Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Monday, June 18, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
THE LIBERTY DAILY
Devin Nunes Shakes Up DC: We’re ‘Getting Close’ to Impeaching Rod Rosenstein!!
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/nunes-shakes-up-dc-were-getting-close-to-impeaching-rosenstein/
Bill Clinton ‘son’ calls for ‘dad’ to take paternity test
BY KYLE OLSON
Danney Williams still wants to have a relationship with the man he calls his “dad.”
This Father’s Day, Williams, who says Bill Clinton is his father, is backing calls for Clinton to undergo a paternity test to prove — or disprove — his assertion.
Danney Williams ✔@danney_williamsRetweet!
Carl Barvensky Paul@c_barvensky
Replying to @WhiteHouse @realDonaldTrump
Mr. President
2:44 PM - Jun 17, 2018
“Retweet!” Williams tweeted, sharing a post from Carl Barvensky Paul, who urged President Trump to use his “presidential power” to get Clinton to do a DNA test.
“I’m willing to pay for the test including a $20k donation on your next campaign,” he said.
He retweeted a tweet from Right Chick, who urged Clinton take a paternity test.
Right 
Chick@needmorejavaOn this Father's Day, have you thought about taking a paternity test? In doing so, one of two things will happen:
1. Finally legitimize & acknowledge your son @danney_williams.
OR
2. Put the rumors to rest forever.#BillClintonSon #ClintonKid
OR
2. Put the rumors to rest forever.#BillClintonSon #ClintonKid
Bill Clinton ✔@BillClinton
On this Father’s Day I’m thinking of the thousands of children separated from their parents at the border. These children should not be a negotiating tool. And reuniting them with their families would reaffirm America’s belief in & support for all parents who love their children.
On this Father’s Day I’m thinking of the thousands of children separated from their parents at the border. These children should not be a negotiating tool. And reuniting them with their families would reaffirm America’s belief in & support for all parents who love their children.
“In doing so,” she wrote, “one of two things will happen:
1. Finally legitimize & acknowledge your son @danney_williams.
OR
2. Put the rumors to rest forever
She included the hashtags “#BillClintonSon” and “#ClintonKid”.
Appearing at the National Press Club shortly before the 2016 election, Williams made an emotional plea to Clinton intern and lover Monica Lewinsky, but also to the people he says are his family.
“I also want to take this opportunity to appeal to my step-mom, Hillary Clinton,” Williams said.
“She has the power to have Bill Clinton provide a DNA sample,” which Williams is attempting to secure through threatened legal action.
“I heard Hillary say she spent her life helping children. If black lives truly matter to her, why not mine?” he said.
“Why don’t you care about me, Hillary? Are you embarrassed about me? Hillary, are you ashamed of me? I am black, I am real,” he said, appearing to fight back tears.
“Hillary, please don’t deny my existence. You are my step-mother, Chelsea is my sister, Bill Clinton is my father,” Williams said.
“Please just step up at this time and treat me like the equal member of your family.
“I heard her say before it takes a village to raise a kid, I just want her to accept me in her village today,” Williams said.
In a letter to her attorneys, Williams is asking for access to the notorious blue dress Lewinsky was wearing when she was with Bill Clinton in the White House.
“There is one other way the question of whether Bill Clinton is my father would be by obtaining a small, complete and valid DNA sample from your blue dress, which multiple news sources reported has been preserved,” Williams wrote to Lewinsky, according to a letter posted by InfoWars.
“I respectfully request you provide the sample of genetic matter we require so that we may match it with my own sample.”
In another part of the letter, Williams attempted to strike a kinship with Lewinsky.
“I was not surprised to learn that Hillary called you a ‘stalker’ and much, much worse. Hillary Clinton abused us both. I call out to you for your help,” he wrote.
No Clinton — Bill, Hillary or Chelsea — have acknowledged Williams’ existence.
Report: FBI didn’t pursue Hillary investigation because there were too many crimes
Report: FBI didn’t pursue Hillary investigation because there were too many crimes
Photo via Fox News Twitter Video ScreenshotWhen a law enforcement agency throws up its hands because there’s simply too much wrongdoing, you know there is something incredibly wrong with the justice system in this country.
But that is exactly what happened when the FBI failed to investigate staff members of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
The Admission
The Justice Department inspector general report on the Clinton email investigation has as many shocking revelations as a Tom Clancy novel.
The report slams leadership in the FBI for being blatantly negligent and inadequate in its performance during the investigation.
It also makes it plainly clear that former FBI Director James Comey’s agency was operating under the pretense that Clinton was going to win — and all of this would have just been swept under the rug anyway.
But sandwiched in between all of that is the fact the FBI simply did not do its job.
The report openly admits specific devices were never checked because the FBI was afraid of how much information would be revealed and the vastness of the devices it would have to check.
The agency also came to the conclusion that all would be best served by the State Department conducting an internal investigation.
How Can That Be?
Let that sink in for a moment…
A massive FBI investigation was ordered, and rather than do their job, the agency decided to kick the investigation back to the agency that was being investigated.
This might be acceptable if there was just one person being investigated.
However, as the report states, the violations of policy were so vast that dozens of people in the agency more than likely violated protocol for the handling of classified documents.
This would be like coming home to three guilty-looking children and a broken window and asking them to investigate who broke it and get back to you with the answer.
Anyone challenging President Donald Trump’s statement that he has been completely vindicated in the firing both Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe after seeing that report has a serious case of the crazies.
Not only was Trump vindicated in terminating them both, but charges should be filed against them.
In addition, that report leaves no doubt there needs to be a real investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal. The FBI clearly failed us on this one.
Billionaire Clinton, Obama Crony Caught in Massive Fraud Scandal
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
Billionaire Clinton, Obama Crony Caught in Massive Fraud Scandal
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
In October of 2015, Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO of medical device startup Theranos, declared that “Every time you see a glass ceiling there’s an ‘iron woman’ underneath it.” America had every reason to believe she was one of them.
She was the “self-made billionaire” head of a company that was valued at $9 billion, which was at one point more than Uber or Spotify. Its Edison platform promised a revolutionary blood test that only required a finger prick as opposed to blood drawn from a vein. Bill Clinton interviewed her with Alibaba founder Jack Ma in an event for the Clinton Global Initiative. Barack Obama appointed her as a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship. She raised money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run.
On Friday, Holmes was indicted on wire fraud charges by federal prosecutors in the Northern District of California. Theranos is very close to being liquidated, basically having lapsed into “Enron 2: Electric Boogaloo.”
As it turned out, its “revolutionary platform” could barely perform a few of the 240 tests the company had promised, and even then it didn’t perform them well. As Vanity Fair reports, Holmes, 34, could be spending decades in jail, all because the company she started in 2003 after dropping out of Stanford apparently turned out to be little more than a way to spend investors’ dollars, poorly.
“According to the indictment, Holmes and (Theranos COO and president Ramesh) Balwani used advertisements and solicitations to encourage and induce doctors and patients to use Theranos’s blood testing laboratory services, even though the defendants knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests,” a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office read. “The tests performed on Theranos technology, in addition, were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results.”
“The indictment alleges that the defendants used a combination of direct communications, marketing materials, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other information to defraud potential investors. Specifically, the defendants claimed that Theranos developed a revolutionary and proprietary analyzer that the defendants referred to by various names, including as the TSPU, Edison, or minilab. The defendants claimed the analyzer was able to perform a full range of clinical tests using small blood samples drawn from a finger stick. The defendants also represented that the analyzer could produce results that were more accurate and reliable than those yielded by conventional methods — all at a faster speed than previously possible.”
In addition to the criminal indictment, Holmes has already agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission for fraud in an agreement that mandated she not be able to head a public company for 10 years. (Theranos is a privately held company, although Holmes stepped down as CEO on Friday after her indictment.)
So, how did Elizabeth Holmes sucker so many people? It’s worth noting that this is a bipartisan scandal in many ways. Before he became defense secretary, James Mattis served on Theranos’ board, as did former Reagan administration Secretary of State George Shultz. (Shultz’s grandson was one of the whistleblowers on Theranos’ alleged illegal activity, according to The Wall Street Journal.) According to The New York Times, media mogul Rupert Murdoch and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos lost huge amounts of money in the enterprise.
However, each of them seemed to have been taken either by the science behind Theranos’ device or the possible applications for it (in the case of Shultz and Mattis) or because it represented a prime investment opportunity (in the case of Murdoch and DeVos).
When it comes to the Clintons and Obama, however, things get a bit murkier.
It probably won’t surprise you, given that she helmed a Silicon Valley startup, that Holmes was a Clinton donor. Not only that, but Hillary Clinton had planned to host a fundraiser at Theranos until media attention forced her to host it elsewhere. (Even liberals were embarrassed.) The planned $2,700 a head event was to feature Chelsea Clinton, but apparently even the media couldn’t ignore the fact that she was hosting an event at a company that was under federal investigation.
“(The event) is not connected to a specific company or policy, but a chance to talk directly to women in tech,” Clinton’s campaign said at the time, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “We frequently send initial invitations while host committees are still being formed and locations finalized. This was never a health care event and the location wasn’t set. It will not be at Theranos.”
That was hardly the only contact that the Clintons had with her, however. When Bill Clinton interviewed Holmes in 2015 for his Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, he noted that she started the company when she was only 19.
“Don’t worry about the future, we’re in good hands,” Clinton said. Holmes, for her part, talked about bringing “equality” to health care.
President Obama went even further than the Clintons in embracing Holmes. In 2015, he invited the CEO to the White House, where he made her a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship. If you’re wondering what a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship does, it’s stuff like this PSA:
So, what’s the overarching point here? Why would the Clintons and the Obama administration get so involved with Holmes? We don’t necessarily impugn their judgment on her company’s viability, inasmuch as almost nobody knew it was a fraud.
On the other hand, they didn’t really seem to care whether it was or not. Hillary Clinton’s campaign wanted to hold a campaign event at Theranos well after it became clear, thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, that the company was suspected at least of some very shady things.
The fact was that Elizabeth Holmes was a Democrat’s dream.
Here was a young, millennial woman CEO saying all the right things about breaking the glass ceiling and instituting “equality “in health care. So what if her product was promising things that seemed impossible? So what if her company was under investigation? After all, she just brushed it off as the ossified medical establishment coming after her company. She was great copy.
And so, in a way deeper than Theranos’ investors or board members did, they co-signed Holmes’ reputation as the next Steve Jobs. The great thing for the Democrat mind was that the next Jobs came in a package that echoed all of their political prejudices. Or, in a kind of corruption of philosophy and politics that’s worse — and deeper — than financial misdealing, was it that she was the next Steve Jobs because she echoed all of their political preferences?
We’ll probably never know the answer to that chicken-or-egg question. We do know one thing for sure, however:
If only the Clintons and Obama had waited a little while, they’d have figured out they were dealing not with a Steve Jobs but instead a Kenneth Lay.
Global Warming Consensus Takes Another Hit: Antarctica Still Gaining Ice
Is Antarctica melting or is it gaining ice? A recent paper claims Antarctica’s net ice loss has dramatically increased in recent years, but forthcoming research will challenge that claim.
NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally first challenged the “consensus” on Antarctica in 2015 when he published a paper showing ice sheet growth in eastern Antarctica outweighed the losses in the western ice sheet.
Zwally will again challenge the prevailing narrative of how global warming is affecting the South Pole. Zwally said his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.
Much like in 2015, Zwally’s upcoming study will run up against the so-called “consensus,” including a paper published by a team of 80 scientists in the journal Nature on Wednesday. The paper estimates that Antarctic is losing, on net, more than 200 gigatons of ice a year, adding 0.02 inches to annual sea level rise.
“Basically, we agree about West Antarctica,” Zwally told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “East Antarctica is still gaining mass. That’s where we disagree.”
Reported ice melt is mostly driven by instability in the western Antarctic ice sheet, which is being eaten away from below by warm ocean water. Scientists tend to agree ice loss has increased in western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula has increased.
Measurements of the eastern ice sheet, however, are subject to high levels of uncertainty. That’s where disagreements are.
“In our study East Antarctic remains the least certain part of Antarctica for sure,” Andrew Shepherd, the study’s lead author and professor at the University of Leeds in England, told TheDCNF.
“Although there is relatively large variability over shorter periods, we don’t detect any significant long-term trend over 25 years,” Shepherd said.
However, Zwally’s working on a paper that will show the eastern ice sheet is expanding at a rate that’s enough to at least offset increased losses the west.
The ice sheets are “very close to balance right now,” Zwally said. He added that balance could change to net melting in the future with more warming.
So, why is there such a big difference between Zwally’s research and what 80 scientists recently published in the journal Nature?
There are several reasons for the disagreement, but the biggest is how researchers make what’s called a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), which takes into account the movement of the Earth under ice sheets.
Scientists use models to measure the movement of land mass in response to changes the ice sheet sitting on top. For example, Zwally said eastern Antarctica’s land mass has been going down in response to ice sheet mass gains.
That land movement affects ice sheet data, especially in Antarctica where small errors in GIA can yield big changes ice sheet mass balance — whether ice is growing or shrinking. There are also differences in how researchers model firn compaction and snowfall accumulation.
“It needs to be known accurately,” Zwally said. “It’s an error of being able to model. These are models that estimate the motions of the Earth under the ice.”
Zwally’s 2015 study said an isostatic adjustment of 1.6 millimeters was needed to bring satellite “gravimetry and altimetry” measurements into agreement with one another.
Shepherd’s paper cites Zwally’s 2015 study several times, but only estimates eastern Antarctic mass gains to be 5 gigatons a year — yet this estimate comes with a margin of error of 46 gigatons.
Zwally, on the other hand, claims ice sheet growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year.
Shepherd’s recently published paper found Antarctica lost 219 billion tons of ice from 2012 to 2017, about triple what annual ice mass loss was in the previous decade.
“There are several potential reasons for the remaining disagreement among the various satellite techniques, such as the models we use to account for snowfall and glacial isostatic adjustment,” Shepherd told TheDCNF.
“But the ice losses we detect in West Antarctica are highly accurate, and outstrip by far the signal or uncertainty in East Antarctica,” he said.
Zwally said the ice sheets are reacting to climate warming, the question is when receding started and how far it would go.
Burning question in DC: Why does Peter Strzok still have a job at FBI?
by Daniel Chaitin
Burning question in DC: Why does Peter Strzok still have a job at FBI?
by Daniel Chaitin
Peter Strzok worked in a senior capacity on both the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.(Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)
A burning question in Washington right now is why Peter Strzok, a top FBI agent who demonstrated anti-Trump bias, still has a job at the agency.
"Why is Peter Strzok still working at the FBI?" Rep Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Saturday on Fox News after a bombshell Justice Department inspector general report showed Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having an affair, talked about how they might "stop" then-candidate Donald Trump from becoming president.
The watchdog report showed Page wrote to Strzok in August 2016, asking “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok responded: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
The IG concluded that Strzok’s text, along with other disparaging messages, “is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” The text messages “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the watchdog report added
Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred his findings on Strzok to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility for possible disciplinary measures.
Strzok worked in a senior capacity on both the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Strzok was removed from the Mueller probe after it was discovered he and Page exchanged anti-Trump, pro-Clinton messages. While Page quit in May, Strzok, who was demoted, still remains.
Some, like famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz, are outright perturbed by Strzok and Page's apparent intent to meddle in an election and he questioned why Strzok remains at the bureau.
"You're not allowed to try to use your office to stop somebody from being elected president of the United States," Dershowitz said on Fox News on Sunday.
Meanwhile, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., openly wondered whether someone tried to suppress Page's text in that exchange, as "Strzok's "We'll stop it" reply had already surfaced before the IG report.
"You have to understand because that text message is so damaging and shows intent and shows the context of all the other text messages that surround that text message and it's at the beginning of the investigation, you have to ask yourself, did somebody actually try to remove that text message from the FBI?" Nunes asked on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. "I think the answer -- it's hard for the American people not to believe that was not removed on purpose."
On the Democratic side of the debate, there is ambivalence.
Asked Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" if Strzok should still be at the FBI at this point, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., replied, "I don't know."
"I imagine that the Office of Professional Responsibility will have to make that decision," he continued. "Certainly these texts messages are very troubling. The fact they were on a work email, the fact that they were commingled with emails discussing business, all that's problematic. Again, you know the IG concluded that none of this affected decision making. But nonetheless, that was completely inappropriate."
With all the uncertainty up in the air, lawmakers will be able to grill FBI Director Christopher Wray about this very topic and others this week when he testifies along with Horowitz before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Wray defended the FBI at large on Thursday amid fallout from the IG report, stressing "nothing in the report impugns the integrity of our workforce as a whole, or the FBI as an institution." He did acknowledge that "a small number of FBI employees connected with" the events detailed in the report.
Lawmakers may also soon get a crack at Strzok himself, whose lawyer this weekend said his client will voluntarily appear and testify before any congressional panel that invites him. His testimony was already being sought after by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
A member of that committee is Jordan, who on Saturday gave a preview of the line of questioning he would press upon Strzok if given the opportunity.
Calling Strzok a "key player," Jordan said he'd want to grill Strzok on the "sequence" of events that coincided with text messages he shared with Page, including one in the summer of 2016 about a week after the authorization of the Russia investigation om which he discussed an "insurance policy" that Republicans wonder was aimed at a Trump presidency.
Jordan also said he would want to walk through the sequence all the way through the Sept. 2 text where Page talks about preparing talking points because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." The president at the time was Barack Obama.
"The operative word there is 'everything.' So I would want to walk-through that sequence," Jordan said.
Democratic Lawmaker: Obama Admin Kept Child Migrant Crisis ‘Very Quiet’
Democratic Lawmaker: Obama Admin Kept Child Migrant Crisis ‘Very Quiet’
Jim Ruymen/UPI
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) claimed in an interview Saturday that the Obama administration tried to cover up the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the United States’ southern border.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) claimed in an interview Saturday that the Obama administration tried to cover up the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the United States’ southern border.
“It was kept very quiet under the Obama Administration. There were large numbers of people coming in. The Obama administration was trying to keep this quiet,” the Texas Democrat told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield on Saturday.
According to data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, nearly 70,000 unaccompanied minors crossed the southern border in fiscal year (FY) 2014—the period between October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014.
Cuellar’s comments come after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealed Friday that nearly 2,000 children had been separated from their guardians at the U.S. border in the past six weeks. The agency revealed the number of children being separated as the Trump administration began its “zero tolerance” policy in prosecuting illegal aliens.
“We still see the numbers,” Cuellar said. “Not all of them are being separated. Some of them are coming alone.”
DHS officials said 1,995 children had been separated from adults while trying to enter the U.S. along the border between April 19 and May 31. Children who are separated from the adults accompanying them across the border are often sent to shelters that provide food, medical care, housing, counseling, and other services to the migrant children. The shelters are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Cuellar suggested that some adults who are not legal guardians of the children they carry over the border take advantage of the separation policy.
“Keep in mind that under the law, you can separate a child if that person, the adult, is not the real parent or the custodian because sometimes we see situations where they’ll bring a child because they know of the policy that we have over here with children,” Cuellar said.
Thousands Of American Children Are Separated From Parents Put In Prison Every Year
The plight of children who accompany their parents crossing the border into the United States illegally has captured the attention of the press.
By Bre Payton
The plight of children who accompany their parents crossing the border into the United States illegally has captured the attention of the press this week. Politicians and media types have loudly decried the longtime practice of sending children into foster care or other temporary housing situations, while their parents are detained until the U.S. government can determine their fate.
Next week, Congress is set to vote on a Republican immigration bill with a provision that would reportedly end this practice. But this policy change would likely result in the children being sent to adult detention centers with their parents — a fate that is arguably worse than being sent elsewhere.
If the House bill passed, the Trump administration probably would stop separating families. Instead, it would be able to keep children and parents in ICE detention until their cases were resolved — that is, they could be in held in detention indefinitely.
If children are not separated from their parents who are being detained for entering the U.S. illegally, of course they will be sent to the detention centers. Ending the practice of separating a child from his or her parent would result in these children being held in custody along with their parents.
Putting a child in temporary housing or foster care when their parent engages in illegal activity is standard practice — even for U.S. citizens. A bit of information that’s been largely ignored is that there are an unknown number of American children who’ve been separated from their parents and placed in foster care when their parents are incarcerated.
As The Daily Caller’s Saagar Enjeti points out, an estimated 20,939 American children were put in foster care when a parent was incarcerated in 2016, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That accounts for about eight percent of the total number of children who entered the foster care system that same year.
Thanks to reader I found them. In Fiscal Year 2016, approx 21,000 US Children were placed in foster care b/c of parent incarceration, roughly 10X the number of separated children at the border per the AP's latest number. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport24.pdf …
Saagar Enjeti ✔@esaagar
Does anyone know where to find the stats on the number of American children currently in the foster care system because their parents/parent is incarcerated?
Does anyone know where to find the stats on the number of American children currently in the foster care system because their parents/parent is incarcerated?
Saagar Enjeti ✔@esaagarThanks to reader I found them. In Fiscal Year 2016, approx 21,000 US Children were placed in foster care b/c of parent incarceration, roughly 10X the number of separated children at the border per the AP's latest number. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport24.pdf … https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1007689837586059266 …
If you factor in other criminal behavior the number skyrockets. Drug abuse accounts for approx 100k, Physical abuse 33k, Neglect is 166k pic.twitter.com/PmKj00RnDp
In 2015, an estimated 21,006 children were placed in foster care due to parental incarceration. Earlier reports do not include this number. You can find reports for each year dating back to 2003 here.
Ultimately, a parent is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of his or her child, and if a parent has made the decision to cross the border and enter the U.S. illegally, they — not the Trump administration — are putting their children at risk and at the mercy of ICE. These risks may be less dangerous that the violence they face in their home countries, but it is a risk nonetheless.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/06/www_18.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment