1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “Rudy Giuliani” – Google News: In photos: Colorado marks Columbine High School massacre, 20 years on – Axios

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

In photos: Colorado marks Columbine High School massacre, 20 years on  Axios

Community holds ceremony honoring those affected by the massacre.

“Rudy Giuliani” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): Palmer Report: Looks like Erik Prince is going down after all

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  


Of all the confusing aspects of the Mueller report, one of the strangest is the story of Erik Prince. Shortly before the report was released, Prince gave a public interview to Medhi Hasan, during which Prince appeared to confess to having lied under oath to Congress. This led to the widespread expectation that Mueller would indict him for perjury, as he’d done with Roger Stone. But then the report came out and nothing happened.



Things got even stranger when a footnote in the Mueller report revealed that Erik Prince had given a proffer interview to Robert Mueller’s team. Proffer interviews are generally a part of plea deal negotiations, yet no deal with Prince was ever announced. Did he get as far as the proffer, only to decide not to cut a deal? Did Mueller not like what Prince had to say? Of the fourteen mostly secret investigations that Mueller says he handed off to permanent federal prosecutors, is Prince caught up in any of them?



We still don’t know the answers to any of the above questions. But we do know that House Democrats are looking at referring Erik Prince to the DOJ for prosecution for perjury, according to the Washington Post. Considering that Prince has already basically confessed in public to perjury, this should be an easy conviction. Even if William Barr’s DOJ refuses to prosecute Prince right now, when a new regime takes over in January 2021, Prince would be prosecuted at that time.


What stands out here is that if Robert Mueller either cut a secret plea deal with Erik Prince that covered perjury, or if one of the still-secret ongoing criminal cases is against Prince, we’d expect Mueller’s team to have tipped off House Democrats about this before they went so far as to begin publicly talking about referring him for prosecution on a matter that might already be resolved, or already in play. The bottom line: one way or the other, it looks like Prince is going down after all.



The post Looks like Erik Prince is going down after all appeared first on Palmer Report.

Palmer Report

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “Russian Intelligence services and international organized crime” – Google News: FactCheck: What the Mueller report says about Russian contacts – TucsonSentinel.com

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

FactCheck: What the Mueller report says about Russian contacts  TucsonSentinel.com

After the 2016 election, Vice President-elect Pence was asked if there was “any contact in any way between [Donald] Trump or his associates and the Kremlin or …

“Russian Intelligence services and international organized crime” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

“wilbur ross” – Google News: Column: Supreme Court mulls citizenship question on census – Eagle-Tribune

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Column: Supreme Court mulls citizenship question on census  Eagle-Tribune

WASHINGTON — The oral arguments the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday will be more decorous than the gusts of judicial testiness that blew the case …

“wilbur ross” – Google News


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “Trump personality profile” – Google News: Scorched but standing — two symbols of the West – The Times

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Scorched but standing — two symbols of the West  The Times

‘Absolutely heartbreaking. A magnificent monument to western civilisation collapsing.” Thus wrote the mercurial young conservative Ben Shapiro last Monday …

“Trump personality profile” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): Lawfare – Hard National Security Choices: Some Questions for Attorney General Barr

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Consider the affirmative dismay with which lawyers are likely to view the actions of Attorney General Bill Barr. Even leaving aside the atmospherics of his recent performances (for example, the almost palpable disdain with which he treated the press at his press conference and the almost cloying way in which he defended Trump’s actions as the product of “frustration and anger”), Barr’s actions over the past month have left any reasonable observer with a number of questions about the quality of his legal performance.

To recall, Barr has gone on record twice in his handling of the release of the Mueller report—first in his letter to Congress in late March and then in his prepared remarks last week at the press conference releasing the report. It seems fair to hold Barr to account for the contents of these two prepared expositions in a way that it might, for example, be unfair to ask him to account for things he might have said in the spur of the moment. So here are a few questions that seem worth asking and that Congress might consider when Barr next appears before it to testify:

First, why prepare a summary letter at all?  The executive summaries prepared by the special counsel’s office are now public. And, as the New York Times has demonstrated, the excerpts of the report contained in Barr’s original summary letter are at best a favorable spin on the report and at worst a rather transparent effort to mislead the public in advance of the report’s release. Why engage in that sort of charade when ready-written summaries created by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team were available for release? Well, Barr has said that he was concerned that the report might contain grand jury material, noting that every page of the report was marked as having possibly contained such information.  And some Justice Department officials reiterated that to the New York Times, saying “the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential.” 

It’s now clear that this wasn’t, strictly speaking, completely true. To be sure, the report did have a blanket warning on the top of every page that it might contain grand jury material, and the two executive summaries to Volumes I and II did have some material relating to ongoing matters under investigation. But the report released last week after thorough review contained absolutely no redactions whatsoever in the Mueller summaries for grand jury material or classified information. So, again, the question for Barr is simple: Why not release the summaries themselves? And, relatedly, why edit the summaries in ways designed to mislead? Why have unnamed “officials” falsely claim to the Times that the summaries required redaction for grand jury or classified reasons when, as it turns out, they did not?  Is that just poor lawyering or something …. different?

Second, why let the president’s private attorneys see the Mueller report before everyone else? Barr has explained that he let the White House attorneys see the document for review of possible executive privilege claims and that at least makes some sense in the context of the existing legal structure. But why allow Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow and other private attorneys spend ten hours with the report before its public release? In his prepared remarks, Barr explained, “the president’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released.  That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.”

That seems to be a remarkably strange justification. The provisions of the Ethics in Government Act relating to independent counsels lapsed in 1999, almost 20 years ago. That law provided a statutory right for individuals named in a report by an independent counsel to review the portion related to them and comment on it. In the normal course of statutory interpretation, the fact that Congress chose not to renew a statutory right of this sort would provide a strong inference that the right no longer exists. Why and how is it that Barr could rely on practices from a now-defunct statute to justify his actions? And why was that right afforded only to President Trump’s attorneys and not to all the other individuals who were named in the report, as compliance with the expired act would seem to require? Why, contrary to the practice of the independent counsel act that he extolled, did Barr provide Trump’s lawyers (apparently) with access to the entire report, when the prior rule had been to provide a named individual only with access to the portions of the report that name him or her directly? Is all that just poor lawyering or something … different?

Third, a process question about Barr’s actions with respect to the obstruction investigation: Mueller declined to offer a prosecutive judgment about the president’s obstructive conduct. (I’ve already expressed my disappointment with how the special counsel handled the question of criminal culpability in the obstruction portion of his investigation.) His justification was that doing so was unfair in a context where indictment was prohibited by binding departmental policy. From this, the attorney general conlcuded that the special counsel “le[ft] it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitut[ed] a crime.” With that premise, Barr then went on to conclude that no crime had occurred.

But, of course, the special counsel’s report did no such thing. Mueller’s decision to reach no judgment on criminality might be an implicit invitation to the attorney general to make that judgment for him. But it also might be (and, indeed, more fairly should be) read to suggest that no such judgment is appropriate for any departmental employee or executive branch official. To put it more clearly, the Mueller report is replete with references to Congress’s impeachment power (at least 20 that I have counted) and can, in that regard, be read as an invitation to the Congress to consider whether the president’s conduct constitutes impeachable behavior. And it even has an explicit call out to future prosecutors to withhold judgment as to criminality and render a final determination after President Trump leaves office. But nowhere in the report (at least not that I have found yet) is there a similar call for the attorney general to make a contemporaneous judgment today as to how the matter ought to have been resolved.

Given that background, why did Barr decide to make a judgment when the exact same policy considerations that Mueller perceived as precluding his actions were applicable to the attorney general?  Is the attorney general not bound by the same departmental policy as the special counsel? Or does Barr read the policy as applying only to subordinate Justice Department lawyers and not to the attorney general? Perhaps Barr views the prohibition on judgment as a one-way ratchet, applicable only if the judgment is condemnatory and not (as his was) when it is exculpatory? If so, how would that distinction be justified as a matter of law? (And does that not mean, by inference, that the special counsel reached the opposite conclusion?)  Is this just poor lawyering or something … different?

Fourth, Barr has said that “the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation.” It’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but one might ask how he squares that conclusion with the special counsel’s own conclusion that Trump’s refusal to testify was not justified and that his written answers were inadequate. Is that just poor lawyering or something … different?

***

I could go on.  One could ask, for example, what standard of proof Barr used in deteriming that the evidence did not support an obstruction charge? Or what the basis was for his decision to reject the “substantial evidence” of obstruction found by the special counsel on a number of occasions? One could ask for legal support for the proposition that, as Barr suggested during his prepared remarks, being frustrated and angry at the existence of an investigation is evidence of a lack of corrupt motive.  Likewise, what legal support is there to suggest that unsuccessful efforts to obstruct are not criminal, or that the absence of an underlying crime means that obstruction can’t be proven? (For those following along, none of these are what the law actually says.)

In short, like many, I was willing to give Attorney General Barr the benefit of the doubt when he was appointed. His long history of service to America suggested a fidelity to the rule of law and a a belief in the value of the Department of Justice that would have been a welcome counterweight to the president’s own approach to law.Now, having watched Barr’s response to the Mueller report, much of the benefit of that doubt has dissipated. The attorney general has many questions to answer.

Lawfare – Hard National Security Choices

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): Lawfare – Hard National Security Choices: The Mueller Report Is a Challenge for Democracy to Solve

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

It would be hard to imagine a scenario that casts harsher light on the limits of American governance than the aftermath of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report—or one that demonstrates how lucky the country is that he chose to make the resulting mess a problem for democracy to solve.

Mature democracies must balance two contending imperatives. One is to permit regular and serious monitoring of government, especially the executive with its ever-expanding authorities. The other is to keep that monitoring from becoming just another mode of political opposition. This is especially fraught at a moment across the world in which political elites—inside and outside of government—are repeatedly scandalized by choices the people seem to be making at the ballot boxes. What if we creatively interpret Mueller’s handiwork as responding to precisely this dilemma?

In recent decades, Congress has mostly failed to create a durable monitoring regime. The 9/11 Commission—created by Congress by statute and with presidential approval to assess the failures that led to so much exposure to terrorist attack—is a rare counterexample to dithering, in part because it had bipartisan and cross-branch support. But since Watergate, Congress’s other attempts to learn the truth of various unsavory episodes itself have been spotty and uneven, especially when politics are polarized and truth is in the eye of the beholder. And so the country has regularly turned to special counsels, operating under different models of authority, to shine a light where the public needs illumination and when journalism is not enough.

The trouble is that special counsels, not least when they take seriously their charge of smoking out crimes, are not well situated to assess broader patterns of governance. And if they are partisan and reckless, like Ken Starr in his endless and wayward hunt for Bill Clinton’s criminality, they can suck up years of the country’s time (and spend a lot of its money) while bringing democratic self-governance to a screeching halt. Worst of all is the risk that the need to investigate criminal activity, sometimes at the highest levels, will become a pretext for opponents of a democratically elected president to thwart the people’s will. Audiences and commentators pining for two years for an easy out to Donald Trump’s presidency through a Mueller ex machina—even if many came to understand long ago that his report would never provide it—demonstrate that this risk is hardly a minor one.

In this situation, Mueller’s genius was to recognize, after he thoroughly investigated the matter, that sticking closely to what he could criminally charge would primarily expose not the president but the country’s failure to devise better institutions for such situations.
True, the bumbling charlatan of a president received Russian help throughout the campaign and his associates sidled up to Russian contacts, even if they were not competent to organize a serious conspiracy. The fact remains, of course, that bots hardly caused 60 million Americans to vote for Trump. It is also debatable how much they helped assemble the necessary voters in swing states, who need better parties and more plausible programs if they are not going to repeat their feckless behavior. Nor do Mueller’s revelations alter the reality that, in post-truth times, the Russia hack of the Democratic National Committee—though illegal in origins—revealed disturbing facts.

The already much-debated obstruction section of Mueller’s report is brilliantly constructed to allow various interpretations of what precisely the prosecutor thought when it comes to the president’s malfeasance. Mueller leaves it open to Congress to decide whether to impeach the president for obstruction of justice (or more if it can, especially since no federal official in American history has ever been impeached for obstruction alone). And, whatever his intentions, Mueller also allowed for Attorney General William Barr to conclude that one reason for Trump’s erratic and excessive attempts to put a stop to the investigation after it launched was that it was indeed shot through with the appearance and reality of partisans cheering it on and undermining the people’s choice – what Barr called the “sincere belief that the investigation was … propelled by his political opponents.” Neither Barr’s letter, nor the report itself, appears to have changed many people’s minds. And this suggests that Mueller was wise to conclude that the facts before him could not end polarization, but instead would only provide fodder for both sides.

Mueller probably flinched at outright identifying illegality on the president’s part or recommending impeachment, since the very job he was sent to do brought him to the brink of a fearful step in a democracy, even for a hard-bitten prosecutor. But perhaps he also saw opportunity in  the very fact that his report was going to be sucked into a partisan maelstrom. If you cannot acknowledge that it is enormously difficult for governance both to allow investigating elected authorities and to keep investigations from becoming politics by other means, then you are a partisan on one side or the other, uninterested in balancing these contending needs and finding better institutions for the future. Mueller’s approach was to leave the country to work it out, or live with the sad result.

Democrats in Congress could investigate further—or even just impeach Trump based on what Mueller revealed. But it is doubtful any Republicans will join either cause, for better or worse. More important, if Congressional sequels provide continuing distraction from the crying need in both parties to reorient themselves, it would be a tragedy. Mueller’s report can be read as an impeachment referral, but it is as much or more an act of democracy promotion, especially since impeachment is unlikely to achieve more than entrenchment of enmity and distraction from policy.

The power to arraign the president reflects the genuine risk of bad executive behavior. But treating the tools of constitutional governance—on however high-minded a principle—as an attack on political enemies as a pretext for avoiding hard looks at the policies that divide Americans is equally risky. So many already voted for Trump in full knowledge of his actions and character that it is unlikely that further emphasis on his corruption is a viable electoral strategy. Only finding out what a majority of voters really cares about is. This isn’t to say that there are no imaginable circumstances in which the best path would be to impeach or even indict the president. But Mueller appears to have concluded that the future of the country does not depend so much on doing so this time as on letting democracy do its work when it comes to Trump, and doing better in the future with squaring the circle of accountability and partisanship.

We can count ourselves fortunate that Mueller left us where we always ought to have known we are. Americans have a democracy, not only if we can keep it safe from threats, but also if we want to practice it by engaging with our fellow citizens. We also have a governance problem when it comes to those who win power along the way, if we ever want to solve it.

Lawfare – Hard National Security Choices

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

“Trump Investigations” – Google News: Democratic hopefuls demur on pursuing Trump post-White House – SF Gate

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Democratic hopefuls demur on pursuing Trump post-White House  SF Gate

AMHERST, N.H. (AP) — Some Democratic contenders for president aren’t saying whether they would re-open investigations into President Donald Trump if they …

“Trump Investigations” – Google News


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

Sites and Blogs – Updated on 4.13.19

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Global Security, FBI, Russia

  1. trumpinvestigations.org 
  2. trumpinvestigations.net 
  3. fbinewsreview.org 
  4. fbi-store.com 
  5. globalsecuritynews.org 
  6. russia-news.org 
  7. mass-shootings.org 
  8. lasvegas-shooting.org 

News and Times

New York News and Times

  1. nywnews.com 
  2. nywtimes.com 
  3. ny-wn.com 
  4. ny-wt.com 
  5. nywebt.com 
  6. nywebnews.com 
  7. nywebn.com 
  8. nywebtimes.com 
  9. newyorkwebnews.com 
  10. newyorkwebtimes.com 

Brooklyn News and Times
Puerto Rico News and Times
Gay Land
World News and Times
Guides
___________________

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “trump and intelligence community” – Google News: It’s up to Congress to prevent Russian interference from happening again – The Washington Post

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

It’s up to Congress to prevent Russian interference from happening again  The Washington Post

It will cost money to block Moscow’s future intrusions, but it’s well worth the expense.

“trump and intelligence community” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

“barr to investigate fbi” – Google News: NYT use actual ex-FBI agent to warn readers of Barr’s ‘Russian disinfo tactic’ (with Soviet imagery) – RT

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

NYT use actual ex-FBI agent to warn readers of Barr’s ‘Russian disinfo tactic’ (with Soviet imagery)  RT

The Mueller report didn’t just clear President Donald Trump of colluding with Russia, the New York Times said, it handed Russia’s Vladimir Putin the “ultimate …

“barr to investigate fbi” – Google News


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

“Mueller’s Russia investigation” – Google News: Controversial Steele dossier back in spotlight after Mueller report’s release – Fox News

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Controversial Steele dossier back in spotlight after Mueller report’s release  Fox News

With Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report now out in the open, attention is likely to return in coming weeks to the salacious and unverified anti-Trump …

“Mueller’s Russia investigation” – Google News


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

Trump digital operations from Michael_Novakhov (2 sites): “social media in trump campaign” – Google News: Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump – CNN

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump  CNN

Congress should launch impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump for welcoming Russian interference in the 2016 election and trying to obstruct the …

“social media in trump campaign” – Google News

Trump digital operations from Michael_Novakhov (2 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “Trump anxiety” – Google News: Massachusetts man gets probation for sending white powder to Trump’s sons, others – Honolulu Star-Advertiser

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Massachusetts man gets probation for sending white powder to Trump’s sons, others  Honolulu Star-Advertiser

BOSTON >> A Massachusetts man who sent threatening letters with white powder to President Donald Trump’s sons, Antonio Sabato Jr., Sen. Debbie Stabenow …

“Trump anxiety” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “trump authoritarianism” – Google News: Measure AA Tax: Oakland Mayor Schaaf Adopts Trump Authoritarianism – Oakland News Now

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Measure AA Tax: Oakland Mayor Schaaf Adopts Trump Authoritarianism  Oakland News Now

Measure AA Tax: Oakland Mayor Schaaf Adopts Trump Authoritarianism.

“trump authoritarianism” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

“Next customers: Flynn and Jr.” – Google News: Mueller report details how Russia interfered with 2016 presidential election – KTVU San Francisco

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Mueller report details how Russia interfered with 2016 presidential election  KTVU San Francisco

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report shows Russian operatives posing as Americans created fake social media accounts to post pro-Trump propaganda that …

“Next customers: Flynn and Jr.” – Google News


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “felix sater” – Google News: Analysis: ‘No recollection’ has been an often-used Trump res… – Duluth News Tribune

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Analysis: ‘No recollection’ has been an often-used Trump res…  Duluth News Tribune

President Donald Trump has bragged that he has “one of the great memories of all time.” But – when faced with questions from special counsel Robert Mueller III …

“felix sater” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

“2016 Presidential Election Investigation” – Google News: Armed with Mueller report, Democrats confront challenge of Trump’s messaging machine – The Washington Post

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Armed with Mueller report, Democrats confront challenge of Trump’s messaging machine  The Washington Post

Democratic House leaders and presidential candidates are taking different approaches.

“2016 Presidential Election Investigation” – Google News


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): Palmer Report: The Mueller report was a vindication – for the media

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

For those of us who read it (or read much of it, anyway), there’s a reason the Mueller report felt like a summary of what we already learned over the last two years. The mainstream media spent that time reporting on Donald Trump’s scandals, which was decried as “fake news” by Trump and his drooling acolytes, turned out to all be accurate news in the final analysis, thanks to the details revealed in the Mueller Report.


In the end, all that the Washington Post and New York Times had to go on were mere reporters and their sources. But Robert Mueller was able to draw on a vast nexus of government law enforcement agencies and organizations, wiretaps and discrete surveillance, top secret memos and emails, firsthand government sources and direct testimony. And Mueller came to the nearly exact same conclusions as the so-called fake news.



So let’s have no more tolerating of this “fake news” crap. These paranoid conspiracy-mongers have been exposed at last. The criers of “fake news” can’t have it both ways. They can’t simultaneously embrace, however disingenuously, the Mueller report, and disparage the news sources who have been writing the same thing for the preceding two years. Reality doesn’t work that way.



Take the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower, for instance. It was (hilariously, at first) “explained” as a straightforward conversation about adoption of Russian children, and any pundits who suggested otherwise were condemned as fake news. It was not about adoption of Russian babies, of course. It was about receiving stolen information that had been altered so as to be condemnatory of Hillary Clinton. Trump later confessed as much, after belligerently insisting that it’s “totally legal and done all the time in politics.” In other words, he lied about it to begin with. In other words, Trump was the only source of fake news.


The real purveyors of fake news are Donald Trump and the blithering morons who still think he’s the messiah. Once you’re caught in nine thousand lies, you have lost the right to call anyone a liar or “fake news.” The Mueller report has exposed, finally and for all time, we should hope, that the mainstream media was telling the truth all along – and that Donald Trump, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway and Trump’s millions of liegemen are the actual traffickers in fake news.



The post The Mueller report was a vindication – for the media appeared first on Palmer Report.

Palmer Report

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): “analysis of trump electorate” – Google News: Can The Buttigieg Boomlet Last? – Outside The Beltway – Mobile Edition

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Can The Buttigieg Boomlet Last?  Outside The Beltway – Mobile Edition

Pete Buttigieg is getting a lot of attention for a relatively unknown candidate. but it’s unclear if it can last.

“analysis of trump electorate” – Google News

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •  

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites): Politics: To Trump administration, immigrants working in legal marijuana industry lack ‘moral character’ for citizenship

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Federal officials issued a guidance Friday clarifying that working with or using marijuana could be grounds for losing chance for citizenship.

Politics

1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (197 sites)


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  • 3
  •