Recent Posts
As Fox News is forced to reassess its role in American political life, it might ask the question, is this White House about Trump or about the movement he stands for, call it Trumpism? There's a difference. It's the same question millions of voters who supported Donald Trump will soon want the answer to.
For the past couple of decades Fox News has dominated the American cable landscape by successfully combining a coherent conservative ideology with top quality television visuals. The political ideology is talked about a lot and was driven by one man, Roger Ailes who became founding CEO of the channel in 1996. His talent for TV is mentioned less often.
This piece is not about the sexual harassment allegations against Bill O'Reilly or Fox's role in putting women in overly sexual roles on air - that's the dark side of Roger Ailes' knack for producing seductive TV.
When I praise Fox's visuals, I'm thinking of the graphics, the maps, the movement, the speed with which they get video up on air and the relentless determination to make sure the screen didn't look dull, even for a single moment.
The network was revolutionary. Yes, Fox could be lampooned for being too whiz-bang, but don't fool yourself, every other TV producer looked at what Mr Ailes was doing back in the 1990s and they were awestruck. They quickly followed suit as far as their own budgets allowed. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Now Fox faces a different challenge, how to respond to the man in the White House, and the answer to that lies in the broader determination of what this presidency is really about.
Donald Trump was elected to be a champion of the "forgotten men and women" of America. That was his populist promise. He would revive their economic fortunes and return power to the people.
To do so, he promised to be tough on the countries that had stolen those jobs - primarily China. It was a "currency manipulator", he railed, which "raped" America, didn't play fair and should be slapped with 40% tariffs.
In the old steel mill towns of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and even Wisconsin, they nodded with relief. Finally here was someone who said what they had been thinking for years. It was time to get bearish on Beijing. That's a pretty good example of Trumpism.
Candidate Trump ignored the wise old foreign policy hands who said that this strategy was unrealistic and that it would alienate China's co-operation on other issues, namely North Korea. With the arch-populist Steve Bannon whispering in his ear, Mr Trump continued to say what the people wanted to hear, he promised not to be afraid of anyone, not to compromise on their beliefs and always to put America first. The slogans won him the White House.
But once he actually got into the Oval Office and sat behind that historic desk, two things happened to undermine that commitment. First, Mr Trump realised that the world was a lot more complicated than he'd taken time as a candidate to learn. The old hands were right, he did need China to help deal with Kim Jong-un and he wouldn't get that help if he slapped them with tariffs or started a currency war. Second, his approval ratings fell, dramatically.
Although Mr Trump has seen a recent uptick in his poll numbers in the past couple of weeks, he is still at historic lows. This was embarrassing to a man who routinely spent a lot of time in his campaign speeches touting his impressive poll numbers. It was also embarrassing to his family.
The Trumps have built their brand on success. Failure was not a popular option in the family. Inside the White House, the president's daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law, Jared, realise that for Mr Trump to succeed, Trumpism may have to go. Or at least, be substantially sidelined. The two liberal, cosmopolitan New York Democrats had never been particularly wedded to the hellfire-and-brimstone vision of America that Steve Bannon described in the lines of Mr Trump's inaugural address. Neither of them are natural working-class populists.
As they both formally expanded their roles and their presence in their father's administration, a shift occurred away from protecting the ideology to protecting the man. The risk for Mr Trump is that these policy shifts - on China, the Export Import bank, the currency, Nato - risk disappointing his base.
The latest polls show Mr Trump scoring very badly on questions like "shares my values" or "cares about people like me". Many of these people really want Mr Trump to deliver on his campaign promises, not abandon them.
This is where Fox News comes in. Fox did well out of the Trump campaign. It was firmly in the president's camp and his frequent interviews with the network helped drive ratings which helped drive ad revenue. Throughout the Obama years, Fox was the insurgent network of opposition. Now it needs a new role.
It can be a mouthpiece of the Trump administration (though supporting the government doesn't make for the most gripping cable TV.) Or Fox can stick to its conservative roots and champion Trumpism, even when the man himself does not.
Read the whole story
· · ·
French election dates: Why are there two votes? How does the two-round system work?
Express.co.uk - 16 minutes ago
Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron will go head-to head this Sunday April 23 in the first round of the French elections. The two candidates are leading in the latest polls, going neck-to-neck on their diametrically opposed campaigns. Mrs Le Pen will aim ...
Euro Latest: EUR holding multi-month lows against the pound despite French election bets
Express.co.uk - 38 minutes ago
He is socially liberal, whereas his opponent, close to Roman Catholic traditionalists, opposed gay marriage and wants to limit gay adoption. “Mr Fillon would impose immigration quotas and end sanctions against Russia; Mr Macron exhorts the French to ...
Who's Who In France's Wild Presidential Election
WFAE - 41 minutes ago
Macron has never been elected to public office. He says he is neither left nor right, and says the traditional parties don't have the answers for 21st century problems. The self-proclaimed progressive says he wants to make France innovative and to ...
 France's Presidential Vote on Sunday: Why It Matters
New York Times - 57 minutes ago
French voters will go to the polls on Sunday for the first round of presidential elections. In the wake of electoral upheavals around the world, including the victory of Donald J. Trump and Britain's decision to leave the European Union, the vote is ...
|
Read the whole story
· ·
The first round of voting, which takes place on Sunday April 23, is set to be a closely-fought battle between the four major candidates.
Marine Le Pen is running on an anti-EU platform and has vowed to clamp down on immigration in an attempt to make France “more French”.
The latest opinion polls put her neck-and-neck with former Finance Minister Emmanuel Macron – who is running under the independent banner En Marche!
With as much as 20 per cent of French voters still undecided, both candidates face competition from far-left socialist Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who has stormed ahead in the polls in recent weeks, and ex-Prime Minister Francois Fillon.
Mr Fillon was initially at the top of the polls but his position has crumbled ever since he he was accused of paying his wife for work that she didn’t do. He has denied all allegations.
After Sunday’s vote, the top two candidates will progress to a run-off which takes place on Sunday May 7.
Latest French election odds:
Marine Le Pen is currently predicted to win the first round of the elections with Betfair odds of 10/11.
More than £11 million have already been put forward in bets, with the highest placed on Mrs Le Pen with £12,500 at 4.2
Poll favourite Emmanuel Macron has been given 15/89 odds to win the first round, but is the favourite to win the presidency.
Betfair spokesperson Naomi Totten said: "There is plenty of action on the political markets, with £1.5m matched on the Next French President market alone this week.
“The big moves have been from Jean-Luc Mélenchon who is now trading at 11/1 but was backed as short as 7/1 on the weekend.
“Fillon has also come back into the running and is now second favourite ahead of Le Pen.
“The market is likely to see a boost in activity on Thursday, with each of the main candidates taking part in a live television interview in the absence of the cancelled live debate.”
Latest odds on the next President of France:
Emmanuel Macron – 21/20
François Fillon – 100/30
Marine Le Pen – 4/1
Jean-Luc Mélenchon – 11/1
Francois Aseelineau – 119/1
Benoît Hamon – 899/1
Latest odds on to win the First Round:
Marine Le Pen – 10/11
Emmanuel Macron – 15/8
François Fillon – 17/2
Jean-Luc Mélenchon – 18/1
Benoît Hamon – 999/1
French election polls
Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron are neck-and-neck at 22 and 23 per cent each, according to the latest poll from PrésiTrack OpinionWay / ORPI pour Les Echos et Radio Classique.
Francois Fillon is close behind on 20 per cent, with far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon on 19 per cent.
If Mr Macron and Mrs Le Pen win the first round, Mr Macron is predicted to win 65 per cent of the final vote.
Read the whole story
· · ·
What you need to know about the French election
Washington Post-7 hours ago
This weekend, France will begin the process of selecting its next president. Sunday's vote is one of several major elections in Western Europe ...
The final countdown: Here's how France's presidential election will ...
International-The Local France-Apr 19, 2017
International-The Local France-Apr 19, 2017
Can the Muslim vote sway the French elections?
Opinion-<a href="http://Aljazeera.com" rel="nofollow">Aljazeera.com</a>-3 hours ago
Opinion-<a href="http://Aljazeera.com" rel="nofollow">Aljazeera.com</a>-3 hours ago
French police find bombs, make arrests over 'planned presidential ...
International-FRANCE 24-Apr 18, 2017
International-FRANCE 24-Apr 18, 2017
Read the whole story
· · ·
Two issues are paramount in American politics. The first is whether President Trump will get away with his arrogant dismissal of the public’s right to a transparent government free of corrupting conflicts of interest. The second is whether those who would hold him to account remain focused, mobilized and determined.
They are related. There are many reasons to stand against Trump, but the one that should take precedence — because it is foundational for decent governance — is his autocratic assumption that he is above the expectations that apply to us normal humans.
Should Trump separate himself completely from his business interests, as presidents had been doing for more than four decades? His implicit message is always: No, I can do what I want.
opinions
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
post_newsletter348
follow-orlando
true
after3th
false
Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Should he release his income-tax returns so the public can see where conflicts might exist — including whether he will benefit from his own tax proposals? No, he says, I can do what I want.
Should he continue former president Barack Obama’s practice of making the White House visitor logs public so all can know who might be influencing his policies? No, he says, I can do what I want — including shutting down access to those logs and telling citizens to go stuff it if they claim any right to know what’s going on in the building they collectively own.
(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
President Trump on April 16 issued two tweets in which he criticized protesters who marched the day before to demand that he release his tax returns. President Trump on April 16 issued two tweets in which he criticized protesters who marched the day before to demand that he release his tax returns.(Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Should he stop turning the presidency into a permanent and profitable vacation by spending one out of every five minutes at Mar-a-Lago or nearby golf courses, as The Post’s Philip Bump reported? Should we know the full cost of his gallivanting and how many of the millions of dollars involved are circulating back to his family through the charges Trump’s resorts impose on the government? No, he says, I can do what I want.
Should we know why it is that, according to The Post’s Greg Miller, Trump “appears increasingly isolated within his own administration” in calling for warmer relations with Russia even as almost everyone else in his government issues “blistering critiques of Moscow”? Should he disclose details of his business ties to Russian interests and oligarchs? Should he stop resisting investigations into whether his campaign was complicit in Russia’s interference in the election that made him president? No, he says, I can do what I want.
And then there was Sunday’s referendum in Turkey (whose outcome the opposition says was rigged) that narrowly approved constitutional changes giving President Recep Tayyip Erdogan nearly authoritarian powers. Did Trump express concern about democracy? Nope. He called Erdogan to congratulate him. Why?
Asked about Turkey in a December 2015 interview with, of all people, Stephen K. Bannon — now his chief strategist who back then hosted a radio show on Breitbart — Trump admitted: “I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.” He also described Erdogan as “a strong leader” and added: “I thrive on complicated.” Should we be able to know how Trump was influenced by his “complicated” Turkish interests, including his “major, major” project? No, he says, I can do what I want.
And a last question: If Hillary Clinton had done any one of the things described above, is there any doubt about what Republicans in Congress would be saying and doing? As long as all but a few honorable Republicans remain silent, GOP leaders will be miring their party in the muck of Trump’s norm-breaking. No, they are saying, he can do what he wants.
This is why only pressure from an engaged and resolute citizenry can convince Republican politicians of the costs of being Trump enablers. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic hopeful in Tuesday’s special election in a very Republican Georgia congressional district, managed 48.1 percent of the vote, just missing the majority he needed to avoid a June 20 runoff.
Those who rallied to Ossoff (including Republicans and independents deeply offended by Trump’s ways) must remain committed between now and June to send a clear message to the president that transcends the usual partisanship: No, you can’t just do what you want in crushing transparency and blurring all lines between your own interests and the public’s.
(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
The Trump administration announced on April 14, that it won't voluntarily disclose the names of visitors to the White House complex, breaking from former president Barack Obama's policy. The move comes as questions about transparency continue to mount for the new administration. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
It’s said that Trump always skates away. Not true. Those he ripped off in his Trump University scam stuck with the fight and forced Trump to settle a lawsuit he said (in an untruth typical of his approach) he would never settle. The country’s citizens can prevail, too, if we insist on calling out a self-absorbed huckster who treats us all as easily bamboozled fools.
Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
The inside track on Washington politics.
Be the first to know about new stories from PowerPost. Sign up to follow, and we’ll e-mail you free updates as they’re published.
You’ll receive free e-mail news updates each time a new story is published.
You’re all set!
test
test
Getty Images
More than 60% of Americans think marijuana use should be legalized, according to the latest CBS News poll.
The number — 61% — is the highest percentage ever recorded in this poll and a five-point increase from the previous year.
Most Americans — 71% — do not think the federal government should try to prohibit the sale and use of marijuana in the many states where the drug has been legalized in some form. And 88% favor medical marijuana use.
Among those who think marijuana should be illegal, only half think the federal government should be involved with the states.
While 63% of Republicans oppose the federal government trying to stop marijuana use in these states, 76% of Democrats and 72% of independents oppose the federal government intervening.
But the White House previously said it expects law enforcement agents to enforce federal marijuana laws when they come into conflict with states where recreational use of the drug is permitted.
“I do believe you will see greater enforcement of it,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in February regarding federal drug laws, which still list marijuana as an illegal substance.
The position is a reversal from the Obama administration’s stance, which laid out in an official memo that the federal government wouldn’t interfere in states where non-medical use of marijuana is allowed.
The spread of drug addiction became a popular topic during the 2016 election. The overwhelming majority of Americans — 69% — think habitual drug use should be treated as an addiction and mental health problem instead of a criminal offense.
This poll was conducted by phone from April 11 to 15 among a random sample of 1,011 adults nationwide and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Both standard land-line phones and cell phones were used in the survey.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
undefined
A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin hatched a scheme to swing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the US election, a report said Wednesday.
Three current and four former US officials told Reuters about two confidential documents from the think tank that outlined the framework and rationale for what US intelligence agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere with the election.
US intelligence officials acquired the documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, after the election.
The institute is run by retired senior Russian foreign-intelligence officials appointed by the Russian president.
The first document, drafted in June, recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage US voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the Obama administration, the seven officials said.
The second document, drafted in October, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election.
The document made the case that it was better in that case for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead focus its messaging on supposed voter fraud to undermine the election’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation, the officials said.
The sources declined to say how the US got its hands on the documents.
With Post Wires
Welcome back, {* welcomeName *}
{* loginWidget *}
Welcome back
Welcome back,
{* welcomeName *}
{* #userInformationForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* traditionalSignIn_password *}
{* traditionalSignIn_signInButton *}
{* /userInformationForm *}
{* #registrationForm *} {* traditionalRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *} {* traditionalRegistration_displayName *} {* traditionalRegistration_captcha *} {* traditionalRegistration_ageVerification *} By clicking "Create account", you confirm that you accept our
terms of service
and have read and understand our
privacy policy
.
{* /registrationForm *}
Don't worry, it happens. We'll send you a link to create a new password.
{* #forgotPasswordForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *}
{* /forgotPasswordForm *}
We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.
We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password.
{* #tradAuthenticateMergeForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* mergePassword *}
{* /tradAuthenticateMergeForm *}
With your existing account from...
With your existing account
Use an account with your email address
Or with a <a href="http://NYPost.com" rel="nofollow">NYPost.com</a> account
Read the whole story
· · · ·
On Wednesday afternoon, the king of cable was summarily—and in the eyes of many, finally—dethroned.
Bill O’Reilly’s stunning fall was both swift and extraordinarily prolonged: Swift for a public newly woken to his alleged transgressions, courtesy of a bombshell New York Times investigation earlier this month that revealed O’Reilly’s employers at Fox News had paid out some $13 million to women who claimed the bombastic TV host had sexually harassed them or otherwise exposed them to inappropriate behavior (just yesterday another woman came forward). Prolonged for those both inside and outside of Fox HQ who had witnessed the host flourish even after 13 years of reportedly questionable behavior (his contract was recently renewed for an estimated $18 million a year).
Whatever the timeline, O’Reilly’s dismissal from the top of the media power grid is still shocking: His was a conservative juggernaut that showed no signs of slowing, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year, with an estimated four million viewers tuning to see him each night. In the age of Trump, it would have seemed that O’Reilly was in the catbird seat: giving voice to the same powerful strain of disaffected conservatism that put Donald Trump in the Oval Office, excitedly (and lucratively) excoriating America’s Losers each night without pause.
And yet, the backlash to the Trump presidency—the outrage it stoked among those very losers, the restive progressive base, and the subsequent push towards collective, grassroots action—was precisely the force that secured O’Reilly’s demise. In other words: If Trump hadn’t been elected, Bill O’Reilly might still have a job.
That’s not to say that the seeds of O’Reilly’s downfall weren’t sown by the women who came out against him and eventually threatened legal action, including Juliet Huddy, Andrea Mackris, Rebecca Gomez Diamond, Laurie Dhue and Andrea Tantaros. Had they not spoken up, O’Reilly would undoubtedly be returning to his post at 8PM next week, rested and rejuvenated from an Italian vacation.
These women, and women like them, were critical in the effort to oust the Fox host, according to Media Matters President, Angelo Carusone—who led his organization’s “Stop O’Reilly” campaign. “I think that women spent a lot of time and did a lot of ground work to make sexual harassment an issue that people would be held accountable for. If that groundwork wasn’t done, advertisers,” who subsequently fled the program in the wake of the Times investigation, “wouldn’t have been persuaded at all.”
But, as Shaunna Thomas, the co-founder of Ultraviolet, a women’s rights organization that led protests against O’Reilly as recently as this week, pointed out: “It’s worth noting that he’s been a problem—a known sexual predator—for decades.”
Thomas explained that the issue of sexual harassment is now prominent in a way it has not been—ever—in part thanks to the president himself. “Ultraviolet launched in 2012,” she recalled, “and it was hard to even name sexism as a real problem without getting real pushback, even on the left.”
I asked her whether Trump’s campaign scandals, including the release of the infamous Access Hollywood tapes, did anything to change that. “I do think Trump helped educate the public about what consent means,” she said, “considering that someone who was bragging about assaulting women became president. That was a huge wakeup call.”
Carusone concurred: “Trump forced the realization that people can get away with [sexual harassment] so brazenly.” He added, “In an atmosphere where the president of the United States can do what he did and say what he did—it’s a constant reminder that everyone needs to be more engaged, and more forcefully so.”
If Trump put sexual harassment on the front burner during the campaign, his election left many Americans indignant and fearful about the direction in which the country was headed—a powerful mixture of outrage and engagement that appears to have been critical in O’Reilly’s demise. The fate of the Fox News host became one more way for the resistance to make its voice heard, a key battle in the fight against Trump’s tide.
“This is the same group of people who were marching [during the Women’s March], the same group of people who demanded their senators oppose [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions, the same group of people who have resisted Trump’s agenda when it’s clear that it’s endangering women,” said Thomas. “They are part of a really loud, effective campaign against leaders in politics and media who are undermining women.”
“This presidency has given a sense that for individuals—it’s up to them to act,” said Carusone.
Advertisers, the lynchpin to O’Reilly’s demise, understood this. I spoke with Rashad Robinson, the executive director of Color of Change, one of the groups that orchestrated the successful behind-the-scenes effort to pressure advertisers to abandon The O’Reilly Factor—that weeks-long cascade of dollar departures undoubtedly added certain urgency to the argument for the host’s dismissal.
Corporations, Robinson explained, usually have the option of removing their ads in the immediate and waiting to see “what the climate is going to be like,” with the option of returning to a program once the proverbial smoke has cleared.
But this time, Robinson said, “We wanted to make clear that we weren’t going away, that this wasn’t just a vacation they could take from The O’Reilly Factor.”
Activists made their intentions explicit, in part, he said, through the use of social media. “Everyday people can now bypass filters that corporations have, to speak directly to the brands,” he said. “For many of [the corporations], it became too hard to ignore the people who were engaged. People are willing to stand up and fight back and use their voices.”
O’Reilly, long a Trump ally (and vice versa: the president was one of the very few in recent days to publicly offer a defense of the controversial host), is unlikely to be the last casualty of the fractious divide that has emerged in the wake of a resurgent white populism.
An energized, activist community—possessed of renewed clarity as it concerns its values and goals—is not solely the byproduct of last year’s American presidential election: 2016 had consequences elsewhere, too. And in places that may equally threaten the fortunes of the Murdoch empire. At present, the clan is in the process of trying to complete a takeover of Sky News in the UK, an estimated $13.9 billion deal that dwarves whatever dollars O’Reilly was hauling into the family coffers.
British regulators are currently trying to determine whether 21st Century Fox passes what’s known as a “fit and proper” test to takeover the U.K. television station (O’Reilly’s fiasco was a potential complication in this test, and it remains to be seen how his dismissal will be interpreted by the Brits).
As with the Fox battle here in the U.S., many of the same forces may be at work to scuttle certain Murdochian goals: Grassroots groups, including Avaaz, have been petitioning members of Parliament to reject the deal, pulling many of the same levers that were used here, including public petitions (there are 70,000 signatures and counting) and direct email engagement with the powers-that-be. Their motivation, moreover, is not unlike the that of the activists the U.S.: In the wake of 2016’s Brexit vote, England is divided as to what kind of country it is, and what kind of country it wants to be.
Bert Wander, the director of Avaaz’s campaign in the UK, explained to me that there has been “huge public engagement” in the wake of the Brexit vote, as well as special attention paid to the “work” Murdoch’s UK-based outlets did to push for the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union—he owns nearly a third of the newspapers in the country.
“People are beginning to realize what’s at stake with our media and the way it works. The political outcomes of these highly polarized, fact-free campaigns … I think it’s made people want to take things into their hands a bit.”
The fate of the Murdoch’s (second) bid to gain full control over Sky News remains to be seen—but today, in the wake of the ouster of its most prominent and profitable television personality in the U.S., the irony of the situation is hard to ignore. The very force that the Fox media empire ushered in—a strain of irascible, combative nativism—may have given rise to a countervailing movement that will ultimately undermine the Murdoch’s bottom line.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
A powerful U.S. senator has launched an investigation into whether the FBI knew about a planned attack by ISIS-inspired terrorists at an anti-Muslim cartoon show in the Dallas area and did nothing to stop it -- and also misled the lawmaker about circumstances of the 2015 attack.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said he learned from a recent national media report that the FBI was tailing the two terrorists, Elton Simpson, 31, and Nadir Soofi, 34, and an agent was just steps away when the pair jumped from their car and began shooting at police guarding the "Draw Mohammad" event at the Curtis Culwell Center in the Dallas suburb of Garland, Texas. The terrorists, who pledged allegiance to ISIS, struck Bruce Joiner, an unarmed security guard, in the leg, before snipers killed them. The attack was significant because it was the first that the Islamic State took credit for on U.S. soil. Soofi and Simpson had been in touch with an ISIS recruiter in Somalia.
“It is concerning that when I wrote to the FBI and Department of Justice, they never told me about the fact that they had some FBI asset, whether it was an agent or informant, tailing Soofi and Simpson,” said Johnson.
“Why didn’t they intervene? As a member of the Senate oversight committee, I think these agencies should be honest when we actually ask them the questions. But it begs the question, what was the FBI doing in Garland, and why wasn’t the agency direct with me when we first started writing letters about this back in 2015?”
Johnson is referring to two individuals who had prior contact with the shooters. One was a paid FBI informant, the other an FBI undercover agent.
Ten days before the attack Simpson hooked up with an FBI undercover informant via the internet, according to an FBI affidavit filed by Agent Shawn Scott Hare in August 2016. The affidavit was filed in a case against Erick Jamal Hendricks, a North Carolina man charged with conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State.
The affidavit reveals the FBI was aware on May 2, the day before the attack, that Soofi and Simpson were headed to Garland to attend the Draw the Prophet Muhammad Event.
According to the criminal complaint, Hendricks directed the FBI informant to join them there, and allegedly said: "If you see that pig (meaning the organizer of the contest) make your 'voice' heard against her."
Hendricks also asked him a series of questions related to security at the event, including: "How big is the gathering?" "How many ppl?" "How many police/agents?" "Do you see feds there?' "Do you see snipers?" and "How many media?"
The informant was there, parked behind Simpson and Soofi, when they opened fire.
Together, Soofi and Simpson had amassed 1,000 rounds of ammunition, six different weapons, plus body armor and were carrying a copy of an Islamic State flag, Johnson said.
“All I know is we don’t have the straight story from the FBI,” Johnson said. “We are just so fortunate that local law enforcement was able to take care of the situation to prevent another mass attack. This was a real tragedy averted.”
Expand / Contract
U.S. FBI director James Comey speaks to media at the headquarters of the Romanian Information Service (SRI) with the head of the Romanian service Eduard Hellvig, in Bucharest, Romania, Tuesday, Mar. 3, 2015. The FBI chief said cyber security and fighting corruption and terrorism are priorities for the U.S. and Romania, a key partner in the region. (AP Photo/Octav Ganea, Mediafax) ROMANIA OUT(The Associated Press)
On March 26, “60 Minutes” first reported that the FBI had been monitoring Simpson for years, that an FBI agent was tailing the terrorists and took cell phone footage of the shooting from 30 feet away. Police apprehended and handcuffed the FBI undercover agent as he fled the scene.
Johnson said he shouldn’t be learning about the facts of the event two years later, and from the media.
“This is not something that should be revealed on ‘60 Minutes’,” Johnson said. “This should be something that the FBI comes forward and tells the oversight committee.”
Johnson also is questioning the FBI’s hiring of an informant, identified as Dabla Deng, who was paid $132,000 for befriending Simpson while also taping their conversations for more than 1,500 hours. The three men -- Deng, Simpson and Soofi -- went shooting in the desert several times, according to court records and Simpson had been under investigation and at times surveillance, since 2006.
Despite this information -- and that of the FBI informant on scene -- a spokesperson for the FBI National Press Office told Fox News, "There was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.”
Even though chatter among Islamic State supporters leading up to the event hinted at a planned attack, FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials dismissed any threat to the event in a "Joint Intelligence Bulletin" to local law enforcement four days after the attack.
Local law enforcement officials were adamant they did not receive any intelligence from the FBI indicating a direct threat to the event, yet the FBI claims it “sent a bulletin to Garland police hours before the event, warning that Simpson -- whom the Justice Department had already unsuccessfully prosecuted previously for his role in a terror cell -- might be on his way to the Garland event, even including his photo and his license plate number,” PJMedia.com reported.
Johnson also questioned whether one of the handguns purchased by Soofi in 2010 in Phoenix had any connection to the Obama administration’s botched Operation Fast and Furious. The weapon was the subject to an “urgent” firearms disposition request by the Department of Justice on May 4, 2015, the day after the attack in Garland, Johnson said.
“We’ve been trying to have oversight on all of these terrorists attacks in the United States, so we can do an after-action report to see if some of the FBI procedures should be changed so we can prevent these things from happening in the future,” Johnson said.
Malia Zimmerman is an award-winning investigative reporter focusing on crime, homeland security, illegal immigration crime, terrorism and political corruption. Follow her on twitter at @MaliaMZimmerman
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
CIA Director Mike Pompeo and FBI Director James Comey may be attending a secret Five Eyes spy meeting in New Zealand
(VERO BEACH, FL) The highly secretive meeting is being held in Queenstown, NZ this coming weekend and is believed to include representatives from 15 intelligence agencies which carry out spying for the Five Eyes network.
Five Eyes is a spying partnership between the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
On Wednesday a spokesman for New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English confirmed that a number of senior intelligence officials were coming to Queenstown for a government hosted conference, but did not reveal the meetings agenda.
"Due to specific security requirements we cannot comment further at this time,” English said. “However, as police have pointed out they are not aware of a visit to Queenstown by a current or former head of state."
According to the NZ Herald, a local newspaper, FBI Director James Comey and CIA Director Mike Pompeo are believed to attending the gathering, along with New Zealand’s Minister for the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) Chris Finlayson’s.
High profile spy gatherings are usually kept secret, and New Zealand has often been picked as a destination spot for such conferences.
In 2016, former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key disclosed that Obama’s ODNI chief Jim Clapper had visited on his way to Australia for an official Five eyes conference.
If the rumors are true, this would not be the first visit by FBI Director James Comey to New Zealand. In March 2016 he made a stop in the reclusive destination to meet with Kiwi spy chief Chris Finlayson and Police Commissioner Mike Bush.
Kim Dotcom, the founder of <a href="http://Megaupload.com" rel="nofollow">Megaupload.com</a>, who the U.S. has long sought to extradite on charges of criminal copyright infringement, money laundering, and wire fraud, chimed in on the alleged spy chief get-together, jokingly saying, “the 5 eyed spy monster that fails to keep its secrets secret.”
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
Report: Putin-controlled think tank developed plan to sway US election
CBS News - 3 hours ago
A Russian government think tank controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin prepared the framework for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, current and former U.S. officials told Reuters. The think tank, known as the Russian Institute ...
France's elections are just the latest in Russia's shadow war in a wary Europe
Salon - 1 hour ago
As the French prepare to vote Sunday in a presidential election marked by acrimonious debate about Russian influence in Europe, there's little doubt about which candidate Moscow backs. Last month, the combative populist Marine Le Pen of the right-wing ...
Russia Denies Reuters Report Think Tank Drew up Plan to Sway U.S. Election
U.S. News & World Report - 3 hours ago
FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) meets with Director of Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Mikhail Fradkov and Speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament, or State Duma, Sergei Naryshkin (not pictured) at the Kremlin in Moscow ...
World's most dangerous job: Putin critic Vladimir Kara-Murza on surviving poisoning, twice
Yahoo News - 5 hours ago
It was 4 a.m. in Moscow, Feb. 2, 2017, when Vladimir Kara-Murza knew something was horribly wrong — again. He was scheduled to leave later that morning for America to attend his daughter's eighth birthday party. But instead, the 35-year-old Kara-Murza ...
Think tank with ties to Putin reportedly had plans to sway election in Trump's favor
Fox News - 9 hours ago
A Moscow-based think tank controlled by a Russian official appointed by President Vladimir Putin reportedly hatched a plan to increase Donald Trump's chances to win the presidency. Reuters, citing three current and four former U.S. officials, reported ...
Read the whole story
· ·
A Russian government think tank controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin prepared the framework for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, current and former U.S. officials told Reuters.
The think tank, known as the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, is run by retired senior Russian foreign intelligence officials who have been appointed by Putin’s office, the report said. It developed a plan to swing the election in favor of President Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the election process, the report added.
The U.S. officials told Reuters they acquired two confidential documents from the think tank that appeared to provide the rationale for meddling in the U.S. election, which the report said were “central” to the Obama administration’s assessment that Russia launched a propaganda campaign and launched cyberattacks against Democratic groups and candidates.
One document was circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government after it was written last June, the report said, which recommended that the Kremlin and Russian-backed news outlets launch a propaganda campaign focused on convincing American voters to favor the candidate that was friendlier to Russia, the report said. The other document, which was prepared last October, warned that Hillary Clinton was expected to win and that Russia should end the propaganda effort and instead focus on promoting the idea of U.S. voter fraud to undermine faith in the election system.
When the documents were written, the report said, Leonid Reshetnikov served as the think tank’s director and previously spent 33 years in Russia’s foreign intelligence service.
Just a few weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the intelligence community released a report in early January in which it concluded that Putin had ordered a campaign involving covert intelligence operations and overt propaganda to undermine faith in the U.S. election, disparage Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump’s election chances.
© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Washington Post |
Just imagine what kind of president we might elect after Trump
Washington Post And then, of course, most recently, the American electorate decided to give the black guy a chance, and then, when that was done, opted for the racist. The question for today is what comes next? I'm basing my predictions on the pendulum effect. First ... |
Insanity's First Draft
Anderson Valley Now that Trump, his surrogates and palace guards have been linked with Russian mob money (Czar Putin is not just the Father of New Russia, he's the Master of Siberia, Sovereign Lord of the Arctic Ocean, Protector of the Slavs and Patriarch of the ... |
The Hill |
McCain: Comey's integrity 'never wavered'
The Hill President Trump said earlier this month that he would not request Comey's resignation, even as the FBI is investigating Trump's potential ties to Russia. But Trump wouldn't rule out asking for the resignation at a later date. “No, it's not too late ... and more » |
Salon |
France's elections are just the latest in Russia's shadow war in a wary Europe
Salon Officials say France and Europe are vulnerable because of converging crises: immigration, terrorism, structural economic inequities, the Brexit vote in Britain last year, the rise of populism and extremism. The French election offers a ... Although ... and more » |
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
Sputnik International |
Putin, Trump Named Among 100 Most Influential People in 2017 - Time Magazine
Sputnik International "When so many, including me at times, didn't see how he could pull it off, Donald Trump won a historic victory," US House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan stated. "And in becoming the 45th President of the United States, he completely rewrote the ... Gorbachev throws shade at Putin: 'Russia can succeed only through democracy'Politico all 2 news articles » |
UPI.com |
Russia's shadow war in a wary Europe
UPI.com American politics was jolted when 17 intelligence agencies concluded in January that Russia had covertly intervened in the 2016 presidential campaign with the aim of electing Donald Trump. Such activity is nothing new in Europe, where Russia has ... |
Comey and Pompeo may attend NZ Five Eyes spy gathering
TRUNEWS According to the NZ Herald, a local newspaper, FBI Director James Comey and CIA Director Mike Pompeo are believed to attending the gathering, along with New Zealand's Minister for the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) and ... |
Radar Online |
Putin Election Hacking Cover-Up — 10 Spies Killed In 15 Months
Radar Online A Hillary Clinton campaign aide, Seth Rich, was coldly assassinated at point-blank range two days after joining her election team and discovering Russia had hacked Democratic Party emails in a desperate attempt to influence the election. That's the ... and more » |
Putin Election Hacking Cover-Up — 10 Spies Killed In 15 Months
Radar Online-4 hours ago
Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York City at the age of 64. New York City cops cited a “heart attack.”.
US senators probing possible links between Russia and the Trump team have been told to “follow the dead bodies” as they hunt for evidence of the Kremlin’s involvement in last year’s presidential election.
Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, national security expert Clint Watts said several Russians linked to the investigation into Kremlin disinformation activities have been killed in the past three months.
The alleged murders were carried out not only in Russia, but in western countries as well, Mr Watts said.
He also accused Donald Trump of using the same techniques employed by Russian operatives against his own political opponents.
Asked by Republican Senator James Lankford why Vladimir Putin’s supposed tactics of attempting to influence the US election were “much more engaging this time in our election”, Mr Watts replied: “I think this answer is very simple and is what no one is really saying in this room.
“The reason active measures have worked in this US election is because the commander-in-chief has used Russian active measures at times against his opponents.”
‘Active measures’ is a term used during the Cold War to describe political warfare carried out by the Russian security services to undermine a rival power.
Mr Watts, an advisor at the Foreign Policy Research Institute Programme, cited several examples of when Mr Trump had referenced false new stories about terror attacks that had in fact never taken place.
Clint Watts, right, a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute Program on National Security (AP)
“He has made claims about voter fraud, that President Obama is not a citizen, that Congressman [Ted] Cruz is not a citizen,” he added.
“So part of the reason these active measures work, and it does today in terms of Trump Tower being wiretapped, is because they [the Trump team] parrot the same lines.”
Mr Putin has strongly denied allegations of Russian meddling, saying today that the "endless and groundless" accusations against his administration as “nonsense”.
"Read my lips: No,” he said. For emphasis, the Russian president pronounced the last word in English.
Mr Watts said Mr Putin was technically “correct” to say he wasn’t influencing US political discourse.
“He [Mr Putin] is just putting out his stance, but until we get a firm basis on fact and fiction in our own country…we are going to have a big problem.”
Testifying on Thursday at a congressional hearing on Russian meddling, the security expert also said social media campaigns were targeting House Speaker Paul Ryan.
He suggested media campaigns waged by the those linked to the Kremlin were evidence that Russia is continuing to seek further unrest among US democratic institutions.
Reuse content
Read the whole story
· · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
On April 19, opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro held the largest protest so far that month in Caracas. Footage showed them crossing a river to avoid tear gas. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
On April 19, opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro held the largest protest so far that month in Caracas. Footage showed them crossing a river to avoid tear gas. On April 19, opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro held the largest protest so far that month in Caracas. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
On Wednesday, tens of thousands of Venezuelans protested the country’s worsening economic crisis — and the president behind it.
The response of President Nicolás Maduro to one of Latin America’s worst episodes of political unrest in decades has been to clamp down. The government suspended elections, dissolved the opposition-controlled legislature and arrested scores of protesters. Venezuela’s most prominent opposition leader has been barred from holding public office.
This level of repression suggests Venezuelan officials believe they cannot win elections under current circumstances — and they fear Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) cannot survive out of office. This first concern may be true, but for many former authoritarian ruling parties, there is life after dictatorship.
What happens after a dictatorship?
While the hugely unpopular Maduro is unlikely to have much of a political career in a hypothetical democratic future, the PSUV could thrive as an “authoritarian successor party.” These are parties that emerge from authoritarian regimes, but continue to operate after the country transitions to democracy.
This isn’t a new trend. Authoritarian successor parties have been present in nearly three-quarters of all new democracies since the mid-1970s. They are major actors in Africa, Asia and post-communist Europe. More than half the time, these parties are in fact voted back into office.
Latin America is no exception: These parties have been prominent in 11 (73 percent) of 15 countries that have democratized since the 1970s. Voters in nine of these countries voted these parties back into office.
Here’s why this happens. Research by one of us shows they benefit from their “authoritarian inheritance” — the party brand, territorial organization, and party finances that continue to generate political support. Paradoxically, these benefits help them succeed under democracy.
Of course, these parties can also suffer from “authoritarian baggage.” Prior human rights abuses or poor governmental performance, for instance, can be heavy burdens. Whether the party is likely to succeed or fail depends on the balance of the two: the more inheritance and less baggage, the better.
The strategies for rebounding
Many factors affect this balance, particularly the performance of the authoritarian regime and the timing of the transition to democracy. With regards to timing, Dan Slater and Joseph Wong argue that it is in the interests of authoritarian officials to concede democratization in good times rather than waiting for a crisis, as doing so will minimize their authoritarian baggage. They call this “conceding to thrive.”
This scenario is no longer viable for Venezuela, given the depth of its current crisis. So the PSUV, like other authoritarian parties, may need other strategies to offload its authoritarian baggage and rebound.
One strategy is “contrition,” when party leaders apologize for the abuses of the old regime. Another is “obfuscation,” with the party downplaying its links to the old regime. A final strategy is “scapegoating,” with the party embracing a “good” dictator, but denouncing a “bad” dictator. The party offloads its authoritarian baggage onto the “bad” dictator, while profiting from the aspects of the old regime that voters remember fondly.
The lessons from Panama
This is where Venezuela’s PSUV could learn from Panama, where the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) rebounded after two dictators: the popular Omar Torrijos, and the highly unpopular Manuel Noriega. The parallels between the popular and unpopular dictators in Panama and Venezuela are striking.
From the time he took power in a 1968 coup until his death in 1981, General Omar Torrijos dominated Panama. He later served as an inspiration for Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Chávez was elected president in 1998 (after a failed coup in 1992), and then imposed an increasingly authoritarian regime.
Both Torrijos and Chávez were populist nationalists. They launched policies aimed at improving the lives of the poor and engaged in nationalist crusades. Torrijos secured from the United States in 1977 eventual control of the Panama Canal, while Chávez railed against U.S. imperialism. This earned them widespread popularity at home, as well as among left-leaning celebrities abroad, such as the novelist Graham Greene in the case of Torrijos and Sean Penn and Oliver Stone in the case of Chávez.
After Torrijos’ death, Manuel Noriega, his former head of military intelligence, assumed power. Maduro likewise stepped in when Chávez died in March 2013. Noriega’s rule, like Maduro’s, was marked by repression, drug trafficking, and economic ruin. He sought legitimacy by wrapping himself in the mantle of “Torrijismo.” There are many parallels with Maduro and his evocation of “Chavismo.”
Like Maduro, Noriega never achieved the popularity of his predecessor. When the U.S. military overthrew Noriega in 1990, 86 percent of Panamanians viewed it as a “liberation” rather than an “invasion.”
Here’s how scapegoating revived the PRD
All of this meant a lot of baggage for Panama’s PRD: A poll in late 1990 showed it had the support of only 6 percent of the population. And yet the PRD quickly rebounded. It won the first post-invasion election in 1994, won the presidency again in 2004, and has won the most votes in every legislative election except in 2014.
The PRD rebounded because of scapegoating. It blamed its past sins on Noriega, while romanticizing Torrijismo and taking advantage of a massive territorial organization. In 1994, the PRD’s presidential candidate denounced Noriega as “an opportunist, a traitor and a disgrace,” and “the worst leader since Panama’s independence,” while praising Torrijos as “a hero.”
To this day, the PRD logo is an “O” with the number “11” inside — a reference to the October 11, 1968 coup that brought Torrijos to power. In 1999 and 2004, the PRD chose Torrijos’ son, Martín, as its presidential candidate. He won the second time, and his campaign song was called “Omar Lives.”
So what does this mean for Venezuela?
What happened in Panama suggests that parties can survive the collapse of a dictatorship, provided they find a strategy to offload their authoritarian baggage. Maduro, like Noriega, makes a perfect scapegoat. He has little charisma, and his government has overseen an economic catastrophe. By throwing Maduro under the bus, Venezuela’s PSUV could rebound.
politics
monkey-cage
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
post_newsletter348
follow-orlando
true
endOfArticle
false
Monkey Cage newsletter
Commentary on political science and political issues.
However, the longer the PSUV sticks with Maduro, the less viable this strategy becomes. The more the PSUV comes to be seen as “Madurista,” rather than “Chavista,” the less credible it will seem if it later attempts to scapegoat Maduro.
For that reason, it may be in the interests of party leaders to abandon Maduro and pursue a return to democracy sooner rather than later. This may mean losing an election or two in the near term. But the PSUV could still thrive in the long term as an authoritarian successor party.
James Loxton is a lecturer in comparative politics in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney.
Javier Corrales (@jcorrales2011) is Dwight W. Morrow 1895 Professor of Political Science at Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts. He is the co-author of Dragon in the Tropics: The Legacy of Hugo Chávez (Brookings, 2nd edition, 2015).
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
By Brent Budowsky, opinion contributor - 04/20/17 09:20 AM EDT
20
The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax
The contents of this site are ©2017 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
1 of 10
Getty Images
Getty Images
A
Hillary Clinton
campaign aide, Seth Rich, was coldly assassinated at point-blank range two days after joining her election team and discovering Russia had hacked Democratic Party emails in a desperate attempt to influence the election. That’s the bombshell finding of a Radar Online investigation which reveals, for the very first time, the bloody reality behind the
most contentious election
in American political history. What’s more, the investigation — spanning from the Beltway to New York and Moscow — has discovered Rich’s death is only part of a web of death spun by Kremlin kingpin
Vladimir Putin
to cover his hacking
of the U.S. election! Get the disturbing details in Radar's gallery of spies who were killed in a 15-month span.
Ex-KGB General Oleg Erovinkin
was shot twice
in the head on Dec. 26 in the backseat of his car in Moscow. Erovinkin was a close aide to Igor Sechin, a Russian oil kingpin named in the “dirty dossier” ex-British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele built on Trump.
Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated by an off-duty police officer at an art gallery in Ankara on Dec. 19.
Hours later, Russian TV network Ren TV reported a “high-ranking” Russian diplomat named Petr Polshikov, 56, was found shot in the head in his Moscow apartment.
Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York City at the age of 64. New York City cops cited a “heart attack.”
Then, in late January, the Russian ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after “a brief illness” at 67.
Putin advisor Mikhail Lesin was found dead on Nov. 5, 2015, in The Dupont Circle Hotel in Washington. He had no ID although the room was in his name. Radar Online has learned he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
On Jan. 9, Andrey Malanin, the Russian consul in Athens, was found dead in his apartment. Local police discovered no evidence of a break-in.
On Nov. 8, Sergei Krivov, a 63-year-old consul duty commander at the Russian consulate in New York City, died of “blunt force trauma” to the head and was found on a consulate floor. One report stated Krivov would have been in charge of “prevention of sabotage” and suppression of “attempts of secret intrusion” i
nto the consulate
.
On March 2, A Ukrainian-born American citizen with links to both a Trump adviser and Putin died mysteriously in his native country. Alex Oronov, 69, was said to have run an agricultural business, but details of his activities were ended up on the desk of ousted National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Flynn. Putin has denied interfering in the U.S. election, saying, “Watch my lips, no.” We pay for juicy info! Do you have a story for RadarOnline.com? Email us at <a href="mailto:tips@radaronline.com">tips@radaronline.com</a>, or call us at 800-344-9598 any time, day or night.
‘Vanderpump Rules’ Kristen Doute Slams Enemy Scheana Marie’s Anorexia Claims
Caption Settings Dialog
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Coming Next
‘Vanderpump Rules’ Kristen Doute Slams Enemy Scheana Marie’s Anorexia Claims
30
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
America is seeing green after a historic day for the legal marijuana industry.
Seven states in all legalized marijuana in some form on Election Day. California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada showed up to support recreational marijuana, while Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota passed ballot initiatives legalizing medical marijuana.
A recreational legalization proposal in Arizona brought the industry's only loss on Tuesday.
Take a look at our map to see how legalization swept the nation.
Skye Gould/Business Insider
"This is really day one of a decade-or-more-long process of bringing this industry into the light and getting rid of the illicit market," Richard Miadich, one of the authors of California's Proposition 64, told Business Insider on Tuesday.
The landmark election brings a few victories for the budding legal market, which is on pace to hit $20 billion in revenue by 2020, according to the Marijuana Business Daily.
California was the biggest domino to fall in the nationwide push for legalization. The passage of Proposition 64, which makes it legal for adults 21 and over to possess and carry up to an ounce of marijuana, makes the entire West Coast a legal enclave for recreational pot.
"Western states have led the way on legalizing marijuana but the victory in Massachusetts powerfully demonstrates that this movement is now bicoastal and soon to be national," Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, told Business Insider. "Indeed, I'd wager that the next states to legalize marijuana will also be in the Northeast."
Mary Becker, 21 of Boise, Idaho, inhales hash oil during 420Fest at the Luxe Nightclub in Seattle, Washington.Nick Adams/Reuters
The new states will help create billions of dollars in tax revenue, as well as apply pressure on the federal government to abandon the failed war on drugs.
"To be honest, tonight's vote might be considered the tipping point for the industry," said Ben Larson, cofounder of Oakland-based marijuana startup accelerator Gateway.
"It will likely open up the sizable market that will put the pressure on the federal government to deal with the scheduling and banking issues, and it may be the key to unlocking much more investment and talent waiting on the sidelines," Larson told Business Insider.
It will likely take several years to get the new markets up and running.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
What the Guys Who Coined '420' Think About Their Place in ...
TIME-Apr 19, 2017
Apr 19, 2017 ... April 20 is considered by many to be a sort of national holiday for cannabis culture. ... at some point during the school day as code to meet for a smoke. ... "The car's filled with pot smoke, and when we roll down the window, we ...
AP Explains: The origins of 4/20, marijuana's high holiday
WTOP-7 hours ago
Thursday, April 20, 2017, marks marijuana culture's high holiday, 4/20, ... as well as a changed national political climate that could threaten to ... marijuana possession or that it arose from Bob Dylan's “Rainy Day Women No.
Tax revenue from Colorado pot helps fund community projects ...
CBS News-3 hours ago
April 20, or 4-20, is a date long considered to be National Weed Day. A CBS News poll released shows 61 percent of Americans think pot ...
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6
All-time high
A CBS News poll shows greater than ever public support in the U.S. for legal marijuana use. Overwhelming majorities, from across the political spectrum, say they support medical use and they’re against the federal government’s moves to crackdown on sales in places where recreational pot use has been already been legalized.
Weed money
April 20 has been long considered National Weed Day. Legalized recreational and medical pot sales in Colorado hit $1.3 billion last year. In the state, a booming pot business is turning out to be good news for budget-strapped cities, and even college kids.
“Year of the Twister”
Weather forecasters predict a mild hurricane season, but that doesn’t mean Americans are going to dodge the storm. Experts think this could be the year damage from tornadoes actually exceeds that caused by cyclones. Here’s why 2017 is shaping up as the “Year of the Twister.”
O’Reilly’s out
Bill O’Reilly’s ouster from Fox News brings a sudden end to the cable news host’s 20-year career at the network. What his exit likely won’t do, however, is whack the bottom line of parent company 21st Century Fox. We look at why investors aren’t sweating O’Reilly’s departure.
Lucky Bill
Bill de Blasio’s first mayoral term has won him few plaudits -- the word “incompetent” features often in New York City’s tabloids. But as Will Rahn notes, while de Blasio may be less-than-beloved by the denizens of his city, there’s next nothing blocking his path to a second term.
Dreaded audit
It’s the letter U.S. taxpayers dread receiving: You’re being audited by the IRS. But while scrutiny from the Tax Man is never welcome, it’s also no cause for panic. We outline what you should do if you get hit with an audit.
More top news:
U.S.
World
Politics
Business
Health
Science and tech
Entertainment
© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Editors Choice Pictures
A dog hopes to be rescued in a destroyed area after mudslides caused by heavy rains leading several rivers to overflow, pushing sediment and rocks into buildings and roads, in Manizales, Colombia. REUTERS/Santiago Osorio
Reuters / Wednesday, April 19, 2017
A dog hopes to be rescued in a destroyed area after mudslides caused by heavy rains leading several rivers to overflow, pushing sediment and rocks into buildings and roads, in Manizales, Colombia. REUTERS/Santiago Osorio
1 / 24
A demonstrator throws back a tear gas grenade while clashing with riot police during the so-called "mother of all marches" against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins
Reuters / Wednesday, April 19, 2017
A demonstrator throws back a tear gas grenade while clashing with riot police during the so-called "mother of all marches" against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins
2 / 24
Models struggle against strong wind before the rehearsal of Christian Dior's Haute Couture Spring-Summer 2017 live show to celebrate Dior's new flagship store at the rooftop of Ginza Six mall in Tokyo, Japan. REUTERS/Toru Hanai
Reuters / Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Models struggle against strong wind before the rehearsal of Christian Dior's Haute Couture Spring-Summer 2017 live show to celebrate Dior's new flagship store at the rooftop of Ginza Six mall in Tokyo, Japan. REUTERS/Toru Hanai
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
As the French prepare to vote Sunday in a presidential election marked by acrimonious debate about Russian influence in Europe, there’s little doubt about which candidate Moscow backs.
Last month, the combative populist Marine Le Pen of the right-wing National Front flew to Moscow to meet with President Vladimir Putin. It was a display of longtime mutual admiration. The frontrunner in a field of 11 candidates, Le Pen shrugs off allegations of corruption and human rights abuses against Putin, calling him a tough and effective leader. Her hard-line views on immigration, Islam and the European Union win praise from Putin and enthusiastic coverage from Russian media outlets. Her campaign has been propelled by a loan of more than $9 million from a Russian bank in 2014, according to Western officials and media reports.
Meanwhile, aides to Emmanuel Macron, the center-left former economy minister who is Le Pen’s top rival, have accused Russia of hitting his campaign with cyberattacks and fake news reports about his personal life. Although French officials say the computer disruptions were minor and there is no conclusive proof of links to the Russian state, President François Hollande and other leaders have warned about the risk of interference comparable to hacking operations that targeted the U.S. elections. The French government, aided by briefings from U.S. agencies about their experience last year, has beefed up its cyber defenses.
American politics was jolted when 17 intelligence agencies concluded in January that Russia had covertly intervened in the 2016 presidential campaign with the aim of electing Donald Trump. Such activity is nothing new in Europe, where Russia has launched a series of clandestine and open efforts to sway governments and exert influence, according to European and U.S. national security officials, diplomats, academics and other experts interviewed by ProPublica in recent weeks.
“The Russians have had an aggressive espionage presence here for a long time,” a senior French intelligence official said. “The Russians now have more spies, more clandestine operations, in France than they did in the Cold War.”
European and U.S. security officials say Russian tactics run the gamut from attempted regime change to sophisticated cyber-espionage. Russia has been linked to a coup attempt in Montenegro (the Balkan nation had dared to consider joining NATO); an old-school spy case involving purloined NATO documents and an accused Portuguese double agent; a viral fake news story about a 13-year-old girl in Germany supposedly raped by Muslims, and a caper by suspected Russian hackers who briefly seized control of an entire television network in France.
“One of the reasons Russia has been so successful has been its ability to develop tactics and techniques it selectively uses depending on the target country,” said Andrew Foxall, director of the Russia Studies Center of the Henry Jackson Society, a London think tank. “There’s a nuance to it as well. That’s something that in the West we fail to grasp.”
The French elections are the latest front in what is likely to be a conflict for years to come. Officials say France and Europe are vulnerable because of converging crises: immigration, terrorism, structural economic inequities, the Brexit vote in Britain last year, the rise of populism and extremism. The French election offers a particularly tempting target to the Kremlin, which wants to weaken and divide the West and multinational institutions such as the European Union and NATO, according to Western officials and experts.
Le Pen’s proposed policies align closely with Moscow’s geopolitical goals. She promises to reinstate national borders, abandon the euro currency and hold a referendum on whether France — which will be the EU’s remaining nuclear power after Britain’s departure — should remain in the 28-member bloc.
“For Russia, there is a desire to display power,” said Thomas Gomart, director of the French Institute of International Relations, a think tank in Paris. “They have openly chosen their candidate. It’s very serious. If Le Pen is elected, which is not impossible, that would be part of a chain of events including the Brexit and the election of Trump that would amount to a spectacular reconfiguration of the Western political family. The Russians want to weaken Europe, and to break NATO. The stakes are very high.”
Pre-election polling in France shows that no candidate has enough support to receive the required 50 percent, which means the likely result of Sunday’s vote will be a May 7 runoff pitting Le Pen against Macron or another strong challenger. Experts worry about a potential Russian spy operation, such as a Wikileaks-style disclosure of compromising information about a candidate, intended to tip the scales during that showdown.
No such direct intervention has been detected to date, and Russian officials reject allegations that they are trying to manipulate elections in France or elsewhere.
The Putin government has “no intention of interfering in electoral processes abroad,” said Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, in February. He complained about “a hysterical anti-Putin campaign in certain foreign countries.”
Intelligence operations — especially in the high-tech realm — are difficult to pin conclusively on a state. Moreover, Russian spy agencies have developed sophisticated capabilities in the gray areas of information warfare and political influence.
“We don’t see cyberattacks for the moment here affecting the campaign,” the senior French intelligence official said. “There are Russian influence efforts, news coverage by Russian media, the standard activity. But most of it is not illegal.”
Even some Western intelligence officials concerned about Moscow’s aggressiveness think there is a tendency to exaggerate the problem. Although European experts generally agree with the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered with the presidential race last year, those interviewed did not think it had a decisive impact on the victory of President Trump.
“Russia’s impact has been greatly underestimated, but it shouldn’t be overestimated either,” Gomart said.
As far as European spy-catchers are concerned, the Cold War is back — if it ever ended. An early sign came in 2006 with the assassination of Russian exile Alexander Litvinenko in London.
Litvinenko was an outspoken foe of Putin and a veteran of the powerful Federal Security Service (FSB), which Putin once led. In 2000, Litvinenko fled to London. He spent the next few years helping British and Spanish intelligence and law enforcement investigate ties among Russian mafias, politicos and security services.
In November 2006, Litvinenko died after three weeks of agony as the result of being poisoned with polonium-210, a rare radioactive toxin, by two Russian agents at a luxury hotel in London, according to a British court inquiry. The probe that ended last year confirmed the conclusions that Western governments and Russian dissidents reached long ago. The presiding judge, Sir Robert Owen, found that the FSB killed Litvinenko on orders from the highest levels of the Russian state, “probably” including Putin himself, according to Owen’s report.
The 329-page report detailed the extremes to which Russian spies were capable of going in the heart of the West. The killers used a devastatingly lethal poison of a kind that is manufactured in secret Russian government labs, according to the report. The physical effect on the victim was comparable to ingesting a tiny nuclear bomb. The symbolic effect was to send a mocking message to the world about the impunity of the masterminds, since there was a good chance that the cause of death would be discovered and connected to Moscow.
Because the brutish assassins apparently did not know they’d been given polonium, they left radioactive trails across Europe during three separate missions to London, failing in their first attempt to kill Litvinenko by slipping the poison into his drink, according to the report. Although British prosecutors charged the duo with murder and sought extradition, the suspects remain free in Russia. One of them, KGB veteran Andrei Lugovoi, was elected to the Russian parliament in 2007. (Both men, and the Kremlin, deny the charges.)
The relationship between Moscow and London has never recovered, according to officials and experts in Britain and elsewhere. The scope of Russian spying in Europe has escalated steadily and dramatically, Western security officials and diplomats say. After shifting much of their energy to fighting Islamic terrorism in the early 2000s, European counterintelligence agencies have been forced to redeploy personnel and resources to confront the Russian threat.
“The spy-versus-spy activity with the Russians is very intense,” the senior French intelligence official said. “And occasionally we expel them, or give them a tap on the shoulder and tell them to cut it out. These matters are often resolved service to service, rather than through prosecuting people. The FSB still cooperates well with us on antiterrorism, even if we know their partner agencies are trying to pick our pockets and steal secrets.”
The cloak-and-dagger duel occasionally has an old-school air. Last May, a plainclothes team of Italian police detectives arrested two men meeting in a small café in the riverfront Trastevere area of Rome. The two had been under surveillance by Portuguese counterintelligence officers and other Western spy services for some time.
One suspect was Frederico Carvalho Gil, then 57, a veteran of Portugal’s spy agency. The other was identified as Sergey Nicolaevich Pozdnyakov, 48, described by European national security officials as a senior officer in the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service. He had once been stationed in Italy, but was allegedly operating as an “illegal” — a spy without diplomatic cover — when he was caught. He was accused of serving as a handler for Carvalho, paying him to obtain secret intelligence related to NATO, according to Italian and Portuguese authorities.
The investigation indicated the Portuguese intelligence officer had drifted into a “double life” after a difficult divorce, according to the Corriere della Sera newspaper. Carvalho allegedly had relationships with Eastern European women and posted references on social media about his travels in Russia, according to the Corriere.
Italian police say Carvalho went to Rome to slip his handler NATO documents in exchange for 10,000 euros in cash, one of a series of such meetings in Italy and elsewhere. Still, the contents of the secret papers confiscated in Rome seemed relatively “banal” for a Russian spy to expose himself to possible capture, an Italian national security official told ProPublica.
Carvalho, who has denied the charges, awaits trial in Portugal. Italian authorities held the Russian, then sent him back to Moscow after an appeals court rejected an extradition request from Portugal.
Russian operatives take surprising risks, according to European and U.S. officials. The attempted coup in Montenegro last year is a case in point.
Montenegro, a strategically situated Balkan nation with a population of only 600,000, applied to join NATO last May. Russia lobbied strenuously against the impending membership, using diplomatic and non-governmental resources including the Orthodox Church. Russian agents stirred up protests against NATO and funded busloads of demonstrators.
Then came an uproar. Montenegro prosecutors charged that two Russian spies and two Serbian nationalists plotted last October to deploy a band of gunmen to assassinate the prime minister, storm Parliament and install an anti-NATO government. The accused spies, one of whom had previously been expelled from Poland, eluded capture. The Serbians are being prosecuted. A complex investigation continues, but Western officials say they have obtained information confirming Montenegro’s charges that Russian spies attempted the overthrow of a European government.
“The thesis is they escalated to that level because the Russian government was not happy with the way Montenegro was going,” a U.S. official said. “They were unhappy with the inability of their people operating on the ground to influence politics.”
If the Montenegro plot showed a willingness to resort to brute force, Russia-watchers say the larger strategy features more high-tech methods, such as the mix of cyberattacks and information leaks during the U.S. elections.
“Hacking is another tool in the toolbox,” the U.S. official said. “This appears to be trending toward state sponsorship and involvement. This is what worries us. The use of state power, intelligence and other methods, to affect the democratic process in European nations.”
Russia is not alone in using cyberwarfare, but it is the only nation to have combined it with conventional warfare, according to Foxall, the scholar at the London think tank. Such hybrid offensives took place during Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008 and its annexation of Crimea in 2014, he said.
Nations outside Russia’s buffer zone have not been immune, according to experts and Western officials. During the past few years, experts and officials say, suspected Russian hackers have penetrated targets including the Italian foreign ministry; the Warsaw stock exchange; a German steel mill; the European Parliament; and the computer files of a Dutch air safety team investigating a missile attack by pro-Russian fighters that downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in 2014, killing 298 people.
“If you think of all these incidents as a whole, you reach a worrisome conclusion,” Foxall said.
The crippling hack of France TV5 Monde sent a clear message. It took place in April 2015 amid tension in Europe about the intertwined threats of Islamic terrorism and an influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants into Greece, many of them refugees fleeing Russian-backed military onslaughts in Syria.
On the day of the cyberattack, two French government ministers visited the headquarters of the network, which airs 11 channels and broadcasts in Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and other Francophone nations, to celebrate the launch of a new channel. The hackers took over the network’s programming and social media accounts, filling screens with Islamic jihadi propaganda. It took the network hours to regain control of its broadcasts and prevent its systems from being destroyed.
The hackers had breached TV5’s defenses via its email messaging networks months earlier, according to Nicolas Arpagian, a French cybersecurity expert affiliated with government think tanks. Although the hackers claimed allegiance to a “CyberCaliphate,” the investigation points at culprits linked to the Russian state, according to Arpagian and Western officials.
“The goal seems to have been destabilization,” Arpagian said. “A demonstration of capability, of the potential to disrupt.”
Definitive proof of Russian state involvement is elusive, however. Experts say the Kremlin’s 21st century approach to what the Soviets once called “active measures,” combines cyber-operations with the overt continuum of fake news, internet “trolling,” and state-controlled media.
The strategy emerged in response to the anti-Kremlin “color revolutions” of the early 2000s, when throngs of ordinary citizens took to the streets to demand the ouster of Moscow-backed leaders in Ukraine and Georgia, experts say. Russian leaders believed the United States was using “soft power” means, such as the media and diplomacy, to cause trouble in Russia’s domain. The Russians decided to develop a comparable capacity. But the result wasn’t soft very long, especially as the Kremlin became concerned that events such as the Arab Spring could spark unrest in Russia, experts say.
“The logic of influence and projection overseas was replaced by the concept of ‘confrontation with the West’ and the image of a ‘besieged fortress,’” wrote Céline Marangé of France’s Institute for Strategic Research at the Military Academy, in a study this year. “Without completely disappearing, the notion of soft power has been eclipsed by that of “information war,” whose acceptance is literal and extensive in Russia. In Russian defense and security circles … and in numerous prime-time television debates, there is an almost unanimous thesis: a worldwide ‘information war’ at the global level pits Russia, like the Soviet Union in its day, against the West.”
The combatants range from teams of “trolls” in warehouses who bombard selected targets on social media to provincial journalists who concoct wild tales following general directives rather than explicit orders, according to experts and intelligence officials. Putin’s government is presented as the lone guardian of traditional Christian values fighting barbaric Muslim hordes and a soft, decadent West. The relentless narrative: Europe is under assault by crime, Muslims, terrorism, immigration, homosexuality, political correctness and effete bureaucrats.
Occasionally, fake news stories go viral and flood into the venues such as the Russian-backed RT television network and the Sputnik news agency, whose slick content reaches an increasing audience in Europe and the United States.
One example: the horrifying tale of “Lisa,” a Russian-German teenager who told police she was kidnapped and raped by three men resembling Muslim immigrants. The case erupted in January of last year. Europe was on edge because of the very real and ugly spate of sexual assaults on women by groups of men, many of them of Muslim descent, during New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne, Germany.
The German authorities insisted from the beginning that there was no proof of the girl’s allegations. But the Lisa story gained momentum, driven by heavy, sometimes inaccurate coverage on Kremlin-backed and pro-Russian outlets as well as social media. The frenzy reached the point that Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said at a news conference that German authorities appeared to be hushing up the incident out of political correctness, according to news reports.
Soon, however, the teenager admitted to lying. She had stayed overnight at the home of a 19-year-old male friend without permission and invented the rape story to explain her disappearance, according to media reports.
There is no evidence Russian operatives played a role in creating the initial story. But the German government and other critics have rebuked the Kremlin and the Russian media, saying they amplified and distorted the case even after it was shown to be untrue.
“The story was totally fake,” Foxall said. “This is a well-established pattern. Other stories have travelled such a path, but without the same kind of success.”
Nonetheless, Russian influence campaigns find a more welcoming political atmosphere in Europe than in the United States. After all, leftist parties in France, Italy and other nations had strong ideological and financial ties to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. There is also a pro-Russian tradition, often fomented by anti-Americanism, among some rightist and nationalist parties.
Russia spends considerable money and energy wooing sympathetic European politicians and activists. They are often, though not always, populist, nationalist, fascist, far-left, anti-system or just plain disruptive. The most powerful unabashedly pro-Moscow figure is probably Le Pen, whose presidential campaign has thrived partly because of her effort to distance herself from the angry, anti-Semitic image of her father, National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen.
The list also includes Nigel Farage, the brash British politician who oversaw the underdog campaign for the Brexit, and admires both President Putin and President Trump; Nick Griffin of the far-right British National Party, who after observing Russian legislative elections in 2011 pronounced them “much fairer than Britain’s”; and Matteo Salvini of the rightist and separatist Lega Nord (Northern League), which along with the populist 5 Stelle party constitutes a large pro-Moscow bloc in Italy.
To be sure, more moderate leaders in Europe also favor stronger ties to Russia and have good relationships with President Putin. Among them is former French Prime Minister François Fillon, the center-right presidential candidate competing for a spot in the runoff election.
Russian officials and their European allies argue that Moscow’s legitimate diplomatic outreach is being demonized. But European government officials worry about activity that crosses the line into funding, recruitment and manipulation by spy agencies.
“I think some of our political parties are vulnerable to infiltration,” the Italian national security official said. “They don’t have the experience, the anti-bodies, to fend off such formidable intelligence services.”
And there are concerns about wider repercussions. In January, the Center for International Research at Sciences Po, one of France’s most prestigious universities, abruptly canceled a scheduled appearance in Paris by David Satter, an American author. Satter is a well-regarded foreign correspondent who has spent four decades covering Russia. In 2013, he became the first U.S. journalist expelled from the country by the Kremlin since the Cold War. His latest book, “The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep,” details allegations that Russian intelligence services were covertly involved in mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Russia.
The cancellation caused a fierce debate about censorship when a leaked email revealed that administrators made the decision because they feared reprisals against Sciences Po students and researchers in Russia, citing the “current context of tensions,” according to Le Monde newspaper.
Despite the tensions in Europe and the concerns about interference, recent elections in the Netherlands went off without problems, with the party Moscow favored running well behind. The next test will be Sunday’s vote in France, where cybersecurity agencies are on alert. The government has taken precautions such as requiring the estimated 1.8 million French voters living overseas to cast their ballots by mail or proxy, rather than online, according to French officials.
“What we have seen so far is enough to conclude that the Russians have carried out an influence campaign,” a French diplomat said. “But I don’t think it will have a significant impact on the outcome of the election. We have to stay calm.”
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
“Shifting political winds have blown criticism James Comey’s way from different partisan directions,” Sen. John McCain writes. “But his independence has never faltered.” | AP Photo
Arizona Sen. John McCain tipped his hat to FBI director James Comey in a glowing tribute for Time’s 100 Most Influential People list, labeling the bureau director as principled, independent and honorable.
“Integrity is a word that doesn’t get used a lot in Washington anymore,” McCain wrote for the feature, which was published Thursday. “But that is the quality that has defined James Comey’s service to our nation.”
Story Continued Below
Comey, who made the controversial decision to announce that the FBI would continue looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server 11 days before the election, and this year made waves with his testimony confirming that the FBI was probing the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, has been sharply criticized by those from both the left and right.
Many on the left have said that Comey’s October announcement into the reopening of the Clinton email investigation turned the public against Clinton and gave now-President Donald Trump a last-minute boost to win the White House. But when the FBI director testified about the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign, he was in turn slammed by Trump supporters for what they said was a politically motivated smear.
McCain, who has been vocal about his concern over Russia’s influence in the election, has been an ardent supporter of Comey's actions, particularly surrounding the Trump-Russia probe. In the Time column, McCain wrote that the FBI director “followed the law, spoke the truth and did what he believed was right” no matter the circumstances.
“Shifting political winds have blown criticism James Comey’s way from different partisan directions,” McCain wrote. “But his independence has never faltered. His integrity has never wavered. And I know that in the pursuit of justice, it never will.”
Media playback is unsupported on your device
1 hour ago
Around 1,000 US airmen and fighter jets are taking part in a combat training exercise in South Korea.
Krux('scrape', { 'page_attr_description': {meta_name: 'Description'}});
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 7
No comments:
Post a Comment