and if some of my satellites did something wrong, it'd be good to find that out. RUBIO: That is the second part. The satellites, if one of my satellites, I imagine he meant some of the people surrounding his campaign, did something wrong, it'd be great to know that, as well. COMEY: Yes, sir. That's what he said. RUBIO: Are those the only two instances in which that back and forth happened, where the president was basically saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's okay. Do the Russia investigation. I hope it all comes out. I have nothing to do with anything Russia. It'd be great if it all came out, people around me were doing things that were wrong? COMEY: Yes. As I recorded it accurately there. That was the sentiment he was expressing. Yes, sir. RUBIO: What it comes down to is the president asked three things of you. Asked for your loyalty. You said you'd be loyally honest. COMEY: Honestly loyal. RUBIO: Honestly loyal. He asked you on one occasion to let the Mike Flynn thing go because he was a good guy. By the way, you're aware he said the same thing in the press the next day. He is a good guy, treated unfairly, etc. I imagine your FBI agents read that. COMEY: I'm sure they did. RUBIO: The president's wishes were known to them, certainly by the next day when he had a press conference with the prime minister. Going back, the three requests were, number one, be loyal. Number two, let the Mike Flynn thing go. He is a good guy, been treated unfairly. Number three, can you please tell the American people what these leaders in congress already know, which you already know and what you told me three times, that I'm not under personally under investigation. COMEY: That's right. RUBIO: We learn more from the newspaper sometimes than the open hearings. Do you ever wonder why, of all the things in the investigation, the only thing never leaked is the fact the president was never personally under investigation, despite the fact that Democrats and Republicans and the leadership of congress have known that for weeks? COMEY: I don't know. I find matters that are briefed to the gang of eight are pretty tightly held, in my experience. RUBIO: Finally, who are those senior leaders at the FBI you share these conversations with? COMEY: As I said in response to Sen. Feinstein's question, deputy director, my chief of staff, general counsel, deputy director’s chief counse and then, more often than not, the number three person at the FBI, the associate deputy director. And quite often, head of the national security branch. BURR: Senator? SEN. RON WYDEN: Mr. Comey, welcome. You and I have had significant policy differences over the years, particularly protecting Americans access to secure encryption. But I believe the timing of your firing stinks. Yesterday, you put on the record testimony that demonstrates why the odor of presidential abuse of power is so strong. Now, to my questions. In talking to senator Warner about this dinner that you had with the president, I believe January 27th, all in one dinner, the president raised your job prospects, he asked for your loyalty and denied allegations against him. All took place over one supper. Now, you told senator Warner that the president was looking to, quote, get something. Looking back, did that dinner suggest that your job might be contingent on how you handled the investigation? COMEY: I don't know that I'd go that far. I got the sense my job would be contingent upon how he felt I — excuse me — how he felt I conducted myself and whether I demonstrated loyalty. But I don't know whether I'd go so far as to connect it to the investigation. WYDEN: He said the president was trying to create some sort of patronage. Behaving in a manner consistent with the wishes of the boss? COMEY: Yes. At least consider how what you're doing will affect the boss as a significant consideration. WYDEN: Let me turn to the attorney general. In your statement, you said that you and the FBI leadership team decided not to discuss the president's actions with Attorney General Sessions, even though he had not recused himself. What was it about the attorney general's interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision? COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an opening setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic. So we were convinced — in fact, I think we'd already heard the career people were recommending that he recuse himself, that he was not going to be in contact with Russia-related matters much longer. That turned out to be the case. WYDEN: How would you characterize Attorney General Sessions's adherence to his recusal? In particular, with regard to his involvement in your firing, which the president has acknowledged was because of the Russian investigation. COMEY: That's a question I can't answer. I think it is a reasonable question. If, as the president said, I was fired because of the Russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in that chain? I don't know. So I don't have an answer for the question. WYDEN: Your testimony was that the president's request about Flynn could infect investigation. Had the president got what he wanted and what he asked of you, what would have been the effect on the investigation? COMEY: We would have closed any investigation of general Flynn in connection with his statements and encounters — statements about encounters with Russians in the late part of December. We would have dropped an open criminal investigation. WYDEN: So in effect, when you talk about infecting the enterprise, you would have dropped something major that would have spoken to the overall ability of the American people to get the facts? COMEY: Correct. And as good as our people are, our judgment was, we don't want them hearing that the president of the United States wants this to go away because it might have an effect on their ability to be fair, impartial and aggressive. WYDEN: Acting Attorney General Yates found out Mike Flynn could be blackmailed by the Russians and went immediately to warn the white house. Flynn is gone, but other individuals with contacts with the Russians are still in extremely important positions of power. Should the American people have the same sense of urgency now with respect to them? COMEY: I think all I can say, senator, is it's a — the special counsel's investigation is very important, understanding what efforts there were or are by Russian government to influence our government is a critical part of the FBI's mission. And you've got the right person in Bob Mueller to lead it, it is a very important piece of work. WYDEN: Vice president Pence was the head of the transition. To your knowledge, was he aware of the concerns about Michael Flynn prior to or during general Flynn's tenure as national security adviser? COMEY: I don't — you're asking including up to the time when Flynn was — WYDEN: Right. COMEY: Forced to resign? My understanding is that he was. I'm trying to remember where I get that understanding from. I think from acting attorney general Yates. WYDEN: So former acting attorney general Yates testified concerns about general Flynn were discussed with the intelligence community. Would that have included anyone at the CIA or Dan Coats’ office, the DNI? COMEY: I would assume, yes. WYDEN: Michael Flynn resigned four days after attorney general sessions was sworn in. Do you know if the attorney general was aware of the concerns about Michael Flynn during that period? COMEY: I don't as I sit here. I don't recall that he was. I could be wrong, but I don't remember that he was. WYDEN: Let's see if you can give us some sense of who recommended your firing. Besides the letter from the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, do you have any information on who may have recommended or been involved in your firing? COMEY: I don't. I don't. WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Collins? SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct? COMEY: That's correct. COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation? COMEY: I didn't use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him. So the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I just talked to him about. It was very important because it was, first, true, and second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because, because we had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn't want to be keeping that from him. He needed to know this was being said. I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. So that's the context in which I said, sir, we're not personally investigating you. COLLINS: Then — and that's why you volunteered the information? COMEY: Yes, ma'am. COLLINS: Then on the January 27th dinner, you told the president that he should be careful about asking you to investigate because, “you might create a narrative that we are investigating him personally, which we weren't.” Again, were you limiting that statement to counterintelligence investigations, or more broadly, such as a criminal investigation? COMEY: I didn't modify the word investigation. It was, again, he was reacting strongly against the unverified material, saying I'm tempted to order you to investigate it. In the context of that, I said, sir, be careful about it. I might create a narrative we're investigating you personally. COLLINS: There was the March 30th phone call with the president in which you reminded him that congressional leaders had been briefed that we were no personally — the FBI was not personally investigating president trump. And, again, was that statement to congressional leaders and to the president limited to counterintelligence investigations, or was it a broader statement? I'm trying to understand whether there was any kind of investigation of the president underway. COMEY: No. I'm sorry. If I misunderstood, I apologize. We briefed the congressional leadership about what Americans we had opened counterintelligence investigation cases on. We specifically said, the president is not one of those Americans. But there was no other investigation of the president that we were not mentioning at that time. The context was, counterintelligence, but I wasn't trying to hide some criminal investigation of the president. COLLINS: And was the president under investigation at the time of your dismissal on May 9th? COMEY: No. COLLINS: I'd like to now turn to the conversations with the president about Michael Flynn, which had been discussed at great length. First, let me make very clear that the president never should have cleared the room and he never should have asked you, as you reported, to let it go, to let the investigation go. But I remain puzzled by your response. Michael Flynn is a good guy. You could have said, Mr. President, this meeting is inappropriate. This response could compromise the investigation. You should not be making such a request. It's fundamental to the operation of our government, the FBI be insulated from this kind of political pressure. You talked a bit today about that you were stunned by the president making the request. But my question to you is later on, upon reflection, did you go to anyone at the department of justice and ask them to call the white house counsel's office and explain that the president had to have a far better understanding and appreciation of his role vis-à-vis the FBI? COMEY: In general, I did. I spoke to the attorney general and spoke to the new deputy attorney general, Mr. Rosenstein, when he took office and explained my serious concern about the way in which the president is interacting, especially with the FBI. As I said in my testimony, I told the attorney general, it can't happen that you get kicked out of the room and the president talks to me. Why didn't we raise the specific? It was of investigative interest to figure out, what just happened with the president's request? I wouldn't want to alert the white house it had happened until we figured out what we were going to do with it investigatively. COLLINS: Your testimony was that you went to attorney general sessions and said, don't ever leave me alone with him again. Are you saying that you also told him that he had made a request that you let it go with regard to part of the investigation of Michael Flynn? COMEY: No. I specifically did not. I did not. COLLINS: Okay. You mentioned that from your very first meeting with the president, you decided to write a memo memorializing the conversation. What was it about that very first meeting that made you write a memo when you have not done that with two previous presidents? COMEY: As I said, a combination of things. A gut feeling is an important overlay, but the circumstances, that I was alone, the subject matter and the nature of the person I was interacting with and my read of that person. Yeah, and really just gut feel, laying on top of all of that, that this is going to be important to protect this organization, that I make records of this. COLLINS: Finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice? COMEY: Yes. COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies? COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there's not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might a tape. My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it. COLLINS: Was that Mr. Wittes? COMEY: No. COLLINS: Who was it? COMEY: A close friend who is a professor at Columbia law school. COLLINS: Thank you. SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH: Mr. Comey, prior to January 27th of this year, have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States? COMEY: No. Dinner, no. I had two one-on-ones with President Obama. One to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement and race, which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. Then once very briefly for him to say goodbye. HEINRICH: Were those brief interactions? COMEY: No. The one about law enforcement and race and policing, we spoke for probably over an hour, just the two of us. HEINRICH: How unusual is it to have a one-on-one dinner with the president? Did that strike you as odd? COMEY: Yeah. So much so, I assumed there would be others, that he couldn't possibly be having dinner with me alone. HEINRICH: Do you have an impression that if you had found — if you had behaved differently in that dinner, and I am quite pleased that you did not, but if you had found a way to express some sort of expression of loyalty or given some suggestion that the Flynn criminal investigation might be pursued less vigorously, do you think you would have still been fired? COMEY: I don't know. It's impossible to say looking back. I don't know. HEINRICH: But you felt like those two things were directly relevant to the kind of relationship that the president was seeking to establish with you? COMEY: Sure, yes. HEINRICH: The president has repeatedly talked about the Russian investigation into the U.S. — or Russia's involvement in the U.S. Election cycle as a hoax and fake news. Can you talk a little bit about what you saw as FBI director and, obviously, only the parts that you can share in this setting that demonstrate how serious this action actually was and why there was an investigation in the first place? COMEY: Yes, sir. There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get. It is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. This is about America, not about a particular party. HEINRICH: That is a hostile act by the Russian government against this country? COMEY: Yes, sir. HEINRICH: Did the president in any of those interactions that you've shared with us today ask you what you should be doing or what our government should be doing or the intelligence community to protect America against Russian interference in our election system? COMEY: I don't recall a conversation like that. HEINRICH: Never? COMEY: No. HEINRICH: Do you find it — COMEY: Not with President Trump. HEINRICH: Right. COMEY: I attended a fair number of meetings on that with President Obama. HEINRICH: Do you find it odd that the president seemed unconcerned by Russia's actions in our election? COMEY: I can't answer that because I don't know what other conversations he had with other advisers or other intelligence community leaders. I just don't know sitting here. HEINRICH: Did you have any interactions with the president that suggested he was taking that hostile action seriously. COMEY: I don't remember any interactions with the president other than the initial briefing on January the 6th. I don't remember — could be wrong, but I don't remember any conversations with him at all about that. HEINRICH: As you're very aware, it was only the two of you in the room for that dinner. You told us the president asked you to back off the Flynn investigation. The president told a reporter — COMEY: Not in that dinner. HEINRICH: Fair enough. Told the reporter he never did that. You've testified that the president asked for your loyalty in that dinner. White house denies that. A lot of this comes down to who should we believe. Do you want to say anything as to why we should believe you? COMEY: My mother raised me not to say things like this about myself so I'm not going to. I think people should look at the whole body of my testimony. As I used to say to juries, when I talked about a witness, you can't cherry pick it. You can't say, I like these things he said but on this, he's a ten liar. You have to take it together. I've tried to be open, fair, transparent and accurate. Of significant fact to me is so why did he kick everybody out of the Oval Office? Why would you kick the attorney general, the president, the chief of staff out to talk to me if it was about something else? So that, to me, as an investigator, is a significant fact. HEINRICH: As we look at testimony or as communication from both of you, we should probably be looking for consistency? COMEY: Well, in looking at any witness, you look at consistency, track record, demeanor, record over time, that sort of thing. HEINRICH: Thank you. So there are reports that the incoming Trump administration, either during the transition and/or after the inauguration, attempted to set up a sort of backdoor communication channel with the Russian government using their infrastructure, their devices, their facilities. What would be the risks, particularly for a transition, someone not actually in the office of the president yet, to setting up unauthorized channels with a hostile foreign government, especially if they were to evade our own American intelligence services? COMEY: I'm not going to comment on whether that happened in an open setting, but the risk is — primary risk is obvious. You spare the Russians the cost and effort to break into our communications channels by using theirs. You make it a whole lot easier for them to capture all of your conversations. Then to use those to the benefit of Russia against the united States. HEINRICH: The memos that you wrote, you wrote — did you write all nine of them in a way that was designed to prevent them from needing classification? COMEY: No. On a few of the occasions, I wrote — I sent emails to my chief of staff on some of the brief phone conversations I had. The first one was a classified briefing. Though it was in a conference room at Trump Tower, it was a classified briefing. I wrote that on a classified device. The one I started typing in the car, that was a classified laptop I started working on. HEINRICH: Any reason in a classified environment, in a skiff, that this committee, it would not be appropriate to see those communications at least from your perspective as the author? COMEY: No. HEINRICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator? SEN. ROY BLUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, when you were terminated at the FBI, I said, and still continue to feel, that you have provided years of great service to the country. I also said that I'd had significant questions over the last year about some of the decisions that you made. If the president hadn't terminated your service, would you still be, in your opinion, the director of the FBI today? COMEY: Yes, sir. BLUNT: So you took as a direction from the president something you thought was serious and troublesome but continued to show up for work the next day? COMEY: Yes, sir. BLUNT: Six weeks later were still telling the president on March the 30th that he was not personally the target of any investigation? COMEY: Correct. On March the 30th, and I think again on April 11th, as well, I told him we're not investigating him personally. That was true. BLUNT: The point to me, the concern to me there is, all these things are going on. You now in retrospect, or at least to this committee, you had serious concerns about what the president had, you believed, directed you to do, and had taken no action. Hadn't even reported up the chain of command, assuming you believe there is a chain of command, that these things happened. Do you have a sense looking back that that was a mistake? COMEY: No. In fact, I think no action was the most important thing I could do. BLUNT: On the Flynn issue specifically, I believe you said earlier that you believe the president was suggesting you drop any investigation of Flynn's account of his conversation with the Russian ambassador. Which was essentially misleading the vice president and others? COMEY: Correct. I'm not going to go into the details but whether there were false statements made to government investigators, as well. BLUNT: Any suggestion that the — General Flynn had violated the Logan Act, I always find incredible. The Logan Act has been on the books over 200 years. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. My sense would be that the discussion, not the problem, misleading investigators or the vice president might have been? COMEY: That's fair. Yes, sir. BLUNT: Had you previously on February 14th discussed with the president in the previous meeting anything your investigators had learned or their impressions from talking to Flynn? COMEY: No, sir. BLUNT: So he said he's a good guy. You said he is a good guy. That was — no further action taken on that? COMEY: He said more than that, but there was no — the action was, I wrote it up, briefed our senior team, tried to figure out what to do with it and made a decision. We're going to hold this and see what we make of it down the road. BLUNT: Did it mean you had no responsibility to report that to the Justice Department in some way? COMEY: I think at some point, and I don't know what Director Mueller is going to do with it, but at some point, I was sure we were going to brief it to the team in charge of the case. But our judgment was in the short term, doesn't make sense to — no fuzz on the fact I reported to the attorney general. That's why I stressed he shouldn't be kicked out of the room. Didn't make sense to report to him now. BLUNT: You said the attorney general said, I don't want to be in the room with him alone again, but you continued to talk to him on the phone. What is the difference in being in the room alone with him and talking to him on the phone alone? COMEY: I think what I stressed to the attorney general was broader than just the room. I said, I report to you. It is very important you be between me and the white house. BLUNT: After that discussion with the attorney general, did you take phone calls from the president? COMEY: Yes, sir. BLUNT: Why did you just say you need to — why didn't you say, I'm not taking that call. Talk to the attorney general? COMEY: I did on the April 11th call. I reported the calls — the March 30th call and the April 11th call to my superior, who was the acting deputy attorney general. BLUNT: I don't want to run out of time here. In reading your testimony, January the 3rd, January the 27th and March the 30th, it appears to me on all three of those occasions, you unsolicited by the president, made the point to him he was not a target of an investigation? COMEY: Correct. Yes, sir. BLUNT: One, I thought the March 30th, very interesting, you said, well, even though you don't want — you may not want — that was 27th, where he said, why don't you look into that more? You said, you may not want that because we couldn't say with — we couldn't answer the question about you being a target of the investigation. You didn't seem to be answering that question anyhow. Senator Rubio pointed out the one unanswered, unleaked question seems to have been that. In this whole period of time. You said something earlier and I don't want to fail to follow up on, you said after dismissed, you gave information to a friend so that friend could get that information into the public media. COMEY: Correct. BLUNT: What kind of information was that? What kind of information did you give to a friend? COMEY: That the — the Flynn conversation. The president had asked me to let the Flynn — forgetting my exact own words. But the conversation in the Oval Office. BLUNT: So you didn't consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document. You considered it to be, somehow, your own personal document that you could share to the media as you wanted through a friend? COMEY: Correct. I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out. BLUNT: Were all your memos that you recorded on classified or other memos that might be yours as a private citizen? COMEY: I'm not following the question. BLUNT: You said you used classified — COMEY: Not the classified documents. Unclassified. I don't have any of them anymore. I gave them to the special counsel. My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded. BLUNT: So why didn't you give those to somebody yourself rather than give them through a third party? COMEY:Because I was weary the media was camping at the end of my driveway at that point. I was actually going out of town with my wife to hide. I worried it would be feeding seagulls at the beach. If it was I who gave it to the media. I asked my friend, make sure this gets out. BLUNT: It does seem to me what you do there is create a source close to the former director of the FBI as opposed to taking responsibility yourself for saying, here are the records. Like everybody else, I have other things I'd like to get into but I'm out of time. SEN. ANGUS KING: First, I'd like to acknowledge Senator Blumenthal and Senator Nelson. The principal thing you'll learn is the chairs there are more uncomfortable than the chairs here. But welcome to the hearing. Mr. Comey, a broad question. Was the Russian activity in the 2016 election a one off proposition, or is this part of a long-term strategy? Will they be back? COMEY: Oh, it is a long-term practice of theirs. It's stepped up a notch in a significant way in '16. They'll be back. KING: I think that's very important for the American people to understand. That this is very much a forward looking investigation in terms of how do we understand what they did and how do we prevent it. Would you agree that is a big part of our role here? COMEY: Yes, sir. It is not a Republican thing or a democratic thing. It really is an American thing. They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on behalf of, and they're not devoted to either, in my experience. They're just about their own advantage. They will be back. KING: That's my observation. I don't think Putin is a Republican or a Democrat. He's an opportunist. COMEY: I think that's a fair statement. KING: With regard to the — several of these conversations, in his interview with Lester Holt on NBC, the president said, I had dinner with him. He wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on. Is this an accurate statement? COMEY: No, sir. KING: Did you in any way initiate that dinner? COMEY: No. He called me at my desk at lunchtime and asked me, was I free for dinner that night. Called himself. Said, can you come over for dinner tonight? I said, yes, sir. He said, will 6:00 work? I think 6:00 first. Then he said, I was going to invite your whole family but we'll do it next time. Is that a good time? I said, sir, whatever works for you. He said, how about 6:30? I said, whatever works for you, sir. Then I hung up and had to call my wife and break a date with her. I was supposed to take her to dinner that night. KING: One of the all-time great excuses for breaking a date. COMEY: Yeah. In retrospect, I love spending time with my wife and I wish I would have been there that night. KING: That's one question I'm not going to follow up on, Mr. Comey. In that same interview, the president said, in one case I called him and in one case, he call me. Is that an accurate statement? COMEY: No. KING: Did you ever call the president? COMEY: No. I might — the only reason I'm hesitating is, I think there was at least one conversation where I was asked to call the White House switchboard to be connected to him. I never initiated a communication with the president. KING: In his press conference May 18th, the president responded, quote, no, no, when asked about asking you to stop the investigation into general Flynn. Is that a true statement? COMEY: I don't believe it is. KING: In regard to him being personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way? COMEY: I obviously can't comment either way. I talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was head of the FBI. It is Bob Mueller's responsibility now. I don't know. KING: Clearly, your statements to the president back on the various times when you assured him it wasn't under investigation, as of that moment, is it correct? COMEY: Correct. KING: Now, on the Flynn investigation, is it not true that Mr. Flynn was and is a central figure in this entire investigation of the relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russians? COMEY: I can't answer that in an open setting, sir. KING: Certainly, Mr. Flynn was part of the so-called Russian investigation? Can you answer that question? COMEY: I have to give you the same answer. KING: All right. We'll be having a closed session shortly so we'll follow up on that. In terms of his comments to you about — I think in response to Senator Risch, he said, I hope you'll hold back on that, but when you get a — when a president of the United States in the Oval Office says something like, I hope or I suggest or would you, do you take that as a directive? COMEY: Yes. It rings in my ear as, well, will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest. KING: I was just going to quote that, in 1179, December 27th, Henry II said, who will rid me of the meddlesome priest, and the next day, he was killed. Exactly the same situation. We're thinking along the same lines. Several other questions, and these are a little more detailed. What do you know about the Russian bank VEB? COMEY: Nothing that I can talk about in an open setting. I know — KING: That takes care of the next three questions. COMEY: I know it exists. KING: What is relationship of ambassador — the ambassador from Russia to the United States to the Russian intelligence infrastructure? COMEY: He's a diplomat who is the chief of mission at the Russian Embassy, which employs a robust cohort of intelligence officers. So, surely, he is whiting of their aggressive intelligence operations, at least some of it in the United States. I don't consider him to be an intelligence officer himself. He's a diplomat. KING: Did you ever — did the FBI ever brief the Trump administration about the advisability of interacting directly with Ambassador Kislyak? COMEY: All I can say sits here is there are a variety of defensive briefings given to the incoming administration about the counterintelligence risk. KING: Back to Mr. Flynn. Would the — would closing out the Flynn investigation have impeded the overall Russian investigation? COMEY: No. Well, unlikely, except to the extent — there is always a possibility if you have a criminal case against someone and squeeze them, flip them and they give you information about something else. But I saw the two as touching each other but separate. KING: With regard to your memos, isn't it true that in a court case when you're weighing evidence, contemporaneous memos and contemporaneous statements to third parties are considered probative in terms of the validity of testimony? COMEY: Yes. KING: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Lankford? LANKFORD: Former Director Comey, good to see you again. COMEY: You, too. LANKFORD: Multiple opportunities to visit, as everyone here has. I appreciate you and your service and what you have done for the nation for a long time, what you continue to do. I told you before in the heat of last year, when we had an opportunity to visit personally, that I pray for you and your family because you carry a tremendous amount of stress. That is still true today. COMEY: Thank you. LANKFORD: Let me walk through a couple things with you. Your notes are obviously exceptionally important because they give a rapid account of what you wrote down and what you perceived happened in those different meetings. Have you had the opportunity to reference those notes when you were preparing the written statement you put forward today? COMEY: Yes. I think nearly all of my written recordings of my conversations, I had a chance to review them before filing my statement. LANKFORD: Do you have a copy of any of the notes personally? COMEY: I don't. I turned them over to Bob Mueller's investigators. LANKFORD: The individual that you told about your memos, that then were sent on to The New York Times, did you have a copy of the memos or told orally? COMEY: Had a copy at the time. LANKFORD: Do they still have a copy of those memos? COMEY: Good question. I think so. I guess I can't say for sure sitting here, but — I guess I don't know. But I think so. LANKFORD: So the question is, could you ask them to hand that copyright back to you so you can hand them over to this committee? COMEY: Potentially. LANKFORD: I would like to move that from potentially to seeing if we can ask that question so we can have a copy of those. Obviously, the notes are really important to us, so we can continue to get to the facts as we see it. The written documents are exceptionally important. COMEY: Yeah. LANKFORD: Were there other documents we need to be aware of you used in your preparation for your written statement we should also have that would assist us in helping us with this? COMEY: Not that I'm aware of, no. LANKFORD: Past the February 14th meeting, which is an important meeting as we discuss the conversations here about Michael Flynn, when the president asked you about he hopes that you would let this go, and the conversation back and forth about being a good guy, after that time, did the president ever bring up anything about Michael Flynn again to you? Had multiple other conversations you had documents with the president. COMEY: I don't remember him bringing it up again. LANKFORD: Did a member of the white house staff come up to you asking you to drop the Michael Flynn case, anything referring to that? COMEY: No. LANKFORD: Did the Director of National Intelligence talk to you about that? COMEY: No. LANKFORD: Did anyone from the attorney general's office, the department of justice ask about that? COMEY: No. LANKFORD: Did the head of NSA talk to you about that? COMEY: No. LANKFORD: The key aspect here is if this seems to be something the president is trying to get you to drop it, it seems like a light touch to drop it, to bring it up at that point, the day after he had just fired Flynn, to come back here and say, I hope we can let this go, then it never reappears again. Did it slow down your investigation or any investigation that may or may not be occurring with Michael Flynn? COMEY: No. Although I don't know there are any manifestations between February 14th and when I was fired. I don't know that the president had any way of knowing whether it was effective or not. LANKFORD: Okay. Fair enough. If the president wanted to stop an investigation, how would he do that? Knowing it is an ongoing criminal investigation or counterintelligence investigation, would that be a matter of going to you, you perceive, and say, you make it stop because he doesn't have the authority to stop it? How would the president make an ongoing investigation stop? COMEY: I'm not a legal scholar, but as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and could direct, in theory, we have important norms against this, but could anyone be investigative or not. I think he has the legal authority. All of us ultimately report in the executive branch to the president. LANKFORD: Would that be to you, or the attorney general or who? COMEY: I suppose he could if he wanted to issue a direct order could do it anyway. Through the attorney general or issue it directly to me. LANKFORD: Well, is there any question that the president is not real fond of this investigation? I can think of multiple 140-word character expressions that he's publicly expressed he's not fond of the investigation. I heard you refer to before trying to keep the agents away from any comment that the president may have made. Quite frankly, the president has informed around 6 billion people that he's not real fond of this investigation. Do you think there's a difference in that? COMEY: Yes. There's a big difference in kicking superior officers out of the oval office, looking the FBI director in the eye and saying I hope you let this go. I think if agents as good as they are heard the president of the United States did that, there's a real risk of a chilling effect on their work. That's why we kept it so tight. LANKFORD: OK. You had mentioned before about some news stories and news accounts. Without having to go into all of the names and specific times and to be able to dip into all of that. Have there been news accounts about the Russian investigation or collusion about the whole event or as you read the story you were wrong about how wrong they got the facts? COMEY: Yes, there have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff but about Russia that are dead wrong. LANKFORD: I was interested in your comment that you made as well that the president said to you if there were some satellite associates of his that did something wrong, it would be good to find that out. Did the president seem to talk to you specifically on March 30th saying I'm frustrated that the word is not getting out that I'm under investigation. But if there are people in my circle that are, let's finish the investigation, is that how you took it? COMEY: Yes, sir. Yes. LANKFORD: Then you made a comment earlier a the attorney general, the previous attorney general asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that? COMEY: Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for months. And was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don't call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter. They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning. LANKFORD: You gave impression that the campaign was somehow using the language as the FBI because you were handed the campaign language? COMEY: I don't know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling. BURR: Senator Manchin. SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Thank you. I appreciate being here. West Virginia is interested in the hear we're having today. I've had over 600 requests for questions to ask you from my fellow West Virginians. Most of them have been asked and there are some to be asked if the classified hearing. I want to thank you first of all for coming to be here and volunteering to stay in the classified hearing. I don't know if you had a chance to watch our hearing yesterday — COMEY: I watched part of it, yes. MANCHIN: And it was quite troubling. My colleagues had very pointed questions they wanted answers to. And they weren't classified and could have been answered in the open setting and they refused to. So that makes us much more appreciative of your cooperation. Sir, the seriousness of the Russia investigation and knowing that it can be ongoing as Senator Keegan alluded to. What are your concerns there? American public saying why are we making a big deal of this Russian investigation? Can you tell me about your thoughts? COMEY: Yes, sir. MANCHIN: Finally, did the president ever show any concern or interest or curiosity about what the Russians were doing? COMEY: Thank you, senator. As I said earlier, I don't remember any conversations with the president about the Russia election interference. MANCHIN: Did he ever ask you any questions concerning this? COMEY: Well, there was an initial briefing of our findings. And I think there was conversation there I don't remember exactly where he asked what I found and what our sources were and what our confidence level was. The reason this is such a big deal. We have this big messy wonderful country where we fight with each other all the time. But nobody tells us what to think, what to fight about, what to vote for except other Americans. And that's wonderful and often painful. But we're talking about a foreign government that using technical intrusion, lots of other methods tried to shape the way we think, we vote, we act. That is a big deal. And people need to recognize it. It's not about Republicans or Democrats. They're coming after America, which I hope we all love equally. They want to undermine our credibility in the face the world. They think that this great experiment of ours is a threat to them. So they're going to try to run it down and dirty it up as much as possible. That's what this is about and they will be back. Because we remain — as difficult as we can be with each other, we remain that shining city on the hill. And they don't like it. MANCHIN: It's extremely important, extremely dangerous what we're dealing with and it's needed is what you're saying. COMEY: Yes, sir. MANCHIN: Do you believe there were any tapes or recordings of your conversations with the president? COMEY: It never occurred to me until the president's tweet. I'm not being facetious. I hope there are. MANCHIN: Both of you are in the same here, you both hope there are taping and recordings? COMEY: Well all I can do is hope. The president surely knows if he taped me. If he did, my feelings aren't hurt. Release all of the tapes I'm good with you. MANCHIN: Sir, do you believe that Robert Mueller, our new special versus, on Russia, will be thorough and complete without intervention and would you about confident on his recommendations? COMEY: Yes, Bob Mueller is one of the finest people and public servants this country has ever produced. He will do it well. He's a dogged-tough person and you can have high confidence when he's done, he's turned over all of the rocks. MANCHIN: You've been asked a wide variety of questions and we're going to have more in our classified hearing. Something else I like to ask folks when they come here, what details of the saga should we be focused on and recommend that we do differently? To adjust our perspective on this. COMEY: I don't know. One of the reasons I'm pleased to be here I think this committee has shown the American people although we have two parties and we disagree on things we can work together when it comes to the country. So I would hope that you would just keep doing what you’re doing. And it’s a good example for kids. That it’s good in and of itself but we are an adult democracy. MANCHIN: You mentioned six times on the phone with president did you ever allude that you were performing inadequately? — COMEY: No, quite the contrary. I was about to get on a helicopter one time. The head of the DEA was in the helicopter waiting for me. He called in to check in and tell me I was doing an awesome job. And wanted to see how I was doing. I said I'm doing fine, sir. Then I finished the call and got on the helicopter. MANCHIN: Mr. Comey, do you believe you would have been fired if Hillary Clinton became president? COMEY: That's a great question. I don't know. I don't know. MANCHIN: Have you had any thoughts about it? COMEY: I might have been. I don't know. Look, I've said before, that was an extraordinarily difficult and painful time. I think I did what I had to do. I knew it was going to be very bad for me personally. And the consequences might have been if Hillary Clinton was elected I might have been terminated. I don't know. I really don't. MANCHIN: My final question, after the February 14th meeting in the oval office you mentioned to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Did you ever consider why Attorney General Sessions was not asked to stay in the room? COMEY: Oh, sure. I did. And have. And in that moment, I knew — MANCHIN: Did you ever talk to him about it? COMEY: No. MANCHIN: You never had a discussion with Jeff sessions on this? COMEY: No, not at all. MANCHIN: On any of your meetings? COMEY: No. MANCHIN: Did he inquire? Did he show any inquiry whatsoever what was that meeting about? COMEY: No — you're right. I did say to him. I'd forgotten this, I talked to him and said you have to be between me and the president and that's incredibly important. I forgot my exact words I passed along my the president's message about the leaks. I passed that along to the attorney general I think it was the next morning in the meeting. But I did not tell him about the Flynn part. MANCHIN: Do you believe this rises to obstruction of justice? COMEY: I don't know, that's Bob Mueller's job to sort that out. . MANCHIN: Thank you, sir. SEN. TOM COTTON: Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Cotton. COTTON: Mr. Comey, you're encouraged.president will release the tapes will you encourage Mr. Mueller to release your memos? COMEY: Sure. COTTON: You said you did not record your conversations with President Obama or President Bush in memos. Did you do so with Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other senior member of the trump Department of Justice? COMEY: No. I think — I am sorry. COTTON: Did you record conversations or memos with the attorney general or any other senior member of the Obama administration? COMEY: No. COTTON: Two phone calls, four phone calls are not discussed in your statement, for the record. What happens in those phone calls? COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he'd thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn't true. The verified — unverified parts. And during that call, he asked me again, hope you're going to say. You're doing a great job. I told him that I intended to. There was another phone call that I mentioned could have the date wrong, March 1st, where he called just to check in with me as I was about to get on the hospital. It was a secure call we had about an operational matter that is not related to any of this. Something that the FBI is working on. He wanted to make sure I understood how important he thought it was. A totally appropriate call. And then the fourth call, probably forgetting — may have been — I may have met the call when he called to invite me to dinner. I'll think about it as I'm answering other questions but I think I got that right. COTTON: Let's turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here. Russia's hacking of those e-mails and the allegation of collusion. Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia? COMEY: That's a question I don't think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on president trump. But that's a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think. COTTON: Let me turn to a couple statements by one of my colleagues, Senator Feinstein. She was the ranking member on this committee until January, which means that she had access to information that only she and Chairman Burr did. She's now the senior Democrat on the FBI Committee, which means she had access to information that many of us don’t. On May 3rd on the Wolf Blitzer show she was asked “Do you believe you have evidence that in fact that there was collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign? She answered not at this time. On May 18th, on the same show, Mr. Blitzer said, “The last time you came on this show I I asked if you had seen any evidence that Russia had colluded with the Trump campaign." You said not at this time. Has anything changed since we last spoke? Senator Feinstein said no, it hasn’t. Do you have any reason to doubt those statements? COMEY: I don't doubt that the Senator Feinstein understood what she said. I just don't want to go down that route anymore because I'm — I want to be fair to President Trump.I am not trying to suggest something nefarious but I don't want to get into the business of not to this person, not to that person. COTTON: On February 14th the New York Times published the story, the headline of which was “Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.” You were asked if that as an inaccurate story. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong? COMEY: Yes. COTON: Do you have — at the time the story was published, any indication of any contact between Trump people and Russians, intelligence officers, other government officials or close associates of the Russian government? COMEY: That's one I can't answer sitting here. COTTON: We can discuss that in the classified setting then. I want to turn your attention now to Mr. Flynn. The allegations of his underlying conduct to be specific. His alleged interactions with the Russian ambassador on the telephone and then what he said to senior Trump administration officials and Department of Justice officials. I understand there are other issues with Mr. Flynn related to his receipt of foreign monies or disclosure ever official advocacy, those are serious allegations that I'm sure will be pursued but I want to speak specifically about his interactions with the Russian ambassador. There's a story on January 23rd in The Washington Post that says, entitled “FBI reviewed calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit.” Is this story accurate? COMEY: I don't want to comment ton that senator. I'm pretty sure the bureau has not confirmed any interception of communications. So, I don't want to talk about that in an opening setting. COTTON: Would it be improper for an incoming national security advisor to have a conversation with a foreign ambassador? COMEY: In my experience, no. COTTON: But you can't confirm or deny that the conversation happened and we would need to know the contents of that conversation to know if it in fact was proper. COMEY: I don't think I can talk about that opening setting. Again, I've been out of government a month. So, I also don't want to talk about things when it's now somebody else's responsibility. But maybe in the classified setting we can talk more about that. COTTON: You stated earlier that there was an open investigation of Mr. Flynn and the FBI. Did you or any FBI agent ever sense that Mr. Flynn attempted to deceive you or make false states to an FBI agent? COMEY: I don't want to go too far. That was the subject of the criminal inquiry. COTTON: Did you ever come close to closing the investigation on Mr. Flynn? COMEY: I don't think I can talk about that in open setting either. COTTON: We can discuss these more in the closed setting then. Mr. Comey, in 2004, you were a part of a well-publicized event about an intelligence program that had been recertified several times. And you were acting attorney general when Attorney General John Ashcroft was incapacitated due to illness. There was a dramatic showdown at the hospital here. The next day you said you that wrote the letter of resignation, signed it, went to meet with President Bush and explained why you produced to certify it is that accurate? COMEY: Yes. COTTON: At anytime during FBI director did you ever write and sign a letter of resignation? COMEY: Letter of resignation? No, sir. COTTON: Despite all of off that testified to today you didn't feel this rose to a level of honest difference of opinion between accomplished and skilled lawyers in that 2004 episode. COMEY: I wouldn't characterize the events in 2004 that way but to answer, no, I didn't find, encounter any circumstance that led me intend to resign, consider to resign. No, sir. COTTON: Thank you. BURR: Senator Harris. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Director Comey, I want to thank you you are now a private citizen and you're enduring a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Each of us gets seven minutes instead of five to ask you questions, thank you. COMEY: I'm between opportunities now so — HARRIS: You are — I'm sure you'll have future opportunities. You and I are both former prosecutors. I'm not going to require to you answer. I just want to make a statement that in my experience of prosecuting cases when a robber held a gun to somebody's head and said I hope you will give me your wallet, the word hope was not the operative word at that moment. But you don't have to respond to that point. I have a series of questions to ask you. And they're going to start with: Are you aware of any meetings between the trump administration officials and Russia officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the White House? COMEY: That's not — even if I remembered clearly, that's not a question I can answer in open setting. HARRIS: Are you aware of any questions by Trump campaign officials or associates of the campaign to hide their communications with Russia officials through encrypted means? COMEY: I have to give you the same answer. HARRIS: In the course of the FBI's investigation did you ever come across anything that suggested that communication, records, documents or other evidence had been destroyed? COMEY: I think a got to give you the aim answer is because it would touch on investigative matters. HARRIS: And are you a wear of any potential efforts to conceal between campaign officials and Russian officials? COMEY: I have to give you the aim answer is. HARRIS: Thank you. As a former attorney general, I have a series of questions in connection with your connection with the attorney general while you were FBI director. What is your understanding of the parameters of Attorney General Sessions' recusal from the Russia investigation? COMEY: I think it's described in a written release from DOJ which I don't remember sitting here but the gist is he will be recused from all matters relating to Russia or the campaign. Or the activities of Russia and the '16 election or something like that. HARRIS: So, is your knowledge of the extent of the recusal based on the public statements he's made? COMEY: Correct. HARRIS: Is there any kind of memorandum issued from the attorney general to the FBI outlining the parameters of his recusal? COMEY: Not that I'm aware of. HARRIS: Do you know if he reviewed any DOJ documents before he was recused? COMEY: I don't know. HARRIS: And after he was recused. I'm assuming same answer? COMEY: Same answer. HARRIS: And aside from any notice or memorandum that was not sent or was what process would be to make sure that the attorney general would not have any connection to the investigation torsion your knowledge? COMEY: I don't know for sure. I know he had consulted with career ethics officials that know how to run a recusal at DOJ. But I don't know what mechanism they set up. HARRIS: And the attorney general recused himself from the investigation, do you believe it was appropriate for him to be involved in the firing of the chief investigator of that case that had Russia interference? COMEY: It's something that I can't answer sitting here. It's a reasonable question. It would depend on a lot of things I don't know, like did he know, what was he told, did he realize the investigation, things like that. I just don't know the answer. HARRIS: You mentioned in your testimony that the president essentially asked you for a loyalty pledge. Are you aware of him making the same request of any other member the cabinet? COMEY: I don't know one way or another. I've never heard anything about it. HARRIS: You mentioned you had the conversation where he hoped that you would let the Flynn matter go on February 14. Or thereabouts. It's my understanding that Mr. Sessions was recused from any involvement in the investigation, about a full two weeks later. To your knowledge, was the attorney general, did he have access to information about the investigation in those two weeks? COMEY: In theory, sure. Because he's the attorney general. I don't know whether he had any contact with materials related to that. HARRIS: To your knowledge was there any directive that he should not have any contact with any information about the Russian investigation between the February 14th date and the day he was ultimately recused himself on March 2nd. COMEY: Not to my knowledge. I don't know one way or another. HARRIS: And did you speak to the attorney general about the Russia investigation about his recusal? COMEY: I don't think so, no. HARRIS: Do you know if anyone in the department, in the FBI, forwarded any documents or information on memos of any sort, to the attention of the attorney general before his recusal? COMEY: I don't know of any or remember any signaturing here. It's possible. HARRIS: Do you know if the attorney general was involved, in fact, involved in any aspect of the Russia investigation after the 2nd of March? COMEY: I don't. I would assume not. Let me say this way, I don't know of any information that would lead me to believe he did something to touch the Russia investigation after recusal. HARRIS: In your written testimony, you indicate that after you were left alone with the president, you mentioned that it was inappropriate and should never happen again to the attorney general. And apparently, he did not reply. And you wrote that he did not reply. What did he do, if anything? Did he just look at you? Was there a pause for a moment, what happened? COMEY: I don't remember real clearly. I have a recollection of him just kind of looking at me. It was a danger I'm projecting on to him so this might be a faulty memory. But I kind of got — his body language gave me a sense like what am I going to do. HARRIS: Did he shrug? COMEY: I don't remember clearly. I think the reason I have that impression is I have some recollection of almost imperceptible like what am I going to do. But I don't have a clear recollection of that of that. He didn't say anything. HARRIS: On that same February 14th meeting you said you understood the president to be requesting that you drop the investigation. After that meeting, however, you received two calls from the president March 30th and April 11th, where the president talked about cloud over his presidency. Has anything you've learned in the months since your February 14 meeting changed your understanding of the president’s request — ¶I guess that would be what he said in public documents or public interviews? COMEY: Correct. HARRIS: And is there anything about this investigation that you believe is in any way biased or, or is not being informed by a process of seeking the truth? COMEY: No. The appointment of a special counsel should offer great — especially given who that person is, great comfort to Americans. No matter what your political affiliation is, that this will be done independently, confidently and honestly. HARRIS: And do you believe he should have full authority, Mr. Mueller, to be able to pursue that investigation? COMEY: Yes. And knowing him well, over the years, if there's something that he thinks he needs, he will speak up about it. HARRIS: Do you believe he should have full independence? COMEY: Oh, yeah. And he wouldn't be part of if he wasn't going to get full Independence. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CORNYN: Mr. Comey I'll repeat what I said in previous hearings that I believe you're a good and decent man who has been dealt with a difficult hand starting back with the Clinton e-mail investigation. I appreciate you being here voluntarily to cooperation with the investigation. As a general matter, if an FBI agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? COMEY: That's a good question. I don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. They certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. CORNYN: You're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? COMEY: That's a good question. I have not thought about that before. There's a statute that prohibits the felony, knowing a felony and taking steps to conceal it but that's a different question. Let me be clear, I would expect any FBI agent who has information about a crime to report it. CORNYN: Me, too. COMEY: But where you rest that obligation, I don't know. It exists. CORNYN: And let me suggest as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an FBI director a good way to make that happen? By that, I mean -- COMEY: It doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I obviously am hopelessly biased given I was the one fired. CORNYN: I understand it's personal. COMEY: Given the nature of the FBI, I meant what I said. For all the indispensable people in the world, including the FBI, there's lots of bad things for me not being at the FBI, most of them for me, but the work is going to go on. CORNYN: Nothing that you testified to as to today, has impeded the investigation of the FBI or director Mueller's ability to get to the bottom of this? COMEY: Correct. Especially, Director Mueller is a critical part of that equation. CORNYN: Let me take you back to the Clinton e-mail investigation. I think you've been tanked agency a hero or a villain, depending on whose political ox is being gored at many different times during the court of the Clinton e-mail investigation, and even now perhaps. But you clearly were troubled by the conduct of the sitting Attorney General Loretta Lynch when it came to the Clinton e-mail investigation. You mentioned the characterization that you'd been asked to accept. That this was a matter. And not a criminal investigation. Which you said it was. There was the matter of President Clinton's meeting on the tarmac. With the sitting attorney general at the time when his wife was a subject to a criminal investigation. And you suggested that perhaps there are other matters that you may be able to share with us later on in a classified setting. But it seems to me that you clearly believe that Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, had an appearance of a conflict of interest on the Clinton e-mail investigation. Is that correct? COMEY: That's fair. I didn't believe she could credibly decline that investigation. At least not without grievous damage to the Department of Justice and to the FBI. CORNYN: And under Department of Justice and FBI norms, wouldn't it have been appropriate for the attorney general, or if she had recused herself which she did not do for the deputy attorney general to appoint a special counsel. That's essentially what's happened with director Mueller. Would that have been an appropriate step? COMEY: Certainly, yes, sir. CORNYN: And were you aware Ms. Lynch had been requested numerous times to appoint a special counsel and had refused. COMEY: Yes. From, I think, Congress had — members of congress had repeatedly asked, yes, sir. CORNYN: Yours truly did on multiple occasions. And that heightened your concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest with the Department of Justice which caused you to make what you have described as an incorrectly painful decision to basically take the matter up yourself and led to that July press conference? COMEY: Yes, sir. I ask — after President Clinton, former President Clinton met on the plane with the attorney general, I considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel. And decided that would be an unfair thing to do because I knew there was no case there. We investigated it very, very thoroughly. I know this is a subject of passionate disagreement but I knew there was no case there. And calling for the appointment of special counsel would be brutally unfair because it would send the message, uh-huh, there's something here. That's my judgment. Lots of people have different views about it but that's what I thought about it. CORNYN: Well if a special counsel had been appointed they could have made that determination there was nothing there and declined to pursue it, right? COMEY: Sure. But it would have been many months later or a year later. CORNYN: Let me just you ask to — given the experience of the Clinton e-mail investigation and what happened there. Do you think it's unreasonable for anyone, any president, who has been assured on multiple occasions that he's not the subject of an FBI investigation, do you think it's unreasonable for them to want the FBI director to publicly announce that, so that this cloud over his administration would be removed? COMEY: I think that's a reasonable point of view. The concern would be, obviously, because as that boomerang comes back it's going to be a very big deal because there will be a duty to correct. CORNYN: Well, we saw that in the Clinton e-mail investigation. COMEY: Yes, I recall that. CORNYN: I know you do. So, let me ask you, finally, in the minute we have left. There was this conversation back and forth about loyalty. And I think we all appreciate the fact that an FBI director is an unique public official in the sense he's not — he's a political appointee in one sense. But he has a duty of independence to pursue the law pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. And so when the president asked you about loyalty, you got in this back and forth about, well, I'll pledge you my honesty. Then it looks like from what I've read you agreed upon honest loyalty. Is that the characterization? COMEY: Yes. CORNYN: Thank you very much. COMEY: Yes, sir. BURR: Senator Reed. REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Director Comey. There have been press reports that the president, in addition to asking to you drop the Flynn investigation has asked other senior intelligence officials to take steps which would tend to undermine the investigation of Russia. There are reports that he's asked Dan Coats and Mike Rogers to make public statements exonerating him or taking the pressure off of him. And also reports about Admiral Rogers and Director Pompeo to intervene and reach out to the FBI to ask them. Are you aware of any of these -- do you have any information with respect to any of these allegations? COMEY: I don't. I'm aware of the public reporting but I had no contact. No conversation with any of those leaders about that subject. REED: Thank you. You have testified that you interpret the discussion with the president about Flynn as a direction to stop the investigation, is that correct? COMEY: Yes. REED: You testified that the president asked you to lift the cloud by especially making public statements dishonoring him and perhaps others, and you refused, correct? COMEY: I didn't do it. I didn't refuse the president. I told him we would see what we can do. The second time he called. I told him in substance, that's something your lawyer will have to take up with the Justice Department. REED: And part of the underlying logic as we discussed many times throughout this morning is the duty to correct. That is one of a theoretical issue but also a very practical issue. Was there — your feeling that the direction on the investigation could in fact include the president? COMEY: Well, in theory. I mean, as I explained, the concern of one of my senior leader colleagues was, if you're looking at potential coordination between the campaign and Russia, the person at the head of the campaign is the candidate. So, logically, this person argued the candidate's knowledge, understanding, would logically become a part of your inquiry if it proceeds. So, I understand that argument. But my view was that what I said to the president was accurate and fair. And fair to him. I resisted the idea of publicly saying it. Although if the Justice Department had wanted to I would have done it because of the duty to correct and the slippery slope problem. REED: Now, again, also, you've testified that the president asked you repeatedly to be loyal to him. And you responded you'd be honestly loyal. Which is your way of saying I'll be honest and I'll be ahead of the FBI independent, is that fair? COMEY: Correct. I tried honest first. And also, you see it in my testimony. I also tried to explain to him why it's in his interest and every president's interest for the FBI to be apart, in a way, because it's credibility is important to a president and total country. And so, I tried to hold the line. Hold the line. It got very awkward. And then I said you'll always have honesty from me. He said honest loyalty. And I then I proceeded with that as I saw that as a way to add this awkwardness. REED: Is there any explanation? COMEY: There was an explanation, I just don't buy it. REED: Our, yes, so you're fired. Do you believe you're fired because you refused to take the president's direction, is that the ultimate reason? COMEY: I don't know for sure. I know I was fired. Again, I take the president's words, I know I was fired because of something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him. And he decided to fire he because of that. I can't go farther than that. REED: Now, the Russian investigation as you've pointed out and my colleagues is one of the most serious hostile acts against this country's history undermining our core of elections is not a discrete event. It will likely occur again and is likely being prepared for '18, '20 and beyond. And yet the president of the United States advised you because at your own — some relationship to the investigation. Then he shows up in the Oval Office with the Russian foreign minister first as classifying you as crazy and a real nutjob. He said “I faced great pressure because of Russia; that’s taken off.” Your conclusion would be that the president, I would think is downplaying the seriousness of this threat. In fact, took specific steps to stop a thorough investigation of the Russian influence, and also from what you've said or what was said this morning, doesn't seem particularly interested in these hostile threats by the Russians. Is that true? COMEY: I don't know that I can agree to that level of detail. There's no doubt it's a fair judgment. It's my judgment I was fired because of the Russia investigation. I was fired in some way to change — or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation is being conducted. That is a very big deal. And not just because it involves me. The nature of the FBI and the nature of its work requires that it not be the subject of political consideration. And on top of that, you have the Russia investigation itself is vital, because of the threat. And I know I should have said this earlier, but it's obvious, if any Americans were part of helping the Russians do that to us, that is a very big deal. And I'm confident if that is the case, director Mueller will find that evidence. REED: Finally, the president tweeted that James Comey better hope there are no tapes of our conversations before they start leaking to the press. Was that a rather unsubtle attempt to intimidate you from testifying and intimidate anyone who seriously crosses his path from doing it? COMEY: I'm not going to sit here and try to attempts the president's tweets. To me, it's major impact. It occurred in the middle of the night, holy cow, there might be tapes. If there's tapes it's not just my word against him on the direction to get rid of the Flynn investigation. REED: Thank you very much. BURR: Senator McCain. McCAIN: In the case of Hillary Clinton, you made the statement that there wasn't sufficient evidence to bring the suit against her, although it had been very careless in their behavior. But you did reach a conclusion, in that case that it was not necessary further pursue. Yet at the same time in the case of Mr. Comey, you said that there was not enough information to make a conclusion. Tell me the difference between your conclusion as far as former secretary Clinton is concerned and Mr. Trump? COMEY: The Clinton investigation was a completed investigation that the FBI had been deeply involved in. So, I had an opportunity to understand all of the facts and apply those facts against the laws as I understood them. This investigation was underway, still going, when I was fired. So it's nowhere near in the same place. At least it wasn't when I was — McCAIN: But it's still ongoing? COMEY: Correct. As far as I know. It was when I left. McCAIN: That investigation is going on. This investigation is going on. To reach separate conclusions? COMEY: No, that one was done. McCAIN: That investigation have any involvement of Secretary Clinton or any of her associates is completed? COMEY: Yes, as of July 5th, the FBI completed its investigative work. That's what I was announcing what we had done and what we had found. McCAIN: Well, at least in the mind-set of this member, there's a whole lot of questions remaining about what went on, particularly considering the fact that, as you mention, it's a, quote, big deal as to what went on during the campaign. So, I'm glad you concluded that part of the investigation. But I — I think that the American people have a whole lot of questions out there, particularly since you just emphasized the role that Russia played. And obviously, she was a candidate for president at the time. So, she was clearly involved in this whole situation where fake news, as you've just described it, a big deal, took place. And you're going to have to help me out here. In other words, we're — the investigation that anything former Secretary Clinton had to do and we don't have to worry about it anymore? COMEY: With respect to — I'm a little confused, senator. With respect to Secretary Clinton we investigated her use of a personal e-mail server. McCAIN: I understand. COMEY:That's the investigation of July 5th that I concluded. McCAIN: So, at the same time, you made the announcement there would be no charges brought against then-Secretary Clinton for any activities involved in the Russia involvement and our engagement in our election. I don't quite understand how you can be done with that, but not done with the whole investigation of their attempt to affect the outcome of our election? COMEY: No, I'm sorry, when I was fired on May 9th [there was] still an open investigation to understand the Russians and whether any Americans worked with them. McCAIN: And the conclusion there was no need to bring charges against Secretary Clinton? So, you reached the conclusion with regard to the President Comey — the case of President Trump, you had an ongoing investigation. So, you've got one candidate who you're done with. And another candidate that you have a long way to go. Is that correct? COMEY: I don't know how far the FBI has to go, but, yes ... Clinton clinton e-mail investigation was completed. The investigation of Russia's efforts in connection with the election. And whether there was any coordination and with whom the Russia campaign is ongoing when I left. McCAIN: You just made it clear you said, quote, this is a quote, big deal, unquote. I think it's hard to recognize in one case you reach a complete conclusion. And on the other side, you have not. And you in fact, obviously, there's a lot more there as we know. As you called it a, quote, big deal. She's one of the candidates. But in her case, you say there will be no charges, in case of President Trump, the investigation continues. What has been brought out in this hearing is more and more emphasis on the Russian engagement of and involvement in this campaign. How serious do you think this was? COMEY: Very serious. I want to say something to be made clear, we had not announced nor provocation to announce that the Russians may have coordinated with Secretary Clinton's campaign. McCAIN: Well, they may not have been involved with her campaign. They were involved with the entire presidential campaign, obviously. COMEY: Yes, sir. That is the investigation that began last summer and so far as I'm aware continues. McCAIN: So both President Trump and former candidate Clinton are both involved in the investigation, yet one of them, you said, there's going to be no charges. And the other one, the investigation continues. Well, I think there's a double standard there to tell you the truth. Then when the president said to you, he talked about the April 11th phone call, he said, quote, because I've been very loyal to you. Very loyal. We had that thing, you know. Does that arouse your curiosity as to what quote that thing was? COMEY: Yes. McCAIN: Why didn't you ask him? COMEY: It didn't seem to me to be important for the conversation we were having to understand that I took it to be some — an effort to communicate to me this — that there is a relationship between us where I've been good to you, you should be good to me. McCAIN: Yeah, but I think it would intensity arouse my curiosity if the president of the United States said we had that thing, you know. I'd like to know what the hell that thing is, particularly if I'm the director of the FBI. COMEY: Yeah, I get that, senator. Honestly, I'll tell you what: this is speculation but what I concluded at the time, in his memory, he was searching back to our encounter at the dinner and was preparing himself to say I offered loyalty to you, you promise loyalty to me. All of a sudden, I think his memory did not happen and he pulled up short. McCAIN: We would have had conversation if that happened to me, to be honest with you. Are you aware of anything that would lead you to believe that the president, or members of the administration or members of the campaign, could potentially be used to coerce or blackmail the administration? COMEY: That's a subject for investigations. Not something I can comment on sitting here. McCAIN: But you reached that conclusion as far as Secretary Clinton was concerned? But you're not reaching a conclusion as far as this administration is concerned? Are you aware of anything that would lead you to believe that information exists that could coerce members of the administration or blackmail the administration? COMEY: That's not a question I can answer, senator. BURR: Sir, time's expired. McCAIN: Thank you. BURR: Time has expired for the hearing. Can I say for members. We'll reconvene promptly at 1:00 P.M. In the hearing room. We have a vote scheduled for 1:45, I would suggest that all members promptly be there at 1:00, we have about three minutes. I'd like to have order. Photographers -- photographers return to where you were, please. This hearing is not adjourned yet. Either that, or we'll remove you. To members, we have about three minutes of update that we would love to cover as soon as we get into the closed session before we have an opportunity to spend some time with director Comey. Based on our agreement, it would be my intentions to adjourn that closed hearing between 2:00 and 2:10 so members would go vote and I would urge you to eat at that time. Jim, several members of this committee have had an opportunity to work with you since you walked in the door. I want to say personally on behalf of all the committee members we're grateful for your service to the country not just in your capacity as FBI director but as prosecutor, and more importantly being somebody that loves this country enough to tell it like it is. I want to say to your workforce, that we're grateful to them with the level of cooperation that they have shown us. With the trust we built between both organizations. The congress and the bureau. We couldn't do our job if it wasn't for their willingness to share candidly, with us, the work that we need to see. This hearing's the ninth public hearing this committee has had this year. That's twice the historical yearlong average of this committee. I think the vice chairman and my biggest challenge when this investigation has concluded is to return our hearings to the secrecy of a closed hearing. To encourage our members not to freely talk about intelligence matters, publicly. And to respect the fact that we have a huge job. And that's to represent the entire body of the United States Senate and the American people. To make sure that we work with the intelligence community to provide you the tools to keep America safe. And that you'll do it within the legal limit or those limits that are set by the executive branch. We could not do it if it wasn't for our trusted partnership that you have been able to lead and others before you. So, as we depart from this, this is a pivotal hearing in our investigation. We're grateful for the professionalism you've season and your willingness, I would turn to the Vice Chairman. WARNER: I simply want to echo, again, the thanks for your appearance. And there clearly still remain a number of questions. And the one thing I want to commit to you and more importantly, Jim and I want to commit to all of us still potentially watching, following, there's still a lot of unanswered questions. And we're going to get to the bottom of this, we're going to get the facts out. The American people deserve to know. There's implications of the trump officials and the Russians. But the macro. And I think it's important that all Americans realize that threat is real. It's continuous. It's not just towards our nation. It's towards all western democracies and we have to come to a selection. BURR: Director, I thank you. On behalf of the committee, this hearing is adjourned.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[mastcomm]

Democrats, Coronavirus, the Oscars: Your Friday Briefing

(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.)

Good morning.

We’re covering the latest developments in the Democratic presidential race and the death of the Chinese doctor who provided an early warning about the coronavirus. It’s also Friday, so there’s a new news quiz.

Democrats turn to New Hampshire

With near-final results showing Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in a dead heat for the lead in Iowa’s troubled caucuses, seven presidential candidates are set to debate tonight in Manchester, N.H. Here’s what to watch for when the event begins at 8 p.m. Eastern.

The debate follows another turbulent day in Iowa. After initially demanding a recanvass of results in the entire state, the head of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, backtracked and said that only precincts with reported problems needed to be re-examined. Here’s a county-by-county map of results.

My colleague Maggie Astor reports: “It is very easy, at this point, to imagine a situation in which we know who won New Hampshire — which holds its primary on Tuesday — before we know who won Iowa.”

Closer look: A Times analysis found that the results released by the Iowa Democratic Party were riddled with errors.

Another angle: We asked the candidates about foreign policy and national security. Our survey found a party only partially committed to the Obama era, and unified by very few issues: most prominently the containment of Russia.

Coronavirus whistle-blower succumbs to it

The Chinese doctor who was reprimanded after warning in December about the then-unidentified virus died of it today.

Li Wenliang, a 34-year-old ophthalmologist in Wuhan, warned medical school classmates about evidence of a new virus in an online forum on Dec. 30, and the authorities later forced him to declare that he had spread an unfounded rumor. His death has prompted a rare online revolt in China.

Quotable: Dr. Li spoke to The Times for an article published last week: “If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier,” he said, “I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency.”

Catch up: Japanese officials said today that 61 people had tested positive for the coronavirus on a quarantined cruise ship in Yokohama. Here are the latest updates.

The Times is also tracking these global developments:

The authorities in Wuhan, where the virus originated, have escalated their lockdown, ordering house-to-house searches and placing the sick in enormous quarantine centers.

There are no confirmed cases of the virus in Africa yet, but with steady traffic to and from China, experts worry that the outbreak could overrun already-strained health systems.

How Mitch McConnell delivered an acquittal

From the moment Democrats assumed power in the House in January 2018, the Senate’s Republican majority leader began preparing for President Trump’s impeachment trial.

He spoke to The Times about those preparations, which ended this week with all but one Republican senator voting to acquit.

Quotable: “If this was all about politics, and it was, at least at the moment I think it is fair to conclude that we won and they lost,” Mr. McConnell said.

Yesterday: Mr. Trump celebrated his acquittal with an hourlong address at the White House, denouncing “evil” and “crooked” lawmakers and the “top scum” at the F.B.I. for trying to take him down. Watch excerpts here.

Another angle: Bidding for a copy of the impeachment report that an auction site says was signed by Mr. Trump reached $17,000 this week. The Trump campaign is skeptical that it’s his signature, but authenticators disagree.

If you have 7 minutes, this is worth it

The Oscars tell a story of their own

“Couldn’t these nine movies just be evidence of taste? Good taste? They certainly could. They are.” But after years of threatened boycotts and diversification campaigns, he writes, “the assembly of these movies feels like a body’s allergic reaction to its own efforts at rehabilitation.”

Here’s what else is happening

Harvey Weinstein trial: The prosecution rested its case against the former Hollywood producer after graphic, first-person testimony from six women who said he had sexually assaulted them.

Utah land protection ends: The Trump administration finalized plans to allow mining and energy drilling on nearly a million acres in southern Utah that were once part of a national monument.

No help in Dutch crash inquiry: Boeing and American safety officials refused to cooperate with a new investigation of a deadly 2009 crash that had similarities to recent accidents involving the 737 Max.

Snapshot: Above, the newly crowned Miss Independence, Rosemary Anieze, in Lagos, Nigeria, in 1960. Seventeen countries in Africa declared their independence that year, which we’ve revisited with the help of The Times’s photo archive and others.

News quiz: Did you follow the headlines this week? Test yourself.

Modern Love: In this week’s column, a young woman struggling with an eating disorder tries to shift from self-loathing to self-loving.

Late-night comedy: President Trump started his political attacks on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast. Jimmy Kimmel said, “This is a prayer breakfast at which he’s naming people he doesn’t like. Nancy Pelosi was so upset she ripped her pancakes in half.”

What we’re reading: This deep dive by The Atlantic into disinformation and the 2020 election. “Dark,” tweeted our White House correspondent Katie Rogers.

Now, a break from the news

Cook: You need only one pan for roast chicken and mustard-glazed cabbage.

Read: “Saltwater,” a novel about a young Englishwoman questioning her place in the world, is among 10 books we recommend this week.

Watch: The final season of “Homeland” premieres on Showtime on Sunday. Its stars, Claire Danes and Mandy Patinkin, spoke to The Times about how the espionage drama has evolved.

Smarter Living: Our advice column Culture Therapist suggests ways to solve your problems using art. Today’s question is about opening oneself to romance.

And now for the Back Story on …

Covering the Oscars

The Oscars are on Sunday, so it’s crunchtime for Kyle Buchanan, The Times’s Carpetbagger columnist. He spoke to Sara Aridi of the Culture desk about what it’s like to cover the awards.

What stands out about this year’s season?

After last year, when Netflix was so ascendant, people are very excited about movies in the theater. “1917” is one of those movies that you need to see in a theater, and “Parasite” became such a huge word-of-mouth hit in the theater. Those movies provide that encapsulation of what we go to the movies for.

We go to see something on a gigantic screen that moves us in a gigantic way. We go to be transported into an experience that startles and shocks us. Streaming has its virtues and its pleasure, but I think those are testimonials to what the theatrical experience can be.

Do the Oscars still carry weight in pop culture?

Absolutely. If the Oscars reflect Hollywood in 2020, it says that we’re still going through growing pains about the streaming era and that we still have a lot of ground to make up when it comes to representation and whose stories we take seriously.

How have you been preparing for the big night?

I’m trying to get a full night’s sleep. In the campaigning phase, from November to the Oscar nominations, you can go to a brunch for a certain star, and then to a lunchtime screening with a Q. and A., and then to an afternoon performance of a song contender, and then a premiere and then an after-party.

What else have you seen that readers might not know?

Joaquin Phoenix, who’s up for best actor for “Joker,” has been a fascinating figure on this circuit. He’s trying to both play the game and stay out of it. All these awards shows have bent over backward to attract him.

I never would have thought I would miss the boiled chicken breast I usually got at these shows, but they have converted to a plant-based menu in the hopes that Joaquin will attend.

Here are Mr. Buchanan’s Oscar predictions.

That’s it for this briefing. See you next time.

— Chris

Thank you Mark Josephson and Eleanor Stanford provided the break from the news. You can reach the team at briefing@nytimes.com.

P.S. • We’re listening to “The Daily.” Today’s episode is about Harvey Weinstein’s trial. • Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Bird on a dollar bill (five letters). You can find all our puzzles here. • The 1619 Project is the centerpiece of a new wave of ads from “The Truth Is Worth It,” a Times campaign. Preview our latest TV commercial, which will air during the Oscars, featuring the singer, actor and producer Janelle Monáe.

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/democrats-coronavirus-the-oscars-your-friday-briefing/

[bountyofbeads]

Week 136 is the longest list so far, with 202 not normal items - no wonder we are all anxious and exhausted! This week Trump manufactured two major story lines: an almost war with Iran, and mass roundups and deportations of “millions” of immigrants.

Week 1: 9 not normal items

Week 2: 18 items

Week 52: 120 items

Week 136: 202 items 👇👇🤔😱😱😱

(no, you are not imagining it)PLEASE READ 📖 AND SHARE this past week's exordinary list of things that happened (you may be totally unaware of many of them because there is so much chaos- by-design of this administration).

By Amy Siskind | Published June 22, 2019 | The List | Posted June 23, 2019 |

Experts in authoritarianism advise to keep a list of things subtly changing around you, so you’ll remember.

This week Trump manufactured two story lines: an almost war with Iran, and mass roundups and deportations of “millions” of immigrants. The two stories occupied much of the national attention, while Trump continued to stonewall Congressional attempts at oversight.

Authoritarian expert Masha Gessen wrote about “The Unimaginable Reality of American Concentration Camps,” as a national discussion over conditions at border facilities played out. Journalists, who have been given no access to facilities, reported through interviews on the alarming treatment of migrant children, including overcrowding, illness, and lack of basic necessities.

Trump came close to starting a war with Iran on Thursday, and reportedly was prepared and close to launch a missile attack. Of concern, Trump continued to act unilaterally and not seek Congressional approval — notably Speaker Pelosi said Friday she was not informed of Trump’s planned attack, despite being second in line for the White House. Meanwhile, pressure to start an impeachment inquiry grew as 76 House members called for impeachment as public opinion, largely among Democrats, is shifting in favor of it.

On Saturday, NYT reported the U.S. is stepping up cyberwarfare against Russia, using digital incursions into Russia’s electric power gridand other targets as a warning to Russia to stay out of U.S. cyber infrastructure.

The previously unreported deployment of computer code into Russia’s grid has taken place over the past three months in tandem with public actions announced after hacking and disinformation during the 2018 midterms.

These steps mark a shift to going on offense, and being positioned against aggressions. The Department of Homeland Security and FBI have said Russia has inserted malware in U.S. power plants, pipelines, and water supplies.

The actions were taken using new legal authorities quietly slipped into the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer, allowing the defense secretary to take action without requiring presidential approval.

Two officials told the Timesthat Trump had not been briefed on the moves, which could spark a digital Cold War between the countries, out of concern he might countermand or discuss it with foreign officials.

On Saturday, Trump tweeted, “Do you believe that the Failing New York Times” did a story on increasing cyber attacks on Russia, calling it a “virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story.”

Trump also tweeted the reporting was “bad for our Country” and “ALSO, NOT TRUE!” saying, “Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today,” calling them “cowards” and “THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

On Saturday, the NYTresponded to Trump, saying, “accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” adding, “We described the article to the government before publication” and “there were no concerns.”

On Sunday, Trump tweeted a poll should be done on “which is the more dishonest and deceitful newspaper,” the NYT or WAPO, adding “they are both a disgrace to our Country” and “the Enemy of the People.”

Trump also again mused about serving beyond the two term limit, tweeting “at the end of 6 years” after America is “GREAT” again, “do you think the people would demand that I stay longer?”

On Sunday, in celebration of Father’s Day, Trump tweeted, “Happy Father’s Day to all, including my worst and most vicious critics, of which there are fewer and fewer,” adding, “KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

On Sunday, in a newly released part of his ABC News interview Trump chastised acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for coughing, saying, “If you’re going to cough, please leave the room,” and asking for a retake.

On Sunday, ABC aired the hour long interview with Trump. The interview was a rating bust, coming in third in its evening time slot.

On Sunday, NBC News reported the Trump re-election campaign cut ties with some of its own pollsters, after leaked polling data which surfaced in Week 135 showed him trailing Democratic rivals in many states.

On Monday, Trump dismissed polling by Fox News which showed him losing to multiple Democratic presidential candidates, tweeting, “Something weird going on at Fox,” adding, “More Fake News.”

On Monday, Trump vowed mass immigration arrests, tweeting in the late evening: “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.”

Trump also tweeted, “They will be removed as fast as they come in.” Trump praised Mexico and Guatemala, but added, “The only ones who won’t do anything are the Democrats in Congress.”

On Monday, the State Department announced the regime is ending foreign aid for Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador until they take “concrete actions to reduce the number of illegal migrants” coming to the U.S.

Experts warned that cutting off aid will only exacerbate the conditions in the countries which are causing people to migrate. The regime’s plan is likely to face opposition in the Congress.

On Tuesday, WAPO reported Trump and Stephen Miller have recently pushed to remove thousands of immigrants whose deportation orders were expedited. Publicizing a large-scale ICE operation is unheard of.

ICE officials told the Postthey were not aware that Trump planned to make the plan public. Trump’s tweet of deporting millions was also at odds with available ICE budget and staffing.

On Tuesday, government attorney Sarah Fabian argued before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that migrant children sleeping on concrete floors is “safe and sanitary” and they did not need soap and toothbrushes.

Attorneys for the detained children argued the Trump regime is not following the requirements of the 1997 Flores Agreement for humane treatment, even though sanitary items are not specifically mentioned.

The judges appeared stunned by the regime’s arguments, with one saying, “I find it inconceivable that the government would say that that is safe and sanitary.” It is not clear when the panel will issue its decision.

On Wednesday, data obtained by the AP showed an El Paso border facility is neglecting 250 migrant infants, children, and teens, with kids taking care of kids and an inadequate supply of food, water, and sanitation.

Three girls told lawyers they alternated taking care of a 2 year-old boy who wet his pants and had no diapers. Lawyers could not discern where the boy was from or about his family from because he was not speaking.

Many of the children arrived alone, but some were separated from their families. A law advocate said in her 22 years of visiting children in detention, she had “never heard of this level of inhumanity.”

The acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner said CBP is holding 15,000 people while 4,000 is capacity. A psychoanalyst who evaluated 50 parents and children noted trauma causing lasting damage.

On Thursday, Dallas Morning News reported allegations made by acting Department of Homeland Security secretary Kevin McAleenan to Congress that 90% of those seeking asylum were skipping court dates is false.

McAleenan used the data to justify round-ups. Data showed that close to 100% of 47,000 asylum-seeking families with legal aid showed up to court. McAleenan’s data was from 7,000 cases decided in abstenia.

On Thursday, in an interview with Telemundo, Trump lied, saying he inherited an Obama-era policy of separating migrant families, saying, “Obama had a separation policy…I’m the one that put ’em together.”

On Friday, NYT reported on an overcrowded border station in Clinton, Texas, where hundreds of migrant children are being held. Children are wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, and toddlers have no diapers.

Most detainees have not been able to bathe or wash their clothes since they crossed the border. They have not been given toothbrushes, toothpaste, or soap. An advocate visiting described the scene, saying “there is a stench.”

The facility is one impacted by Trump regime not providing basics like soap or toothbrushes to the children. An advocate visiting said the conditions are the worse she has ever seen, with no care for sick children.

In the facility, guards wore wearing full uniforms, including weapons and face masks, to protect themselves from the unsanitary conditions. Children are locked up in cells nearly all day long, and are not getting enough food.

Border crossings have slowed in recent weeks, but remain high compared to recent years. Journalists and lawyers have been offered little access, so the overcrowded conditions are occurring without visibility to the public.

On Friday, HuffPost reported four toddlers under the age of 3 years-old at the Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas were so severely ill, that immigration lawyers forced the government to have them hospitalized.

The four were in the care of teenage mothers or guardians, and were feverish, coughing, vomiting, and had diarrhea. One toddler was “completely unresponsive” and limp, with her eyes rolled back in her head.

On Friday, WAPO reported Trump has directed ICE to conduct mass roundups of family members who have received deportation orders. Raids are expected to begin in the early hours of Sunday.

ICE and DHS refer to the roundup as “family op,” and will target 2,000 families in 10 cities, including Houston, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York, Baltimore, Denver, San Francisco, and New Orleans.

McAleenan has urged Trump to narrow the roundup to 150 families, so as to avoid separating children from parents, and has voiced that ICE resources are better used for the crisis at the southern border.

The Los Angeles Police Department said it will not participate or assist in the roundup. New York AG Letitia James called it a “despicable act of racism and xenophobia that is antithetical to our basic human values.”

On Friday, acting ICE Director Mark Morgan defended the roundups, telling NPR, “my duty is not to look at the political optics, or the will the American people,” but to enforce the law and integrity of the system.

Morgan also repeated the false claim that the “majority of them don’t even show up. And then when they didn’t show up, they received ordered removal in absentia,” adding, “We have no choice.”

On Friday, authoritarianism expert Masha Gessen wrote at the New Yorker “The Unimaginable Reality of American Concentration Camps,” citing “the argument is really about how we history, ourselves, and ourselves in history.”

Gessen wrote: “Anything that happens here and now is normalized, not solely through the moral failure of contemporaries but simply by virtue of actually existing.”

On Saturday, a video posted on social media showed Phoenix police threatening to shoot a black family after their 4 year-old took a dollfrom a store. The incident led to an investigation and lawsuit against police.

On Tuesday, on the eve of House hearings on reparations for slavery, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters he was not in favor of reparations, calling it “for something that happened 150 years ago.”

McConnell also said slavery is something “none of us currently living are responsible” for, and added we paid for the “sin of slavery” by passing civil rights legislation and by electing “an African American president.”

On Wednesday, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee sponsored a bill before a House hearing of a 13 member commission which would allocate $12 million to study the effects of slavery and make recommendations to Congress.

Hundreds of spectators filled three overflowing rooms. Republican lawmakers and witnesses said black people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, saying reparations might damage their psyches.

Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose 2014 article helped rekindle the conversation, responded to McConnell: “While emancipation dead-bolted the door against the bandits of America, Jim Crow wedged the windows wide open.”

Coates also said McConnell was “alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion,” adding, “Victims of their plunder are very much alive today.”

On Thursday, Fox News host Laura Ingraham backed Leader McConnell on her podcast, dismissing the idea of reparations, saying there are no “do-overs,” adding, “we won, you lost, that’s that. That’s just the way it is.”

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that new information from hard drives of a deceased Republican redistricting strategist on the 2020 census question in Week 133 merits more consideration.

The case is now with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, but could be returned to the federal judge who said the new evidence “raises a substantial issue,” and could reach the Supreme Court again.

On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Matthew Kacsmaryk to a lifelong federal judgeship, despite his record of hostility towards the LGBTQ community and having criticized Roe v. Wade.

On Thursday, in a major set-back for women’s health, a panel of federal judges ruled that the Trump regime’s abortion “gag rule” can go into effect, making clinics that provide abortion ineligible for Title IX funds.

Planned Parenthood could lose $60 million in fundingfrom the ruling. Attorneys general from 21 states argued the rule undermines the patient-provider relationship and endangers the health of millions of women.

On Friday, Missouri’s health department notified Planned Parenthood, the state’s only abortion clinic, that it declined to renew their license. The judge said his preliminary injunction to remain open is in place for now.

On Friday, Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed four bills that would have restricted access to abortion, implicated doctors who perform abortions, and cut funding to Planned Parenthood.

On Friday, writer E. Jean Carroll came forward in a New York Magazine article to say that Trump raped her 23 years ago in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in midtown Manhattan.

Carroll, now 75, told two friends about the incident at the time.  WAPO  interviewed one friend who encouraged Carroll to go to the police at the time. The episode in the article is an excerpt from her new book.

Trump responded Friday in a statement, calling the allegations “fake news” and repeating his common refrain, “I’ve never met this person in my life.” The article is accompanied by a photo of the two together in 1987.

Trump accused Carroll of trying to sell books, “It should be sold in the fiction section,” and questioned if she was working with the Democratic Party. Carroll is the 16th woman to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct.

On Tuesday, AP reported U.S. air quality is worsening, after decades of improving. There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in 2017 and 2018 than the average of 2013 through 2016, the cleanest four years.

On Wednesday, Trump’s EPA issued the Affordable Clean Energy rule, the regime’s most significant step towards unwinding federal regulations aimed at addressing climate change.

The new rule cuts carbon emissions from power plants by less than half of what experts said was need to avoid catastrophic climate change. Trump aides and GOP lawmakers celebrated it as a victory for coal companies.

Also, unlike Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, Trump’s rule does not set specific greenhouse gas emissions cuts, relieving pressure to improve efficiency by switching from coal to lower-carbon energy sources.

On Friday, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Kate Brown sent Oregon State Police to fetch 11 GOP state senators who had fled to Idaho to avoid giving the Democrats a needed quorum to vote on bills to combat climate change.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened his cabinet to inaugurate a new community located on the occupied Golan Heights, which will be named “Trump Heights” to recognize his ally.

On Monday, after threats from Trump, Iran warned it would breach limits on stockpiled enriched uranium under the 2015 deal which Trump exited. The White House National Security Council called it “nuclear blackmail.”

The U.S. sent 1,000 more troops to the region on Monday. On Tuesday, Iran President Hassan Rouhani said on state-TV, “Iran will not wage war against any nation,” and Russia called on the U.S. to stop stoking tension.

On Tuesday, Politico reported the Trump regime is laying the groundwork for a possible conflict with Iran, while preparing to do so without needing Congressional approval.

On Monday, Politico reported House Democrats investigating obstruction of justice are considering bypassing Trump’s use of executive privilege by calling for testimony from people outside the government.

Names cited in the Mueller report who may be called include former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Chris Christie, as well as former top campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

On Monday, Politico reported Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are quietly racking up oversight winsagainst Trump in areas like retaliation at the State Department and Trump’s relation with Putin.

Chair Eliot Engel has eschewed cable-TV and other flashy rhetoric, allowing bipartisan cooperation on his committee, with Republicans exasperated with Trump on foreign policy and national security issues.

On Monday, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the ‘double jeopardy’ standard. The ruling could blunt the impact of potential Trump pardons for individuals like Manafort, who also faces charges in New York.

On Monday, NYT reported that as Manafort was scheduled to head to Rikers Island, last week Manhattan prosecutors received an unusual letter from Jeffrey Rosen, a top deputy of Attorney General William Barr.

Rosen indicated he was monitoring where Manafort would be held. Then on Monday, federal prison officials weighed in saying Manafort would not be go to Rikers, where most federal inmates facing state charges are held.

Former DOJ officials and state prosecutors said it was highly unusual for the second highest official at the DOJ to take an interest in such a case. The decision is typically made by the warden where the inmate is being held.

On Monday, Daily News reported five undocumented immigrants fired from Trump’s golf courses in New York and New Jersey planned to hold a press conference in Florida on Tuesday, ahead of Trump’s 2020 launch.

On Tuesday, ahead of Trump’s official 2020 re-election campaign launch in Orlando, Florida, the Orlando Sentinel took the unusual step of endorsing “Not Donald Trump.”

The Sentinel cited, “after 2½ years we’ve seen enough” of “the chaos, the division, the schoolyard insults, the self-aggrandizement, the corruption, and especially the lies,” adding he “diminished our standing in the world.”

On Tuesday, while speaking to reporters before heading to Orlando, Trump refused to apologize for his prior call for the Central Park 5 to get the death penalty. Trump said, “You have people on both sides of that.”

Trump said “they admitted their guilt,” and “some of the prosecutors, they think that the city should never have settled that case,” adding, “You better believe that I hate the people who took this girl and raped her brutally.”

On Tuesday, Trump launched his re-election bid, picking up on many familiar themes from his 2016 campaign, promising greatness and invoking many of the same grievances from that campaign.

Trump relished in his victory over Hillary Clinton while the crowd shouted, “Lock her up!” Trump said he was still looking for her missing emails, and teased about having the DOJ prosecute her.

Trump attacked the media, calling reporters in the arena “fake news” while the crowd cheered the familiar refrain, “CNN sucks.”

Trump attacked Democrats, calling them “radical” and saying they are “driven by hatred, prejudice and rage,” and warning, “They want to destroy you, and they want to destroy our country as we know it.”

Trump said immigrants should come on the basis of merit, saying the Democrat agenda of open borders is “morally reprehensible,” and “the greatest betrayal of the American middle class, and frankly American life.”

CNN calculated that Trump made 15 false statement during his 76-minutes speech, many of which he has repeated frequently in the past, including the topics of trade, the environment, Russia, his wall, and Hillary’s emails.

WAPO reported after the rally, Trump flew on Air Force One in the opposite direction of the White House to visit his Doral golf course, his 126th visit to a Trump property since taking office.

Trump also recently suggested his Doral golf course to host the Group of Seven meeting of world leaders. Trump has gotten pushback from the White House Counsel’s Office on the topic but has ignored it.

Trump has reshaped the GOP fundraising schedule, with 23 of 63 fundraisers he attended taking place at one of his properties. Trump properties have also become a vendor for the federal government.

On Thursday, Media Matters reported Sinclair broadcasting is forcing its local stations to run a commentary segment which is akin to an unofficial Trump 2020 campaign ad within a short window after its release.

In one clip, former Trump aide Boris Epshteyn said, “The energy behind President Trump and his “America First” movement is palpable,” praising “crowds that fill up massive stadiums” and social media engagement.

On Monday, Jarrod Agen, Vice President Mike Pence’s communications director and one of his most trusted advisers who held multiple roles, announced he was leaving to take a job at Lockheed Martin.

On Tuesday, Trump announced on Twitter that Patrick Shanahan, his nominee for defense secretary, was withdrawing. WAPO and USA Today reported on incidents of domestic violence involving his family.

Trump told reporters he did not ask Shanahan to withdraw. Trump nominated Secretary of the Army Mark Esper to replace Shanahan, who prior was the head lobbyist for defense company Raytheon.

On Tuesday, CNN reported Katharine Gorka is expected to be named press secretary for CBP. Gorka, the wife of far-right extremist Sebastian Gorka, has been a political appointee at DHS since shortly after Trump took office.

Gorka has stirred controversy over her views on terrorism and has ties to far-right national groups. In Week 40, she helped pull DHS funding for Life After Hate, a group set up to counter neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

On Thursday, Trump appointee Eric Blankenstein, who left the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in May over racially charged online posts from years ago, was hired by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a senior legal counsel.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Senate Democrats will prioritize defense amendments to boost election security and keep Russia from meddling in 2020.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blocked the inclusion of Saudi Arabia from a U.S. list of countries that recruit childsoldiers, despite experts’ findings of their use in the Yemen’s civil war.

On Wednesday, a months-long United Nations investigation by Agnes Callamard, a human rights expert, into the killing of Jamal Khashoggi found “credible evidence” Saudi Crown Prince MBS was likely involved.

She faulted the U.S. and other countries for not exerting enough pressure on Saudis, and called for sanctioning and freezing the prince’s assets until a final determination is made. Saudi Arabia would not allow her in.

Pompeo said Trump deplored the killing of Khashoggi, but that the U.S. relationship is too important to be sidetracked by one incident. Callamard called the U.S. response ambiguous and conflicted.

On Thursday, the Senate rebuked Trump, voting to block billions of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Trump had tried to circumvent Congress by declaring an emergency over Iran.

Seven Republicans, including Trump ally Lindsey Graham voted with Democrats in the Senate, not enough to override an expected veto by Trump. Britain announced a similar measure on Thursday.

On Thursday, Reuters reported ex-U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who is being held in Russia over accusations of spying, told reporters he was asking Trumpand the leaders of Britain, Canada, and Ireland for help.

Whelan said he has been threatened and harassed by a Russian investigator. He said, “we cannot keep America great unless we aggressively protect and defend American citizenswherever they are.”

On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that Trump believes he has the authority to oust Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair and demote him to board governor, saying the Fed had gone crazy” under Powell.

On Wednesday, the Fed left rates unchanged, with a rate cut possible soon. Asked by reporters about Trump’s comments, Chair Powell said, “I think the law is clear that I have a four-year term and I fully intend to serve it.”

On Wednesday, Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative economist Arthur Laffer. In his remarks, Trump said the Laffer Curve is “still, a very, very highly respected economic curve.”

Laffer, along with his disciple Stephen Moore, wrote a fawning book about Trump’s economic policies called “Trumponomics.” Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cuts did not generate more tax revenue as Laffer’s theory posits.

On Wednesday, NYT reported federal prosecutors are investigating if Deutsche Bank complied with laws meant to stop money laundering and other crimes, including handling of suspicious activity reports.

The FBI has contacted former employee Tammy McFadden, who spoke to the Times in Week 131. The investigation marks the largest government examination of potential misconduct at one of the world’s largest banks.

FBI agents are also speaking to Val Broeksmit, the son of Deutsche Bank executive William Broeksmit, who committed suicide in 2014, about the bank’s role with Russian money laundering. Val has provided documents.

In addition to the FBI, the DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and the U.S. attorney’s offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are also investigating the bank, as are two House committees.

On Tuesday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said in a letter to House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler that Hope Hick “is absolutely immune” from answering questions about her time on the transition team and White House staff.

Cipollone said a White House lawyer will be present for Hicks’ testimony “in order to preserve” Trump’s ability “to assert executive privilege.” The testimony will be private, but a transcript will be released within 48 hours.

On Wednesday, in a series of morning tweets, Trump attacked Democrats, saying they are “unhappy with the Mueller Report, so after almost 3 years, they want a Redo,” calling it “extreme Presidential Harassment.”

Trump tweeted Democrats gave “Crooked Hillary’s people complete Immunity, yet now they bring back Hope Hicks,” asking why aren’t they looking at “33,000 Emails that Hillary and her lawyer deleted.”

Trump also tweeted, “That is real Obstruction that the Dems want no part of because their hearings are RIGGED and a disgrace to our Country!” adding, “DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ARE #RIGGED!”

Trump also tweeted if he did not have the “Phony Witch Hunt” and if the “Fake News Media and their partner in Crime, the Democrats” played it straight, he would be “ way up in the Polls right now.”

On Wednesday, Mark Thompson, CEO of the NYT said Trump “isolating journalists, as a group…is a really frankly hostile, stupid but also dangerous thing to do” at a CNBC forum.

On Wednesday, in an op-ed at the Journal, NYT Publisher A.G. Sulzberger said Trump accusing the newspaper of “treason” crossed “a dangerous line” of “accusing the Times of a crime so grave it is punishable by death.”

Sulzberger wrote, “He’s gone from misrepresenting our business, to assaulting our integrity, to demonizing our journalists with a phrase that’s been used by generations of demagogues,” to treason accusations.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reported Trump had tweeted negatively about the press in every day of June so far, marking “the longest stretch since he declared his candidacy.”

The group also found that in the first 18 days of June, Trump had tweeted 44 times, some days up to five times per day, and that since Trump launched his 2016 campaign, he has sent over 1,500 negative tweets.

Later Wednesday, Trump tweeted, “So sad that the Democrats are putting wonderful Hope Hicks through hell,” saying Democrats want a “Do Over,” adding, “Very unfair & costly to her. Will it ever end?”

Trump also asked why Democrats are not “asking Hillary Clinton why she deleted and acid washed her Emails,” adding, “anybody else would be in jail for that,” and “Rigged House Committee.”

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee interviewed Hope Hicks. NYT reported she refused to answer nearly every question about her time working in the regime, citing Trump said she was “absolutely immune.”

Democrats said Hicks even refused to answer about the location of her West Wing office at the closed door hearings. Hicks did discuss her time on the campaign, but with reportedly no meaningful revelations.

Democrats on the committee threatened to take Hicks to court to enforce the subpoena for her full testimony. Hicks was referred to more than 180 times in the Mueller report.

Legal experts said the legal process of compelling former White House officials like Hicks and Don McGahn could take several months or years to wind through the court system. Impeachment would hasten the process.

On Thursday, Politico reported according to a transcript of Hick’s interview released late Wednesday, she refused to answer 155 questions during her House testimony.

The transcript revealed dozens of objections from White House lawyers to prevent her from answering, including questions on Trump’s attempts to restrain the Mueller probe through directives to McGahn to fire Mueller.

At one point, Chair Nadler challenged a White House lawyer’s claims of “absolute immunity,” telling him, “that is absolute nonsense as a matter of law.” Hicks at times became snarky, and remained loyal to Trump.

On Thursday, Chair Nadler told Politico that House Democrats would file a lawsuit within days to compel Hicks and McGahn to testify, adding Hicks’ blanket refusal is a huge gift in the legal battle with Trump.

Nadler said, “We knew this was going to happen. The point of it was to dramatize for the court what the implications of this are.” The committee plans to show courts the Trump regime’s extremist view on stonewalling.

On Thursday, WAPO reported Felix Sater, a Russian-born real estate developer and Trump business partner who worked on Trump Tower Moscow, will testify Friday before the House Intelligence Committee.

Sater said, “I will answer every question without exception” in the closed door session. Sater also detailed what he described as a two-decade-long history of assisting the FBI, the CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

On Friday, Sater was an unexplained no-show for the House hearings. Chair Adam Schiff said, “He agreed to appear this morning. He did not show up. We will have to subpoena him.”

On Friday, Politico reported that Sater’s excuse for missing his scheduled appearance was that he was feeling ill and slept through his alarm on Friday morning.

On Wednesday, the Trump regime reversed its decision to end the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers announced in Week 133, after a backlash from a bipartisan lawmakers, including Leader McConnell.

On Wednesday, Trump called in to Fox News host Sean Hannity for what ended up being a 45-minute long interview. Trump accused two members of Congress of taking photos of Hicks and leaking them to the media.

Trump’s claim was false, but Hannity validated it by saying, “Oh good grief.” Trump continued on a variety of familiar topics, including Russia and his Wall. Trump continued as Ingraham’s show started at 10 p.m.

Trump pushed back on Hannity saying many people would like for Trump to “turn off the switch” and use Twitter less, telling Hannity “you’re not really patriots as much as you want ratings.”

Trump also told Hannity he might live tweet the Democratic debates next week despite his aides not wanting him to, saying “maybe I will now,” adding, “Instead of fake news, I’ll make them correct news. And that’s OK.”

On Thursday, Time released a transcript of its interview with Trump. When asked about the Mueller report, Trump changed topics to threaten a photographer for attempting to photograph his letter from Kim Jong Un.

Trump said, “Well, you can go to prison, instead, because if you use, if you use the photograph you took of the letter that I gave you . . . ” The Time reporter then tried to continue the interview.

Trump added, “confidentially, I didn’t give it to you to take photographs of it — so don’t play that game with me.” Asked if he was threatening jail time, Trump changed the subject to Time’s unfavorable coverage of him.

On Sunday, a WSJ-NBC News poll found 48% of Democrats want to begin impeachment hearings, up from 30% last month. Overall 27% support for starting impeachment up from 17% last month.

The poll also found that overall, 51% of Americans believe impeachment should start now or Congress should continue to investigate, up slightly from 49% last month. Opposition to impeachment remained at 48%.

On Wednesday, 71 House members were for impeachment, including 70 Democrats and Republican Rep. Justin Amash. Notably, only one of the 12 key committee chairs, Chair Maxine Waters, is for impeachment.

On Thursday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky became the 72nd to call for impeachment, but hours later, she qualified her call to say Speaker Pelosi was “ultimately right” in her push to get rid of Trump in the 2020 election.

On Wednesday, tensions grew between the Trump regime and lawmakers of both parties over whether Trump could use the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) for a military strike against Iran.

Secretary of State Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the basis would be Iran’s connections to al Qaeda, which he called “very real.” GOP Sen. Rand Paul said “there are no credible links” between al Qaeda and Iran.

The State Department’s special envoy for Iran said adding troops was for protection, not a strike. A bipartisan group of Senators said in a letter “Congress has not authorized war” and there was no statutory authority.

On Thursday, the U.S. military confirmed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz, considered international waters, the first direct attack by Iran on U.S. military.

Trump tweeted shortly after, “Iran made a very big mistake,” and when asked about a U.S. response said, “You’ll soon find out.” Iran denied the U.S. version of events, saying the drone strayed into Iranian airspace.

As he met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said, “We have it all documented. It’s documented scientifically, not just words.” When asked what came next, Trump said, “Let’s see what happens.”

Later, Trump seemed to soften, telling reporters, “I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth,” adding, “I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it.”

At mid-day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a televised direct line with the Russian public that a war between the U.S. and Iran “would be a catastrophe” and “could have possibly sad consequences.”

On Thursday, NYT reported Trump had approved retaliatory strikes against Iran, and as of 7 p.m. military and diplomatic officials were expecting strikes on a handful of targets.

Trump’s decision came after a discussion at the White House including his top national security officials and Congressional leaders. The strike was set to take place just before dawn on Friday in order to minimize risk.

Secretary of State Pompeo, national security adviser John Bolton, and CIA director Gina Haspel had favored a strike. Top Pentagon officials warned it could escalate. Congressional leaders were briefed in the Situation Room.

After the briefing, Democratic leaders called on Trump to de-escalate and to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action.

Later in the evening, Trump abruptly called off the strike, which would have been his third, including two strikes in Syria. It was unclear if Trump changed his mind or the regime altered course for some reason.

On Friday, Trump again attacked the Times, referring to a Washington Examiner story about a 2017 email from a NYTreporter to an FBI official. Trump tweeted about “the Failing and Desperate New York Times.”

Trump falsely claimed the Times“was feeding false stories about me, & those associated with me, to the FBI,” calling them a “Crooked newspaper” and asking, “Is what they have done legal?

On Friday, the Washington Examiner issued a correction, removing the characterization that a NYT reporter ‘fed information’ to the FBI, adding “we regret” the story did not meet our “normal standards and procedures.”

On Friday, in a series of tweets on Iran, Trump said Obama “made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran” falsely claiming Obama bailed Iran out by giving them “150 Billion Dollars plus 1.8 Billion Dollars in CASH!”

Trump blamed Obama for giving Iran “a free path to Nuclear Weapons, and SOON,” adding, “I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions” claiming he has weakened Iran.

Trump added after Iran shot down the drone, “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.”

Trump added, “10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone,” adding, “I am in no hurry,” and saying, “Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons.”

Trump also tweeted, “Sanctions are biting & more added last night.” CNBC reported the Treasury Department has not issued new sanctions, and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

On Friday, Speaker Pelosi told reporters that she was not informed by Trump about his planned Iran strike. Traditionally, House and Senate leadership, and chair and ranking members key committees are informed.

On Friday, Reuters reported Iranian sources said Trump had warned Tehran that a U.S. attack was imminent, saying he was against war and wanted talks. The U.S. State Department denied Reuters’ report.

Trump spoke to Crown Prince MBS on the situation Friday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she and fellow EU leaders “are concerned about the situation and support diplomatic negotiations.”

On Friday, WAPO reported key Trump allies had expected him to impose economic sanctions or other nonmilitary punishmenton Iran. The chaos of the response reinforced concerns about the Trump regime’s credibility.

Officials disputed Trump’s tweets, saying he was told the number of possible casualties early in the day, but gave the green light to prepare for a retaliatory strikes.

Later in the day, in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Trump changed his story, saying at no time did he he give final approval for any strikes and that no planes were in the air.

On Friday, NYT reported that one of the reasons Trump chose not to strike was warnings from his favorite Fox News host Tucker Carlson not to do so, highlighting the unusual decision-making process of Trump.

On Friday, Rep. William Lacy Clay and two co-sponsors filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice, and three co-sponsored a resolution for the House Judiciary to begin an impeachment inquiry.

On Friday, Politico reported Trump’s continual reference to serving more than two terms and comments by Michael Cohen that Trump will not leave if 2020 is close have people in Congress and the beltway chattering.

Concern is Trump would not accept a 2020 defeat, and tie the matter up in court for a long time. Republicans claim at that point they would intervene, and most at the juncture view the possibility as far-fetched.

On Friday, Trump tweeted a video depicting him on the cover of Time as running for president indefinitely. The video was a play on this week’s Time cover titled, “How Trumpism Outlasts Trump.”

On Friday, the number of Democrats calling for impeachment grew to 75 out of 235, bringing the total including Rep. Amash to 76.

On Friday, a newly unsealed filing from the Alexandria court revealed Sean Hannity and Paul Manafort exchanged hundreds of text messages about the Mueller probe in the time preceding Manafort’s criminal trial.

The two regularly communicated, sharing opinions and information about the Mueller investigation. Manafort put Hannity in touch with his attorney Kevin Downing, and Hannity relayed information from Trump’s orbit.

Manafort texted, “I won’t sell out. I cannot allow them to win..it would empower them to go after” Trump and others, adding he planned to work to re-elect Trump. Mueller brought the texts to the judge’s attention.

A gag order prevented Manafort from appearing on Hannity’s show, but he texted him, “Building a plan B.” He also told Hannity he was using information on Fox News for his legal arguments.

Manafort requested to put Downing in contact with Gregg Jarrett, another Fox News host, and set up Hannity with Downing on a phone call in a January 2018 to which Hannity said, “I asked him to feed me every day.”

Manafort said that unlike Gates, he would never cooperate. He also praised the hire of Rudy Giuliani, but repeatedly expressed frustration with then AG Jeff Sessions, whom he called “totally worthless.”

On Saturday, Trump defended the roundups, tweeting, “These are people that are supposed to go back to their home country,” adding, “They broke the law by coming into the country, & now by staying.”

On Saturday, Trump praised Bolton, despite reports of friction on Iran. Trump told reporters Bolton is a “hawk” and he disagrees with him at times, adding, “the only one that matters is me.”

On Saturday, Trump delayed planned deportation roundups scheduled for Sunday, facing a massive backlash from Democrats, activists, and elected officials and law enforcement in the 10 states he planned to target.

Pelosi called the roundups “heartless” and urged Trump to “stop this brutal action.” Trump tweeted, “at the request of Democrats, I have delayed the Illegal Immigration Removal Process (Deportation) for two weeks.”

The Weekly List podcast is here! You can find more information here by clicking here.

THE LIST — weeks 1–52 of The Weekly List is out as a book! You can order your copy by clicking here.

[lindsaynsmith]

Lest We Forget the Horrors: A Catalog of Trump’s Worst Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes: Atrocities 292-383

Lest We Forget the Horrors: A Catalog of Trump’s Worst Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes: Atrocities 292-383 https://ift.tt/2qhCp1t

This is the fourth in a series of lists. Commit to vote here.

- - -

ATROCITY KEY

– Sexual Misconduct & Harassment

– White Supremacy

– Public Statements / Tweets

– Collusion with Russia & Obstruction of Justice

– Trump Staff /Administration

– Trump Family Business Dealings

– Policy

– Environment

- - -

August 2017

– August 1, 2017 – The Trump campaign chose a noted white nationalist, William Johnson, to serve among California’s delegates for the next presidential election. Johnson leads the American Freedom Party, which operates with the stated mission of upholding “the customs and the heritage of European American People.” Johnson said after his appointment to the delegation, “I can be a white nationalist and be a strong supporter of Donald Trump and be a good example to everybody.”

– August 2, 2017 – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson decided not to spend the $60 million allocated to the State Department for the express purpose of battling foreign propaganda, including disinformation campaigns from countries like Russia and China. One of Tillerson’s aides, R.C. Hammond, suggested a major influence in Tillerson’s anomalous decision to decline funding for his own department was an internal concern for the Kremlin’s sensitivity about addressing Russia’s media influence.

– August 2, 2017 – Sam Clovis, Donald Trump’s nominee to be the top scientist at the United States Department of Agriculture, once ran a blog where he called progressives “race traders and race ‘traitors.’” A USDA spokesperson justified the choice saying, “All of [Clovis’s] reporting either on the air or in writing over the course of his career has been based on solid research and data. He is, after all, an academic.”

– August 2, 2017 – During a single two-hour session in the situation room, White House officials said Donald Trump complained openly about his NATO allies, wondered aloud about how the U.S. could get a piece of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, and then repeatedly argued the U.S.’s top general ought to be fired.

– August 2, 2017 – Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted during her daily press briefing that the Boy Scouts of America never called the president to say his speech to their organization was the “greatest speech ever made to them.” This is contrary to claims Donald Trump had made to the Wall Street Journal.

– August 7, 2017 – By August of his first year as president, Donald Trump had confirmed only 45 percent of his nominees to executive branch roles. This is a lower rate than his three immediate predecessors: at the same points in their presidencies, Barack Obama had confirmed 72 percent of nominees, George W. Bush had confirmed 71%, and Bill Clinton had confirmed 73%. Of the 577 executive branch positions deemed essential by the Partnership for Public Service, Trump had only successfully filled 20% of them.

– August 8, 2017 – Donald Trump promised to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if North Korea threatened the United States with nuclear action. Trump delivered his warning of catastrophic nuclear action after Kim Jong-un’s regime successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range capable of reaching the continental United States. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attempted to downplay Trump’s bellicosity, saying, “I think Americans should sleep well at night, and have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days.”

– August 9, 2017 – VICE News reported that White House officials, including Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer, twice daily would deliver a folder to President Trump filled with positive news coverage and supportive tweets.

– August 10, 2017 – Frustrated by Congress’s failed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump lashed out at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Trump doled out his critique in two tweets directed at the senator: “Mitch, get back to work and put Repeal & Replace, Tax Reform & Cuts and a great Infrastructure Bill on my desk for signing. You can do it!” and “Can you believe that Mitch McConnell, who has screamed Repeal & Replace for 7 years, couldn’t get it done. Must Repeal & Replace ObamaCare!”

– August 12, 2017 – During the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, neo-Nazis and former Ku Klux Klan members carried tiki torches and shouted slogans including “The Jews Will Not Replace Us.” A white nationalist named James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others in the process. After the attack and Heyer’s death, Trump he refused to explicitly rebuke the white nationalists. The president placed partial blame for the attack on the counter-protesters, condemning, “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.”

– August 14, 2017 – After Donald Trump hesitated to condemn the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Kenneth Frazier, CEO of Merck Pharmaceuticals, chose to resign from Trump’s American Manufacturing Council. Frazier, an African American and one of the most powerful executives in the United States, explained his decision to leave in a public statement: “America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting hatred, bigotry, and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal. As CEO of Merck and as a matter of public conscience, I feel a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism.” Trump took to Twitter, firing back, “Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President’s Manufacturing Council, he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!”

– August 14, 2017 – The Trump administration began rolling back emissions standards for America’s cars and light trucks. “We are moving forward with an open and robust review of emissions standards, consistent with the timeframe provided in our regulations,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. In 2012, Obama drafted a plan to raise fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The newly announced review was the first step to repealing these standards, and reopened “questions that have already been asked and answered,” according to the policy arm of Consumer Reports.

– August 15, 2017 – At a news conference about the “Unite the Right” rally in Virginia, Donald Trump said, “There were very fine people on both sides” of the violence in Charlottesville.

– August 15, 2017 – After more CEOs resigned from his American Manufacturing Council, Trump claimed he had a line of executives waiting to join in their place. He tweeted, “For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!”

– August 16, 2017 – Donald Trump abruptly dissolved the American Manufacturing Council and the Strategy & Policy Forum, tweeting “thank you all!” without further explanation.

– August 17, 2017 – Donald Trump lamented the removal of Confederate monuments, stating that such actions were “so foolish” and “sad.” He called these statues “beautiful” and spoke to the “history and culture of our great country being ripped apart.” He did not mention slavery in any of his tweets on the Confederacy.

– August 18, 2017 – Donald Trump fired chief strategist Steve Bannon. Trump later claimed that Bannon had been a “staffer” and “had very little to do with our historic victory,” despite the fact that Bannon was a top aide through the presidential campaign and key influencer in the White House.

– August 20, 2017 – The Trump administration ended a $400,000 federal grant for Life After Hate, an organization devoted to eradicating white nationalism and helping young people escape white supremacist gang membership. The grant money was awarded annually by the Countering Violent Extremism task force. Originally founded in 2011 by Barack Obama, the CVE task force sought to combat a wide range of violent ideologies—from white nationalism to Islamic extremism—and presented $10 million in grant money to nonprofits pursuing that mission. Among all the CVE grant recipients, Life After Hate was the only one addressing white supremacy. The Trump administration defunded the group at a particularly pivotal moment: Life After Hate has reported a 20-fold increase in requests to help young white nationalists since Trump’s election.

– August 21, 2017 – Eight months into his presidency, the Secret Service exhausted the annual funding allocated to agents to protect the Trump family, mostly due to the frequency of the first family’s travels. By August 2017, more than 1,000 agents had already hit the federally mandated cap for salary and overtime allowances meant to last the entire year.

– August 21, 2017 – In a nationally televised speech on strategy in Afghanistan, Donald Trump gave no indication of how many troops the U.S. would commit to war efforts, nor any criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of those operations. Trump warned that “a hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum for terrorists,” but gave no indication of the Pentagon’s definition of success or failure. He concluded the address by saying simply, “in the end, we will win.”

- August 21, 2017 – The U.S. Secret Service spent substantial sums with Donald Trump’s businesses, including at least $137,000 on golf cart rentals at Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster. Based on a Government Accountability Office report, each trip to Mar-a-Lago costs the taxpayer $3 million in total.

– August 22, 2017 – During an Arizona rally, Donald Trump blamed American news media for the vehement public reactions after the white supremacist-led “Unite the Right” rally. He declared, “It’s time to expose the crooked media deceptions… the only people giving a platform to these hate groups is the media itself and the fake news.” Trump drew applause for trumpeting his upcoming pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who he said was “convicted for doing his job.” Arpaio had a reputation for illegally detaining Latinos on the suspicion that they were in the country without documentation. In July 2017, an Arizona judge convicted Sherriff Arpaio of criminal contempt for defying a court order to cease his practice of arresting Latinos based on their racial profile.

– August 25, 2017 – Following up on tweets he wrote in July, Donald Trump signed a directive to prevent transgender individuals from joining the military. The order gave Defense Secretary James Mattis the ability to decide if transgender members currently in the military could continue to serve.

-August 25, 2017 – Sebastian Gorka, White House Deputy Assistant to the President, was ousted from office. Trump gave no explicit reason for his departure, but one White House official wrote, “Sebastian Gorka did not resign, but I can confirm he no longer works in the White House.” Long seen as a controversial figure who was outspoken about his anti-Islamic views, Gorka had said publicly that white supremacists were “not the problem” in America. Gorka was a former editor at Breitbart News, aligning on many issues with fellow Breitbart leader Steve Bannon—who had been forced out of the White House one week earlier.

– August 25, 2017 – Donald Trump pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. An Arizona judge had convicted Arpaio of criminal contempt-of-court for “flagrant disregard” of a court order to cease and desist his practice of racially profiling Latinos. U.S District Judge G. Murray Snow noted Arpaio made “multiple intentional misstatements of fact under oath,” and also told local news stations he would ignore the injunction and “continue ‘doing what he had always been doing.’”

– August 30, 2017 – After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, Donald Trump visited Corpus Christi and told a small crowd the recovery from the hurricane’s devastation would be “better than ever before.” His proposed budget slashed FEMA programs aimed at helping Americans get back on their feet after natural disasters.

- – -

SEPTEMBER 2017

– September 1, 2017 – Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, appointed by Donald Trump to lead investigations of voter fraud for the 2016 election, was a paid columnist for the alt-right website Breitbart while the voter fraud investigation was still underway.

– September 4, 2017 – Donald Trump appointed Representative Jim Bridenstine to lead NASA, despite the fact that Bridenstine has said repeatedly he does not believe humans cause climate change. Among NASA’s many active projects are 27 missions= devoted to monitoring climate change.

– September 5, 2017 – Donald Trump ordered an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, inviting Congress to take the necessary actions to offer its replacement. One of Barack Obama’s signature pieces of legislation, DACA protects against the deportation of nearly 800,000 young people who arrived in the United States as children. Trump gave Congress six months to act on his order before he would begin phasing out the DACA protections. Among Trump’s most oft-repeated arguments against the program is that DACA beneficiaries would take jobs from natural-born American citizens. Many economists vehemently disagree with Trump on this point, citing the fact that a) immigrants are more likely than natural-born Americans to start companies (employing new workers in the process), and b) the number of individuals retiring from the workforce will outpace the number of young people entering it by 55 million in 2020.

– September 6, 2017 – Among the members of Donald Trump’s private golf clubs are 21 lobbyists from prominent trade groups and 50 executives from companies with federal contracts. Citizen watchdog groups said club membership could influence Trump’s decision making, allowing certain individuals potentially lucrative access to the president. On his hundredth day in office, Trump visited The Ames Company’s factory in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to sign two new executive orders. Robert Mehmel, president of the Ames Company and a member of Trump’s New Jersey golf course, stood just behind the president’s shoulder as Trump signed the orders for the press. During another White House meeting with Trump, a lobbyist for North American airport companies was overheard on C-Span saying to the president, “I’m a member of your golf club by the way.”

– September 7, 2017 – Education Secretary Betsy DeVos called campus sexual assault enforcement a “failed system” and vowed to review the Title IX guidelines put in place by the Obama administration. DeVos claimed the current system “clearly pushed schools to overreach” by using “intimidation and coercion.”

– September 12, 2017 – Donald Trump hosted Najib Razak, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, at the White House, despite the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation of a corruption scandal in Razak’s administration. Razak stood accused of funneling $3.5 billion dollars in public money from the Malaysian government to finance the purchase of jewelry, real estate, and Hollywood film rights. Razak has responded to accusations of corruption in his own country by firing investigators and referring to journalistic exposés on his spending as “Fake News.” Razak and his entourage stayed in the Trump International Hotel during his trip to D.C.

– September 14, 2017 – The Trump administration made plans to cut 92 percent of federal funding for grassroots groups that help Americans sign up for healthcare.

– September 15, 2017 – Following a terrorist attack on the London subway, Donald Trump responded to the event by propping up his travel ban. He also falsely suggested in a series of tweets that authorities had identified those responsible, and that those people had recruited others online. British Prime Minister Theresa May rebuked Trump’s speculative claims.

– September 19, 2017 – During a speech at the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump Kim Jong-un “Rocket Man” and threatened to “totally destroy North Korea.”

– September 20, 2017 – It was revealed in September of 2017 that Trump’s election campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had offered a “private briefing” to a Russian billionaire named Oleg Deripaska just two weeks before the election took place. Deripaska is one of the richest men in Russia, a close ally of Vladimir Putin, and a former client of Paul Manafort’s consultancy.

– September 20, 2017 – Nicaragua announced it would soon sign the Paris Agreement to fight global climate change. After Nicaragua’s signature and Donald Trump’s withdrawal earlier in the year, only two countries in the world wouldn’t uphold the environmental accord—the United States and Syria.

– September 21, 2017 – During a speech at the UN, Donald Trump cited the exemplary healthcare system of a place called Nambia. Trump applauded the nonexistent African nation, saying, “Nambia’s health system is increasingly self-sufficient.”

– September 21, 2017 – Twenty-two of Donald Trump’s appointees to the Department of Agriculture had no prior experience with agriculture. Some even lacked a college degree. However, all 22 did work on the Trump campaign in 2016.

– September 22, 2017 – Continuing to use aggressive language towards North Korea and Kim Jong-un, Donald Trump tweeted, “Kim Jong-un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!”

– September 22, 2017 – The Education Department formally rescinded legal instruction for universities that dictated how they should handle allegations of sexual assault. Six years earlier, in response to statistics that found 1 in 5 women were victims of sexual assault while in college, the Obama administration released the “Dear Colleague Letter,” which required federally funded schools to toughen their stance on sexual assault accusations. In practice, this meant victims of assault had more power during the legal process. Under the Dear Colleague Letter’s guidance, victims could appeal any not-guilty findings for further consideration, and schools were required to evaluate sexual assault reports according to a “preponderance of the evidence" (rather than the more burdensome “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Education Secretary Betsy DeVos claimed the letter had denied due process to accused individuals, choosing to scrap the instructions entirely, along with the new powers given to victims of sexual assault.

– September 23, 2017 – Donald Trump suggested that team owners in the National Football League should fire players who kneel during the national anthem. He said owners should respond by saying, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired. He’s fired!” Trump also said that “when somebody disrespects the flag,” fans should leave in protest.

– September 24, 2017 – Donald Trump repeated his rebuke of National Football League players who kneel during the national anthem. He tweeted, “Great solidarity for our National Anthem and for our Country. Standing with locked arms is good, kneeling is not acceptable. Bad ratings!”

– September 25, 2017 – Congressional investigators reported the White House and Justice Department had missed deadlines to submit documents requested for the ongoing Russia investigation, including information on Jared Kushner’s security clearance and Donald Trump’s conversations with James Comey. In an email, Representative Adam Schiff from the House Intelligence Committee said, “The White House’s refusal to answer Congress in full and truthfully raises serious questions about the White House’s intent, including the potential that it is misleading Congress.”

– September 26, 2017 – Chuck Rosenberg, the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration and previous chief of staff for former FBI Director James Comey, announced he would resign from his post because he did not believe Donald Trump had a moral grasp of justice. In an agency-wide memo he sent a month before his resignation, Rosenberg had said, “The President, in remarks delivered yesterday in New York, condoned police misconduct regarding the treatment of individuals placed under arrest by law enforcement. […] I write because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong.” The rebuke came after Trump had said to an audience of police officers in New York, “When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon—you just see them thrown in, rough—I said, please don’t be too nice.” He continued, “Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head, and they’ve just killed somebody—don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, OK?” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed the president’s statement had been a “joke.”

– September 29, 2017 – Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned from his position after public outrage mounted about his inappropriate spending on private jets for travel. According to Politico, Price had spent over $300,000 on private flights before resigning from Trump’s cabinet.

- – -

OCTOBER 2017

– October 4, 2017 – The Trump administration denied endangered species protection for 25 highly imperiled species. Among them were seven animals—the Pacific walrus, Florida Keys mole skink, Bicknell’s thrush, Kirtland’s snake, the northern Rockies population of fisher, Nevada springsnail, and Big Blue Spring Cave crayfish—whose habitats were gravely threatened by climate change.

– October 3, 2017 – EPA director Scott Pruitt’s schedule showed he held near-daily meetings with oil lobbyists, automobile company executives, and other industry leaders, while making almost no time for environmental advocates. The New York Times reported that, in the first half of May, “Mr. Pruitt met with the chief executive of the Chemours Company, a leading chemical maker, as well as three chemical lobbying groups; the egg producers lobby; the president of Shell Oil Company; the chief executive of Southern Company; lobbyists for the farm bureau, the toy association and a cement association; the president of a truck equipment manufacturer seeking to roll back emissions regulations for trucks; and the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.”

– October 4, 2017 – The House Homeland Security Committee approved a $15 billion dollar bill to fund Donald Trump’s border wall and employ border patrol. While most in Washington saw this as a publicity stunt—seeing as the bill had very little chance of garnering the 60 votes needed from the Senate in order to pass—the proposal was likely a negotiation tactic for the ongoing conversation about the Dreamers program.

– October 4, 2017 – On October 4, 2017, four soldiers in the United States Armed Forces were killed in Niger by ISIS-affiliated combatants. When asked at a press conference on October 16 why he still hadn’t spoken about the fallen soldiers, Trump said he had written the families personal letters, which would “go out either today or tomorrow.” He also insinuated at the press conference that President Obama had not called the families of fallen soldiers. This was untrue. Obama had called Gold Star families throughout his presidency, as confirmed by both Obama’s staff and the families themselves. The night after the press conference, Donald Trump placed a condolence call to Myeshia Johnson, the widow of fallen serviceman Sgt. La David Johnson. The following week, Mrs. Johnson appeared on Good Morning America to discuss her husband’s life and her call with the president. Mrs. Johnson said Trump forgot her husband’s name during the call, and that she “heard him stumbling” as he tried to remember. Less than an hour after the interview aired, President Trump suggested the Gold Star widow had been lying, writing on Twitter, “I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, and spoke his name from beginning, without hesitation!”

– October 6, 2017 – On Wednesday, October 4, 201, the official FEMA website listed two statistics quantifying slow recovery efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. According to FEMA, only 50 percent of Puerto Ricans had access to drinking water nearly one month after Hurricane Maria had struck land, and 98% of Puerto Ricans were still without electricity. By the morning of Thursday, October 5, the statistics had been deleted from the website. When reached for comment amid uproar about the removal, a FEMA spokesperson offered no explanation for the change. By Friday afternoon, amid an uproar about the censorship, the figures had returned to the site.

– October 5, 2017 – Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin spent $811,797.81 to make seven trips using military aircraft. While the Office of the Inspector General said this did not break any laws explicitly, Mnuchin failed to provide justification for his spending. Earlier in the year, he had placed a formal request for a military plane to escort he and his new wife on their honeymoon. While his request was denied, he has had other lavish requests granted, including one flight to Miami which cost taxpayers $40,000. Typically, government employees are encouraged to book commercial travel and file for reimbursement. Had he followed protocol, that same flight to Miami would have cost taxpayers about $700.

– October 5, 2017 – For the second most powerful position at the Environmental Protection Agency, Donald Trump nominated Andrew Wheeler, a long-time coal lobbyist who had served as legal counsel for some of the largest coal mining companies in America.

– October 5, 2017 – In either a misunderstanding of the duties of the Senate Intelligence Committee or an attempt to deflect attention from the Russia investigation, Donald Trump tweeted, “Why Isn’t the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!”

– October 5, 2017 – Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a memo saying the Civil Rights Act would no longer protect transgender workers from employer discrimination.

– October 6, 2017 – The Trump administration released a mandate reversing an Obama-era protection on employees’ right to employer-provided birth control. Under Trump’s new mandate, employers could cite religious objection as grounds to withhold free birth control from employee health care plans.

– October 8, 2017 – In exchange for an extension to the Dreamers program:, Trump demanded funding for his border wall, a massive increase in border security personnel, more stringent qualifications for asylum-seekers, and a moratorium on federal grants for “sanctuary cities.”

– October 9, 2017 – After more National Football League players began kneeling for the national anthem Donald Trump told Vice President Mike Pence to attend a Colts vs. 49ers game, specifically to leave the stadium as a public rebuke to the protests. Pence dutifully carried the plan to fruition, arriving at the stadium to great fanfare, and then conspicuously leaving the game before kickoff. After the stunt, the president tweeted, “I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady Karen.” Pence’s trip to Indiana in order to walk out of the stadium cost taxpayers around $250,000.

– October 9, 2017 – Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt moved to repeal the Clean Power Act, introduced by Obama to lower carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030. Trump and Pruitt had long seen the act as an attack on coal mining jobs and reversed the environmental regulations as a gesture to the coal industry. In spite of the many well-publicized pieces of legislation Trump has influenced in order to create more jobs for coal miners, employment in the industry has grown just 4 percent since he was inaugurated. To put the size of the coal mining industry in perspective, the industry as a whole employs about 65,000 people nationally—about 1/5 the number of Americans employed in solar energy alone.

– October 9, 2017 – EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told a crowd at the Kentucky Farm Bureau that he would like to remove all tax credits given to wind and solar energy. “I’d let them stand on their own and compete against coal and natural gas and other sources.” The subsidies for renewable energy were meant to stimulate development and use of new energy technologies. Thus far, the subsidies have already had a measurable impact. Berkeley National Laboratory found that oil and coal that we avoided burning between 2007 and 2015 equated to saving between 3,000 and 12,500 premature deaths in eight years. Beyond the health and environmental advantages of subsidizing new sources of energy, Pruitt also ignored the question of whether the oil and coal industries could ‘stand on their own’ without federal support. The fossil fuel industries have received about $20 billion dollars annually in federal tax subsidies.

– October 10, 2017 – In response to the National Football League’s national anthem protests, Donald Trump threatened the NFL with re-evaluation of its tax-exempt status.

– October 10, 2017 – According to fact-checkers at the Washington Post, Donald Trump made 1,318 false claims in his first 263 days as president. That equates to around 5 falsehoods per day since his inauguration.

– October 10, 2017 – In response to rumors earlier in the month that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had called the president a “moron,” Donald Trump said, “I think it’s fake news. But if he did that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win.”

– October 11, 2017 – Donald Trump threatened the broadcasting licenses of NBC and other media stations, stating on Twitter, “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”

– October 11, 2017 – After Congress repeatedly blocked its efforts to overhaul immigration policy, the Department of Homeland Security began to explore smaller policy tweaks it could legally enact without the approval of Congress. Though smaller in scope than the more ambitious calls for border walls and billions spent on border security, the DHS looked into ways it could limit protections for unaccompanied minors, tighten visa restrictions, and accelerate pending deportations.

– October 11, 2017 – Donald Trump told his military advisors he wanted a tenfold increase in nuclear firepower. Every president since Ronald Reagan has signed international disarmament agreements, which still legally restricts the U.S. from increasing nuclear stockpiles. Trump denied he had asked for the expansion, and some military officials said they did not believe he was speaking “literally” when discussing the United States nuclear arsenal.

– October 11, 2017 – In the EPA’s four-year strategic plan covering Donald Trump’s tenure in office, the term “climate change” did not appear once in the document’s 33 pages.

– October 12, 2017 – Donald Trump scrapped a healthcare subsidy that helped low-income Americans with out-of-pocket expenses at the time of treatment. In addition to endangering citizens who cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket, the elimination of subsidies could cause insurance premiums to rise even further, as insurance companies would need to cover the difference. Insurance premiums had already risen almost across the nation since Trump took office, spiking 27 percent for Californians, 30.6 percent for Pennsylvanians, and 44 percent for Idahoans.

– October 12, 2017 – While Puerto Rico was still reeling a month after Hurricane Maria made landfall—with 90 percent of the island still without electricity and 40 percent without clean drinking water—Donald Trump responded to critics on Twitter by saying, “We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!” Five months after the hurricane, 400,000 Puerto Ricans still did not have power.

– October 12, 2017 – White House Chief of Staff John Kelly was overheard in numerous shouting matches with Donald Trump, underscoring ongoing rumors of chaos within the White House. In a surprise appearance at the White House press briefing, Kelly responded to inquiries about his job status saying, “I’m not quitting today. I don’t believe, and I just talked to the president, I don’t think I’m being fired today. And I’m not so frustrated in this job that I’m thinking of leaving.” Kelly went on to add, “Unless things change, I’m not quitting, I’m not getting fired, and I don’t think they’ll fire anyone tomorrow.”

– October 13, 2017 – Donald Trump nominated a climate change skeptic to chair the Council on Environmental Quality, which advises the White House on environmental policy. Before her position on the council, Kathleen Hartnett White worked on the Texas Public Policy Foundation where she authored a paper that included this sentence: “Whether emitted from the human use of fossil fuels or as a natural (and necessary) gas in the atmosphere surrounding the earth, carbon dioxide has none of the attributes of a pollutant.” She also wrote a 2014 paper that argued, “global warming alarmists are misleading the public about carbon dioxide emissions.”

– October 13, 2017 – In the fallout from Hurricane Maria, the Pentagon accidentally sent emails to a Bloomberg reporter discussing how they would spin the natural disaster for media coverage. The emails to Bloomberg continued for five days despite the Bloomberg reporter “repeatedly alerting officials” to the mistake. Among the bits of strategy gleaned from the emails were agency-wide requests to ignore the mayor of San Juan, who had been critical of Trump, and to “avoid instructions about waiting for FEMA.”

– October 13, 2017 – Donald Trump announced he would decertify the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program and instead consider new sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile, the UK, France, and Germany—other signatories on the initial agreement—all announced they would remain “committed” to the original pact.

– October 16, 2017 – Donald Trump asserted Barack Obama did not call the families of fallen soldiers. This was untrue. Obama had long meetings with the families of fallen soldiers, as confirmed by both Obama’s staff and the families themselves.

– October 16, 2017 – The EPA changed the rules on what constitutes a “dangerous” amount of radiation, multiplying by 10 the threshold set by Obama.

– October 18, 2017 – Donald Trump thanked @TEN_GOP on Twitter when the account posted, “We love you, Mr. President.” The @TEN_GOP profile, which had 150,000 followers and described itself as “the Unofficial Twitter of Tennessee Republicans,” was the most influential Russian account on Twitter before its suspension.

– October 18, 2017 – Donald Trump offered the father of a fallen soldier a gift of $25,000. At first, Trump did not keep his promise. Then three months later, on the publication day of the Washington Post’s article reporting Trump never sent his promised gift, a check for $25,000 was mailed to the grieving father.

– October 19, 2017 – During a security conference, CIA Director Mike Pompeo said, “The intelligence community’s assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election.” This was false. The report Pompeo referenced concluded that Russian meddling had occurred, but did not speculate on whether that interference had altered the course of the election or not.

– October 20, 2017 – Donald Trump tweeted, “Just out report: ‘United Kingdom crime rises 13 percent annually amid spread of Radical Islamic terror.’ not good, we must keep America safe!” The UK’s Office for National Statistics did report a 13 percent increase in police-reported crime in its quarterly report, but gave only one reference to terror attacks in the whole report and did not attribute the rise in crime to Islam in any way.

– October 20, 2017 – The EPA deleted resources from its website that provided information to local governments on steps they could take to help address climate change. One example was an EPA site titled “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments” being renamed “Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments,” with 15 mentions of “climate change” being removed from the home page alone.

– October 21, 2017 – The families of four fallen American soldiers received rush-delivered UPS messages from Donald Trump after he stated in a phone interview that he had contacted “virtually all” Gold Star families.

– October 22, 2017 – The EPA canceled speaking engagements for three agency scientists who had been scheduled to present findings on the effects of climate change. An agency spokesperson offered no explanation for the abrupt cancellation.

– October 23, 2017 – When asked about gay rights while in the company of Mike Pence, Donald Trump joked, “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”

– October 23, 2017 – To repair Puerto Rico’s electric power infrastructure, the Trump administration awarded a $300 million contract to Whitefish Energy—a small Montana-based company with only two employees. When confusion spread over why Whitefish had earned the lucrative contract, it was revealed that Whitefish Energy’s CEO, Andy Techmanski, was from the same hometown as Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Both Zinke and Techmanski confirmed they knew each other before the $300 million deal; Zinke’s son had even worked a summer job for Whitefish. When Techmanski was asked about how had gotten the multimillion-dollar federal contract, he replied, “We called each other.” According to the contract itself, the US government could not “audit or review the cost and profit elements” of Whitefish’s work—allowing Whitefish to spend the $300 million with virtually no oversight. Days later, the governor of Puerto Rico canceled the contract.

– October 23, 2017 – Myeshia Johnson, the widow of a fallen US soldier, said Donald Trump forgot her husband’s name when calling to console her. On Twitter, Trump denied the Gold Star widow’s allegations, saying he had said her husband’s name without hesitation.

– October 24, 2017 – Vice President Mike Pence helped Republicans in the Senate win a tie-breaker to defeat a new piece of legislation that would have made Wall Street more accountable to consumers. The law itself would have enabled citizens to form class-action lawsuits against large financial institutions. The rule had been in the works for five years, and was born out of the 2008 financial crash as a means of giving consumers more leverage in legal battles against massive banks. In response to the Senate’s vote, the Director of the Consumer Bureau said, “Tonight’s vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country. As a result, companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax remain free to break the law without fear of legal blowback from their customers.”

– October 25, 2017 – As part of an ongoing online feud, Donald Trump tweeted at Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker: “The reason Flake and Corker dropped out of the Senate race is very simple, they had zero chance of being elected. Now act so hurt & wounded!”

– October 26, 2017 – After Donald Trump gave the go-ahead for the Keystone XL pipeline project, he pledged that he would require the pipeline be made of American steel. He backtracked on that promise, allowing foreign steel as a primary material for the pipeline. The steel industry has suffered under Trump’s leadership, and total imports of foreign steel rose 24 percent in his first year as president.

– October 26, 2017 – Instead of declaring the opioid crisis a “national emergency,” Donald Trump announced the he would officially label the epidemic a “national public health emergency.” The distinction is that a “national emergency” would trigger access to FEMA’s disaster relief funds, amounting to millions of dollars in aid. Instead, Trump’s decision to designate the American opioid epidemic a “national public health emergency” allowed access to only $57,000 in emergency funding.

– October 26, 2017 – The Government Accountability Office announced it would investigate Donald Trump’s voter fraud commission after concerns that they may be misusing federal funds. The commission had met only twice since its inception, and had not released any information on its work—including its methodology for uncovering voter fraud or measures it had taken to prevent fraud in the future. The claim that illegal voting swayed the 2016 popular vote had been a talking point for Trump, despite having been widely discredited.

– October 29, 2017 – According to analysis by The Daily Beast, 50 percent of Donald Trump’s nominees for Senate-confirmed positions held significant conflicts of interest. The review of Trump’s 341 nominations also found 63 had lobbied actively in the industries they were to oversee, and 11 received direct payments from companies in the industries they were nominated to regulate.

– October 30, 2017 – Before the election in 2016, a college professor contacted Donald Trump aid George Papadopoulos to tell him the Russians had harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos eventually pled guilty to lying when FBI investigators asked him about the conversation in October of 2017. At the time, Papadopoulos’s proven contact was the most direct evidence that the Trump campaign had knowledge of Russia’s ability and intention to help them sabotage Clinton’s campaign.

via McSweeney’s https://ift.tt/2aimk76 October 30, 2018 at 09:02AM

[clubofinfo]

Expert: Scenario ONE: Imagine that you are on board a ship, which is slowly sinking. There is no land in sight, and your radio transmitter is not functioning properly. There are several people on board and you care for them, deeply. You don’t want this to be the end of ‘everything’. What do you do? * A) You fix for yourself a nice portion of fried rice with prawns * B) You turn on the TV set, which is still somehow miraculously working, and watch the news about the future Scottish referendum or on BREXIT * C) You jump into the water immediately, try to identify the damage, and then attempt to do something unthinkable with your simple tools and capabilities: to save the ship Imagine another scenario: SCENARIO TWO: By mistake, your wife eats two full tubes of sleeping pills, supposedly confusing them with a new line of candies. As you find her on the floor, she appears to be unconscious and her face looks rather bluish. What would your course of action be? * A) After you realize that her high heels do not match the color of her pantyhose, you run to the closet in search of a much better pair of shoes to achieve the balance * B) You carry her without delay to the bathroom, pump out her stomach, and try to resuscitate her while calling the ambulance using the speakerphone function * C) You recall how you first met, get nostalgic, and rush to your living room library in order to find a book of love sonnets by Pablo Neruda, which you then recite to her kneeling on the carpet Now brace yourself for a great surprise. Unless you choose C) for scenario one, and B) for scenario two, you can actually consider yourself absolutely “normal” by most North American and European standards. However, if you opt for C) or B) respectively, you could easily pass off for an extremist, a radical and ideological left-wing fanatic. ***** The West has brought the world to the brink of total collapse, but its citizens, even its intellectuals, are stubbornly refusing to grasp the urgency. Like ostriches, many are hiding their heads in the sand. Others are behaving like a surgeon who opts for treating a small cut on a finger of his patient who is actually dying from a terrible gunshot wound. There seems to be an acute lack of rational thinking, and especially of people’s ability to grasp the proportions of global occurrences and events. For years I have been arguing that destroying the ability to compare and to see things from the universal perspective has been one of the most successful endeavors of the Western indoctrination drive (dispersed through education, media/disinformation and ‘culture’). It has effectively influenced and pacified both, the people in the West itself, and those living in its present and former colonies (particularly the local ‘elites’ and their offspring). There seems to be no capacity to compare and consistently analyze, for instance, those certainly unsavory but mainly defensive actions taken by the revolutionary governments and countries, with the most horrid and appalling crimes committed by the colonialist regimes of the West all over Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, which took place in approximately the same historical era. It is not only history that is seen in the West through totally crooked and ‘out of focus’ lenses.  It is also the present, which has been perceived and ‘analyzed’ in an out of context way and without applying hardly any rational comparisons. Rebellious and independent-minded countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East (most of them have been actually forced to defend themselves against the extremely brutal attacks and subversion campaigns administered by the West) have been slammed, even in the so-called ‘progressive’ circles of the West, with much tougher standards than those that are being applied towards both Europe and North America, two parts of the world that have been continuously spreading terror, destruction and unimaginable suffering among the people inhabiting all corners of the globe. Most crimes committed by the left-wing revolutions were in direct response to invasions, subversions, provocations and other attacks coming from the West. Almost all the most terrible crimes committed by the West were committed abroad, and were directed against enslaved, exploited, thoroughly plundered and defenseless people in almost all parts of the world. Laos Plain of Jars – village fence made of American bombs Now, according to many, the endgame is approaching. Rising oceans are swallowing entire countries, as I witnessed in several parts of Oceania. It is a horrid, indescribable sight! People in numerous countries governed by pro-Western regimes are shedding millions of their inhabitants, while some nations are basically ceasing to exist, like Papua or Kashmir, to give just two obvious examples. The environment is thoroughly ruined where the ‘lungs’ of the world used to work hard, just a few decades ago, making our planet healthy. Tens of millions of people are now on the move, their countries thoroughly ruined by Western geopolitical games. Instead of influencing and helping to guide humanity, such great cultures as those of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are now forced to disgorge millions of desperate refugees. They are barely surviving, humiliated and hardly relevant. Extremist religious groups (of all faiths, and definitely not only belonging to the Muslim religion) are being groomed by the Western Machiavellian ideologues and strategists, then dispersed to all corners of the globe: South Asia, the Middle East, China, Latin America, Africa, and even Oceania. It is a total disgrace what imperialism has managed to reduce our humanity to. Most of the world is actually trying to function ‘normally’, ‘democratically’, following its natural instincts, which are based on simple humanism. But it is being constantly derailed, attacked and tormented by the brutal, monstrous and merciless hydra – the Western expansionism and its ‘culture’ or nihilism, greed, cynicism and slavery. It is so obvious where we are going as a human race. We want to fly, we want freedom and optimism and beauty to govern our lives. We want to dream and to create something deep, meaningful, happy and kind. But there are those horrible weights hanging from our feet. There are chains restraining our actions. There is constant fear, which is making us betray all our ideals, as well as each other, again and again; fear that makes us, humans, act like shameless cowards and egoists. As a result we are not flying, we are only crawling, and not even forward, but in bizarre, irrational ellipses and circles. Still, I do not believe that the endgame is inevitable! ***** For many years I have been sending warnings, I have been writing and showing and presenting thousands of terrible images of destruction, of the irreversible collapse, of barbarity. I have generally kept nothing to myself. I have recycled my work, my films and books, into new journeys into the darkest abysses of our world. I have received hardly any support from the outside world. But I couldn’t stop: what I have been witnessing, the danger to the planet and total devastation, have forced me to never give up the struggle. If necessary and most of the time, I have done it alone. I spent too much time in Latin America; I could not give up. I learned too much from Cuba and so many other wonderful places; I felt I had no right to surrender. Whenever the horrors from which our planet is suffering would overwhelm me, I’d ‘collapse’, as I did last year. Then I’d bury myself somewhere for a short period of time, collect myself together, get up and continue with my work and my struggle. I have never ceased to trust people. Some would come full of initial enthusiasm, offering much, then betray me, and leave. Still, I have never lost faith in human beings. This year, instead of slowing down, I ‘adopted’ one more place, which is in agony – Afghanistan. My only request, my only demand has been, that the world listens, that it sees, that it tries to comprehend, before it is too late. This request of mine has proven to be, I realize now, too ‘demanding’, and too ‘radical’. Sometimes I ask: have I achieved much? Have I opened many eyes? Have I managed to build many bridges between the different struggling parts of the world? As an internationalist I have to question my own actions, my effectiveness. I have to admit, honestly: I don’t know the answers to my own questions. But I keep working and struggling. ***** The world looks different if observed and analyzed from a pub in Europe or North America, or if you are actually standing on one of those atolls in the middle of the South Pacific (Oceania) that are under the constant assault of tidal waves, dotted with dead stumps of palm trees pointing accusatively towards the sky. These islets are at the forefront of the battle for the survival of our planet, and they are obviously losing. Stumps of palm trees – Kiribati Everything also appears to be much more urgent but also ‘real’, when observed from the black and desolate plains of the hopelessly logged out Indonesian islands of Borneo/Kalimantan and Sumatra. I used to recount in my essays, just for my readers to know, what the villages somewhere like Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), look and feel like, after the murderous assaults by the pro-Rwandese, and therefore pro-Western, militias. It was important for me to explain how things are ‘right in the middle of it’, on the ground. I used to write about mass rapes and mutilations, about the burning flesh, terrible torture… I stopped some time ago. You at least once witness all this or you simply didn’t. If you did, then you know what it all looks like, what it feels like and smells like… or you could never imagine it, no matter how many books and reports you read, no matter how many images you consume. Woman victim in Kibati Camp, Goma, DR Congo I have been trying to speak about all this to the people in the West, at conferences, universities, or even through my films and books. They do listen, mostly respectfully. They do show politely how outraged and ‘horrified’ they are (it is ‘expected’ of them). Some say: ‘I want to do something’. Most of them do absolutely nothing, but even if they decide to take action, it is usually for themselves, just to feel good, to feel better, to convince their own conscience that they have actually ‘done at least something for the humanity’. I used to blame them. I don’t, anymore. This is how the world is arranged. However, I have sharply reduced my work-visits to both North America and Europe. I don’t feel that I click with the people in those places. We don’t think the same way, we don’t feel the same, and even our logic and rationale are diametrically different. My recent three-week stay in Europe clearly revealed to me how little there is in common between the West’s state of mind and the reality in which the great majority of the world has been living. ***** In the past, before the Western empires and the sole “Empire” took most of determination and enthusiasm away from the people, the most talented of human beings used to make no distinction between their personal lives, their creativity and their relentless work and duty towards humanity. In several places including Cuba, it is how many people still live. In the West, everyone and everything is now fragmented and life itself became objectively meaningless: there is distinct time to work (satisfying one’s personal career, guaranteeing survival, advancing ‘prestige’ and ego), there is time to play, and for family life… and there is occasionally time to think about humanity or, very rarely, about the survival of our planet. Needless to say, this selfish approach has failed in helping to advance the world. It has also squarely failed when it comes to stopping at least some of the monstrosities committed by Western imperialism. When I go to the opera house or some great classical music concert, it is in order to get some deep inspiration, to get fired up about my work, to recycle the beauty that I’m expressing in my novels and films, theatre plays and even political reports. I never go to get simply ‘entertained’. It is never for my own needs only. It is also essential for me to work closely with the people that I love, including my own mother who is already 82 years old. It is because I know there is absolutely no time to waste. And also because everything is and should be intertwined in life: love, work, duty, and the struggle for the survival and progress of our world. ***** I may be labeled as a fanatic, but I am decisively choosing those C) and B) options from the ‘dilemmas’ I depicted above. I am choosing rationality, now that the US ‘armada’ packed with the nuclear weapons is sailing towards both China and North Korea, now that the Tomahawk missiles have rained down on Syria, now that the West will be sending thousands more mercenaries to one of the most devastated countries on Earth – Afghanistan. Survival and then the advancement of the world should be our greatest goal. I believe it and I stand by it. In time of absolute crises, which we are experiencing right now, it is irresponsible, almost grotesque, to simply ‘continue to live our daily lives’. Imperialism has to be stopped, once and for all, by all means. At the moment when the survival of humanity is at stake, the end justifies all means. Or as the motto of Chile goes: “By Reason Or By Force”. Of course, if those ‘who know’ do not act, if they are cowardly and opportunistically do nothing, from a universal perspective, nothing much will happen: one small planet in one of the so many galaxies will simply cease to exist. Most likely there are many inhabited planets in the universe, many civilizations. However, I happen to love this world and this particular Planet. I know it well, from the Southernmost tip all the way to the north. I know its deserts and valleys, mountains and oceans, its marvelous and touching creatures, its great cities as well as god-forsaken villages. I know its people. They have many faults; and much that could be condemned in them, and much that should be improved. But I still believe that there is more that could be admired in them than denounced. Now it is time to think, rationally and quickly, and then to act. No small patches will do, no ‘feel good’ actions. Only a total reset, overhaul. Call it the Revolution if you will, or simply C) and B). No matter how you define it, it would have to come rapidly, very rapidly, or there soon will be nothing to love, to defend, and to work for anymore. • Photos by Andre Vltchek http://clubof.info/