“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Comey Needs a Psychiatrist

'None of it makes much sense': Experts are baffled by Comey's use of a fake Russian document to skirt the DOJ

James ComeyThen-FBI Director James Comey speaks to the Intelligence and National Security Alliance Leadership Dinner in Alexandria, Va., Wednesday, March 29, 2017. Cliff Owen/AP
Former FBI, CIA, and DOJ officials said they are baffled by reports that a fake Russian document affected former FBI James Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

CNN reported Friday that Comey knew the document, a memo purporting to show collusion between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Clinton campaign, was fake. That has raised questions about why he used it as justification to skirt the Department of Justice and hold a press conference last summer in which he skewered Clinton for her "careless" use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

"In cases where there is intelligence suspected of being false, the correct procedure is to investigate," said Scott Olson, a recently retired FBI agent who ran the agency's counterintelligence operations and spent more than 20 years at the bureau.

"In this case, the parties referenced should have been interviewed as part of the investigation," Olson said. "Then, if the document was used as feared, the results of the investigation could be used to effectively rebut."

The FBI reportedly uncovered the memo last year as it was examining a trove of documents believed to have been hacked by Russia. The document, first disclosed by The New York Times in late April and described in more detail by The Washington Post last week, described an email supposedly sent by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, to an official at the billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.

Wasserman Schultz supposedly described in the message how Lynch, the attorney general, had privately assured a Clinton staffer during the campaign that the Justice Department wouldn't take the email probe too far. Comey reportedly knew the information in the memo wasn't real. But he feared that the memo would cast doubt on the credibility of the FBI's investigation if it leaked after Lynch closed the probe, CNN reported.

The sequence played a part in his decision to circumvent the DOJ and hold a press conference, defending  the bureau's decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton for using a private server while she was secretary of state. He also called Clinton "extremely careless" for using the server, issuing a blistering assessment of the then-candidate's recklessness that many believe damaged her reputation among voters.

'None of it makes much sense'

Comey briefed lawmakers after the press conference on his decision not to recommend charges against Clinton. He told them that he had had no choice but to go around the DOJ and answer directly to reporters out of fear that the document might leak. But he did not tell lawmakers that the document was probably fake, according to CNN.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN on Sunday that Comey "never once told a member of the House or the Senate that he thought the email was fake," and would have been "incredibly incompetent" to act on a document he knew to be fraudulent.

"I can't imagine a scenario where it's OK for the FBI director to jump in the middle of an election based on a fake email generated by the Russians and not tell the Congress," Graham said.

Olson said that Comey's decision to circumvent his DOJ superiors based on the document was even more bizarre.

"The notion that the FBI needs to circumvent DOJ procedure and officials because a known false document might be used publicly to forward some political agenda makes no sense," Olson said, "and the notion that DOJ is somehow incapable of defending itself against false publicity does not withstand scrutiny."

FBI officials briefed Lynch on the existence of the document one month after Comey announced the end of the email investigation during the unprecedented press conference. Lynch said she "never communicated" with the Clinton campaign staffer in question and offered to be formally interviewed by the FBI about the matter, according to the Post.

Loretta LynchThen-U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (L) delivers closing remarks to the Justice Department Summit on Violence Crime Reduction with Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates at the Washington Plaza Hotel October 7, 2015 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Amanda Renteria, the Clinton staffer with whom the false document said Lynch communicated, also told the Post that she had never spoken to Lynch. And Wasserman-Schultz said she had never heard of the Open Society Foundations official, Leonard Benardo, whom the document said she had emailed to discuss Lynch's communications with Renteria.

"The FBI is in the business of ascertaining the true facts through investigation," Olson said. "That is what should have been done. I'd love to know why it was not done."

Matthew Miller, a former Department of Justice spokesman under President Obama, agreed that Comey "absolutely should have briefed" his superiors on the existence of the document before holding the press conference, especially if he thought it was fake.

"If he already knew the document was fake, then he in no way should have relied on it to make decisions about how to handle the case, and he had an obligation to brief his superiors," Miller said on Tuesday.

"Even if it was a real document, it wouldn’t excuse him acting on his own," Miller added. "There are procedures set up for handling sensitive information like this when someone is potentially compromised, which is the best-case interpretation of his thinking. He could have briefed his direct boss, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and the two of them could have decided how to proceed."

"The bottom line is this document seems to have been an excuse to do what he always wanted to do," Miller said, "rather than an actual factor in any decision-making."

Months after ending the email investigation, Comey said he felt compelled to tell Congress that the bureau had discovered new emails that were possibly relevant to the investigation because he had already gone public with the details of the case — and given congressional testimony about it — three months earlier. Clinton has said the disclosure, which dominated media coverage in the days leading up to the election, factored heavily into her loss. 

A 'wildly successful' Russian operation 

The revelation that a tainted document — believed to have been planted by the Russians in the trove of hacked documents obtained by the FBI — influenced Comey's decisionmaking is evidence of the extent to which Russian disinformation was able to penetrate the highest levels of American law enforcement during the presidential campaign.

The weaponization of stolen documents is increasingly becoming Russian hackers' modus operandi, according to a new report from researchers at the Citizen Lab group at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Public Affairs. Hackers linked to Russia have begun stealing data and tampering with it in order to achieve specific propaganda aims, the report noted, "and to seed mistrust and disinformation."

Glenn Carle, a former CIA operative who spent 23 years at the agency, said Comey's use of the document to justify a decision that may have "changed the course of US history" means Russia's election meddling was more "wildly successful" than anyone had previously imagined.

"It is common to let bogus reports from the [foreign] opposition go forward, and continue unchallenged, so as not to compromise sources and methods," Carle said. "But I dispute that the director should have treated this from the strict sources and methods protection perspective."

"In my view he should in this instance have briefed the attorney general, the president, and the Gang of Eight," Carle said, referring to a select group of lawmakers briefed on sensitive intelligence matters. "This was a policy call, a larger issue than the source and method. Historic errors on his part."

Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, said that Comey's failure to alert the congressional committees that the document "was almost certainly a fake was "appallingly negligent."  

"He should have emphasized that at the very start," Kramer said. "By having failed to do so, he was disastrously incompetent and irresponsible."

Olson, the former FBI agent, said he believes Comey and his team "forgot that the reputation of the FBI is secondary to the FBI's responsibility."

"At the end of the day, with due respect to notions of transparency, credibility, independence and ensuring there is not even the appearance of improper conduct, what matters most is executing the role the FBI has in government," he said. "Appearances don't matter if reality, if the actual content, is wrong."

The longtime FBI agent said he still believed Comey and his advisers "were trying very hard to do the right thing."
"But they illustrated the old saying," Olson said, "that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'"

133 comments:

  1. If he were a little taller, Jack Nicholson could play a great Comey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. I wish we could just get rid of the FBI, but something of the sort is needed.

    Ciao

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I wish we could just get rid of the FBI, but something of the sort is needed.


      ....Little Wonder ....


      Bob Thu May 27, 12:52:00 AM EDT

      But I did rip off the bank for $7500 hundred dollars, when I was on my knees, and fighting for my economic life, on my aunt's credit card. But that wasn't really stealing, just payback.



      It was Theft by Fraud, "Draft Dodger"

      Delete
  3. .

    You just want to palpate her.

    Doug, I wouldn't palpate her with your palpator.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. .

    Yesterday, Kathy Griffen started losing ad gigs. Today, she was fired by CNN. Hopefully, the trend will continue and grow.


    Karma?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. .

    If Trump pulls out of the Paris Accords he will be further isolating the US from most of its Western allies and some of its chief competitors. He will be passing up on the opportunity for creating new jobs for Americans to take the place of those that are disappearing like in coal and retail.

    His actions will put one more stake in the heart of the notion that the US is the 'Leader of the Free World' or any world. American exceptionalism collides with reality.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is a simple calculation:

    * Trump's base can no longer help him

    * Trump needs every Republican vote

    * If Trump pulls out of The Paris Accord the Republicans will lose the House

    * If the Republicans lose the House, the Democrats will impeach Trump

    ReplyDelete
  7. .

    Responding to

    What is "Occupation"Tue May 30, 04:43:00 PM EDT

    Deaths and Refugees

    What the video shows is a snapshot of what Syria is today. Quirk doesn't like my numbers of 660,000 dead and 12 million homeless...

    He says that ONLY 400,000 or have been killed, not to quibble, give it a few more years and my numbers will be small....


    The last time we discussed this, I merely asked where you got your numbers from. It seemed they were going up by 100,000 deaths every couple weeks. I seem to recall the last number you put up was like 800,000 not 660,000. It was a simple question but you didn’t give me an answer. It could be around 600,000, or more, for all I know but the most I’ve seen reported was the 450,000. I’ve seen it noted in a couple places.

    I agree with the second part of your statement that whatever the number there now is in a couple years it will be much higher. This despite the Mattis claim we will annihilate ISIS.

    {…}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. {…}

      Responsibility

      In our past discussions on Syria, our real arguments centered on the fact that you assign responsibilities for ALL the deaths and refugees to Assad, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran. I can see where you would like to think that but to me that is not a rational view.

      Is Assad a prick. Of course. A dictator, corrupt, authoritarian? True. But then, what leader isn’t in the cesspool we know as the ME. On the plus side, his regime was secular and minorities were protected. Is he and the boys supporting him responsible for much of the carnage perhaps a majority of it. I wouldn’t argue. Is he responsible for all of it? Of course, not. I feel the need to respond when you keep offering up that absurd argument.

      Influenced by the spirit of the Arab Spring, a brutal drought, and rising unemployment, the Syrian resistance starting demonstrating against Assad in 2011. Assad’s response was brutal and the resistance armed up in response. However by 2012, third party players, both state and non-state players, had entered the fight and where taking it over. Though you still had some people who had belonged to the original resistance movement fighting there, the war had pretty much been taken over by outside forces most of which could give a shit about the Syrian people as they pursued their own interests. In addition to the players you mention, there was Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey, the UAE and more just kept coming fueled by social media and funds from various state players. By 2013, ISIS was making their move and the US entered directly into the war along with ‘coalition’ partners in 2014. By 2015, Russia was all in supporting Assad.

      Assad is currently fighting for his life. To surrender and step down would likely be a death sentence. Some of the original resistance are still fighting and hoping they will get a seat at the table. Chances of that happening are slim to none. The majority of the resistance groups consist of people looking to gain influence and power. State players are seeking to expand their hegemony or deny it to others. Very little has anything to do with the aims of the Syrian people, the people suffering most of the death and displacement there.

      The US has played its part in the chaos, funneling arms from Libya to 'good guy' resistance groups that eventually worked with or merged with 'bad guy' terrorist groups and the arms proved fungible.

      The US started bombing ISIS in 2014, but it was obvious from the beginning that ISIS was merely the excuse the US used to try and take down Assad. Where we are right now vis a vis ISIS we could have been at a year earlier had the US actually been serious in the early days.

      The US never got serious about ISIS until the Russians entered the fray in 2015 on the side of Assad. The Russians also used ISIS as an excuse while methodically taking out those groups directly in opposition to the Assad regime. However, occasionally the Ruskies actually hit ISIS hard as with their taking out of ISIS oil convoys in order to cut off their funds. The US was forced to act at that time in order to avoid additional embarrassment and cede the country to Russia hegemony.

      In the process, those killed by US bombing has continued and under Trump grown. Mattis words assure this will continue.

      .

      Delete
  8. * The U.S. solar industry employed 260,077 workers last year, a 25% increase from 2015

    * Solar-energy jobs are growing 12 times as fast as the US economy

    * The Solar Energy Industry Now Employs Twice as Many People as Coal

    * The Solar Industry Created More Jobs In 2014 Than Oil And Gas

    * 1 Out of 50 New US Jobs Came From the Solar Industry in 2016

    ReplyDelete
  9. According to the Department of Energy's latest report on jobs in the energy sector, employment in the electric power sector rose 13 percent in 2016 as utilities and developers built new power plants, replaced aging equipment, and invested in new technologies to manage an increasingly complicated distribution grid.

    There are now 860,869 people employed in the electric power sector, an increase of more than 101,000 jobs from 2015. Workers in the construction industry building solar, natural gas and wind power plants accounted for most of the increase, reported DOE. The coming year will likely bring a 7 percent bump in employment across power generation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 10 percent of all U.S. construction jobs are now serving the electric power sector. And the majority of those jobs are being created by building out renewable power plants.

    ReplyDelete
  11. With 374,000 jobs, the solar industry dominates the electric power sector in terms of employment.

    It now accounts for 43 percent of the total workforce.

    Coal, oil and natural gas are the next biggest employers, accounting for 22 percent of jobs in the sector in total.

    Wind comes in third.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And impeachment headshot is this:

    73% of Americans now prioritize alternative energy over Oil, Gas and coal

    Republicans by 51% and Democrats by 89%

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alternate energy is about the only thing I can think of that is supported by the majority of both parties.

    ReplyDelete
  14. and the latest from Pew:

    A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 83% of Americans say increasing use of renewable energy sources is a top or important priority for the country’s energy policies.

    This is one of several considerations the American public thinks should be a priority for the country’s energy policies. A majority of U.S. adults (54%) agree that “Government regulations are necessary to encourage businesses and consumers to rely more on renewable energy sources.”

    ReplyDelete
  15. Every Democrat in Congress is waiting for Trump to make their day.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is no win in this for Trump.

    Trump promised we would tire of winning. When does that start?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Donald
      Trump, the Emasculated President.

      Find the fork, cause he is done.
      Doubt if he is convicted after impeachment, they will not want to run against an incumbent Pence.

      Better the albatross from New York.

      Delete
  17. .

    Trump would be a fool to formally reject the accord. The Accord demands nothing but a promise to try to meet certain goals. It's left up to each country as to how they get there.

    If Trump pulls out the only thing he will hurt is the US reputation in the world. States, mayors, and major corporations are already moving towards renewables for the simple reason they can't afford not too. Recent power plants in the coal industry are powered by natural gas rather than coal because of cost considerations. Ford Motor has dropped water usage in its operations by 61% in recent years with a goal to get usage to 0. They are making plastic parts made from materials created from polymers made from carbon sequestration. Soon they will be using bamboo for components in their vehicles.

    Trump's actions if he follows through will simply be one more action that assures he is eventually consigned to the dustbin of history, an unfortunate anomaly at a time when the US needs real leadership.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  18. .

    When will Hillary finally go away?

    Now, she is blaming her loss on US/Russian collusion AND widespread misogyny.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  19. .

    The GOP on the other hand are stuck in neutral and 2018 is only 7 months away.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. So help me out guys,To my recollection, the Paris Accord was never sent to Congress by Obama for debate and ratification. So it's just sitting there?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I get that, but at this point it's not an active agreement, at least that's the way I see it. I'm not defending Trump here. If it were an active agreement, then I agree with you and we should stay in it. At this point, though, is it not just an idea?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shutup and pay for my windmill!

      Delete
    2. .

      We are in it along with over 190 other countries. The only two not in it are Nicaragua and Syria. Syria for obvious reasons. If Assad travelled out of Syria to sign anything he would be an ex-Assad. Nicaragua refused because it a voluntary agreement and contains no punishments for failing to reach the targets, as such, Nicaragua considers it a meaningless agreement.

      It's my understanding that Trump can't officially pull out of it until 2019, though obviously if he refuses to support the agreement that is a mute point.

      .




      assad.

      Syria

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. .

      The Hawaiian Hoale checks in strutting his plumage and expressing one of his singular attributes, spellchecker to the stars.

      .

      Delete
    5. The Paris Agreement Is a Treaty and Should Be Submitted to the Senate

      http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate

      Delete
    6. .

      Fuck the Heritage Foundation and the horse they rode in on.

      190 plus countries disagree.

      .

      Delete
  22. "the paris accord" on Google Search

    Yields 4 and a half pages without a single right wing link, then there is ONE,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      This post is another example of the shallowness of your thinking.

      You ignore reality if it goes against what the GOP feeds to its minions. You view every issue through a narrow political perspective, left vs right, ignoring whether it makes common sense.

      .

      Delete
    2. There are many right of center publications, yes or no?

      Delete
    3. What is your argument for why they should not be linked?

      Delete
    4. .

      Who gives a fuck?

      If something makes sense who gives a shit were it comes from?

      You will always be constrained by your own prejudices.

      .

      Delete
    5. Google decides "what makes sense"

      Google is infallible.

      Heil Google

      Delete
    6. .

      Doug, you are too damn stupid to argue with.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      Well, geez, we are not talking about climate change here. We are talking about moves that make sense economically, jobwise, and to keep us competitive going forward. They make sense whether our sun starts entering its pre-nova stage or hell freezes over.

      You still have a hockey stick up your ass (strictly mu opinion, of course) and are buying into stuff like Trump's assertion that by gutting regulations designed to promote health and safety of the American public we can somehow resuscitate a coal industry that is on life support and today employs a relatively small amount of people.

      I don't know if you do this because you buy into the bull the GOP feeds you or whether you really believe it or even which is worse.

      .

      Delete
    8. Who says I buy into Trump's argument, besides you?

      I'm simply saying Google search has gone to Hell.

      Didn't used to be that way.

      Delete
    9. The National Review is full of articles, but I found none in 7 pages of Google Search.

      Delete
    10. Here's one:

      Want to read ONE different opinion or just insist they must be fucked?

      Delete
    11. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448121/donald-trump-paris-climate-agreement-trump-should-scrap-accord

      Delete
    12. .

      I'm simply saying Google search has gone to Hell.

      So what?

      Use your brain to tell you what is true or not.

      You are looking for someone who agrees with you scroll right through the pages until you find one.

      Maybe the National Review doesn't get enough hits make the top ten.

      .

      Delete
    13. So what.

      Another Quirkian Profundity.

      Delete
    14. Sure, hundreds of left wing links and 2 right of center.

      Fair and balanced, since you agree, and immerse yourself in the MSM Sewer.

      Everyone on the right is also exposed to the liberal MSM, btw.

      Delete
  23. I have been tracking and consulting with a company in Delft Holland that is developing clear glass solar panels that could change windows to be a source of solar PV. There are other developments with graphene for battery storage. Why would we want to leave these developments and applications in Europe, India and China?

    It is incomprehensible to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      China is looking to become the leader is such things as solar powered cars and is forcing US automakers who want to sell in China (the world's yuuuugest market) to come along or be left behind. In my view, China is doing the US automakers a favor.

      .

      Delete
  24. Elon Musk has developed a beautiful roof shingle that converts Solar PV that gathers electricity in the day time that charges his Tesla batteries. His batteries drive electric cars and has technological synergies yet to be discovered and exploited.

    It is just too dumb assed to be believed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Ford is doing things like developing polymers from plants rather than petroleum to create plastic components and things as simple as using methane from landfills to power their plants and using sod on the entire roof of the Rouge to help with climate maintenance in the plant.

      My wife is always watching the YouTube channel and I'm amazed at some of the products people develop from simple presses. Some of it seems so obvious I ask myself why I didn't think of that (though deep down I already know the answer).

      We are living through a massive change in the way we view things, finding out that going away from the easy path is often the less expensive way to go, and in fact, is often the even easier way to go.

      It's pretty amazing.

      .

      Delete
  25. Let me put it this way. We would not have blown $4 trillion in the Middle East if we had advanced solar thirty years ago and made oil an also ran.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You would think conservation would appeal to conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Conservatives in government do not want to conserve, they want to control.

      “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
      ― George Orwell

      Delete
  27. Carter Page: Russia Investigation Will Unearth Obama Admin’s ‘Falsified FISA Warrants Against Me’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/30/exclusive-carter-page-russia-investigation-will-unearth-falsified-fisa-warrants-against-me-from-obama-admin/

    ReplyDelete
  28. I see Jack "Daughter Abandonment" Hawkins, aka 'Dead Beat Dad' aka 'Self Confessed War Criminal' is lurking.

    As our HOUSE LIAR is here, I'll check in later.

    Got thins to do anyhoo...

    Ciao

    Cheers to all you others

    ReplyDelete
  29. May 31, 2017
    So what does Weiner have on Huma and Hillary?
    By Monica Showalter

    After much tabloid brouhaha about Hillary Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, finally having her fill of her pervy husband, Anthony Weiner, it seems a U-turn has been made.

    Anthony Weiner's long-suffering wife filed for divorce earlier this month, the same day the disgraced ex-congressman pleaded guilty to sexting with a 15-year-old girl.


    But Abedin has since renewed the lease on their pricey Union Square duplex – and invited back home the man who has repeatedly heaped humiliation upon her, sources told The Post.

    The cause cited, according to the Post, was Huma's need for Weiner's child care services for their son. As if Weiner weren't an obvious pervert who stooped so low as to include their then-three-year-old son in his sexcapade photos, and as if someone like Huma, who can shell out $11,900 a month on a fancy Union Square apartment and has hordes of adoring supporters, can't otherwise find or afford a babysitter.

    Color us skeptical.

    Here's what's likely really going on. The child care needs plea is probably a tactic to get a sympathetic judge to keep Weiner out of prison, which is where he's otherwise headed.

    Why would she need child care, anyway? Why would Huma, whose candidate lost the election and who has no White House duties as a result, even need to be away from her kid? She ought to have a ton of time on her hands right now. Sure, writing a book is quite a bit of work, but it's a flex-time assignment if there ever was one. She can do that book any time the kid is asleep or otherwise preoccupied. Yet she needs Weiner.

    It can mean only one or two things:

    1. Hillary is running for president again. Huma's only career has been serving as Clinton's indefatigable aide. For a job like that, child care probably would be a necessity.

    All the same, any trusted person can provide child care.

    2. Weiner must have enough dirty secrets on Hillary to blackmail her and perhaps derail her quest for power. Weiner, remember, hoarded oodles of secrets on his laptop computer under the header "life insurance," meaning Clinton wouldn't be able to get to him if he leaked out anything from that file. Life insurance. As if there had been a threat of Arkancide out there. It's a little noticed element of the Huma-Weiner drama.

    But it's hard to explain the strange U-turns for this bizarre couple. Weiner is a pervert who likes to exhibit himself. Huma is a staunch and loyal aide to Hillary who likes to stay in the shadows. What does Weiner have on Huma or Hillary to prompt that strong a desire to keep him in the tent pissing out, instead of out of the tent pissing in?

    Since it's hardly a stable family setup, we will have to wait for the next rupture to find out.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/so_what_does_weiner_have_on_huma_and_hillary.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Non-Existent Case for the Paris Accord by RICH LOWRY May 31, 2017 12:00 AM @RICHLOWRY

    Getting out of Paris shouldn’t be a close call. For a bull in the china shop, President Donald Trump has so far gingerly stepped around the Paris climate accord. That dance could end as soon as this week, with Trump deciding whether to stay in or opt out. “Out” should be the obvious answer. No U.S. interest is served by remaining part of the accord, which even its supporters say is mostly an exercise in window dressing — that is, when they aren’t insisting that the fate of the planet depends on it. The treaty’s advocates, hoping to forestall a Trump exit, are trying to save the accord by arguing that it is largely meaningless. In this spirit, a piece in the liberal website Vox explained, the Paris accord “asks participants only to state what they are willing to do and to account for what they’ve done. It is, in a word, voluntary.” In other words, “Nothing to see here, just us climate-change alarmists playing pretend.” And there is indeed much to be said for the worthlessness of Paris. Beijing pledges that China’s emissions will “peak around 2030.”

    By one estimate, this is when its emissions would peak regardless. So the world’s largest emitter is using the accord as a platform for climate virtue-signaling. According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, even if Paris is fully implemented and you accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s model for how emissions affect warming, it will produce a rounding error’s worth of decline in the global temperature by 2100 — .17 of a degree Celsius.

    If Paris is such a nullity, why shouldn’t we simply pull out? This is where its supporters reverse field and contend that it will be a global disaster if the U.S. leaves. Supposedly the moral suasion involved in countries coming up with voluntary targets and having to defend their performance meeting them will drive an ever-escalating commitment to fight global warming. Once upon a time, Paris was portrayed as a tool for steadily tightening restrictions on fossil fuels. The Obama team referred to one provision in the accord as “ratcheting up ambition over time.” Whatever their opportunistic salesmanship at the moment, this clearly is still the goal of the treaty’s supporters and a reason why Trump should get out while the getting is good. International agreements acquire a dead-weight momentum of their own.

    Witness how hard it is to pull out of the Paris accord now, when it went into effect only last November. In another couple of years, it will acquire the sanctity of the Peace of Westphalia. The treaty may be notionally voluntary, but climate-change activists will surely hunt for a judge willing to find a reason that the U.S. emission target in the accord is binding. Trump’s unhappy experience in the courts with his travel ban should make him highly sensitive to this judicial threat. In the context of Trump’s handling of other international agreements, getting out of Paris shouldn’t be a close call. To have pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a free-trade agreement with tangible strategic benefits in Asia — and stay in Paris would be a travesty. To irk our European allies with less than explicit restatements of our commitment to NATO, then placate them by standing by Paris, would be strategic folly.

    The shrewdest option would be to submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification, where it certainly would be rejected. President Barack Obama pretended that the treaty was an executive agreement — even though it involves 195 countries, and purports to bind future U.S. presidents — precisely so he could do an end run around the Senate. Honoring the Senate’s constitutional role in considering such a treaty would make it that much harder for the next Democratic president simply to sign on again unilaterally. Failing that, Trump should say farewell to Paris on his own, and never look back.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448121/donald-trump-paris-climate-agreement-trump-should-scrap-accord

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quirk will read and comment.

      Or he won't and proclaim that it's fucked.

      Delete
  31. Bloomberg: '55 percent chance' Trump will win reelection

    BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 05/31/17 05:41 PM EDT

    Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks there's a "55 percent chance" President Trump will be reelected in 2020.

    Bloomberg, who politically identifies as independent, told New York Times columnist Frank Bruni that he thought Democrats didn't have an effective message to win the 2016 election and could repeat that mistake in 2020.


    “Hillary said, ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman and the other guy’s bad,’” Bloomberg said about 2016.
    He said Democrats are still looking for issues and messages. And he worries that too many Democrats are eager to jump into the 2020 race.

    “They’ll step on each other and re-elect Donald Trump,” Bloomberg said.

    Bloomberg endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and spoke at the Democratic National Convention, calling Trump a "dangerous demagogue."

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/335844-bloomberg-55-percent-chance-trump-will-win-reelection

    ReplyDelete
  32. Where Did Hillary Aide Huma Abedin Get Her Cash? Everywhere.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/10379/where-did-hillary-aide-huma-abedin-get-her-cash-hank-berrien#

    ReplyDelete
  33. TYGRRRR EXPRESS

    Liberals like to declare every conservative on the planet to be either evil or stupid. Ideological Idiocy is about their declaration of our being unenlightened dolts. This is ideological idiocy.


    https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=tygrrrr+express+

    ReplyDelete
  34. The shrewdest option would be to submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification...

    The Pontius Pilate move. I like that. That works. That is Constitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Don’t Stop With Paris

    ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

    The Paris climate agreement is a treaty. We are not talking here about a bob-and-weave farce like the Iran nuclear deal. That arrangement, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” was shrewdly packaged as an “unsigned understanding” -- concurrently spun, depending on its apologists’ need of the moment, as a non-treaty (in order to evade the Constitution’s requirements), or as a binding international commitment (in order to intimidate the new American administration into retaining it).

    The climate agreement, to the contrary, is a formal international agreement. Indeed, backers claim this “Convention” entered into force -- i.e., became internationally binding -- upon the adoption of “instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession” by a mere 55 of the 197 parties.

    For all these global governance pretensions, though, why should we care? Why should the Paris agreement affect Americans?

    Yes, President Obama gave his assent to the agreement in his characteristically cagey manner: He waited until late 2016 to “adopt” the convention -- when there would be no practical opportunity to seek Senate approval before he left office. But Senate consent is still required, by a two-thirds’ supermajority, before a treaty is binding on the United States.

    At least that’s what the Constitution says.

    But it is not what post-American, transnational progressives say.

    They note that in 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed a monstrosity known as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Think of it as “the treaty on treaties” -- even though you probably thought we already had an American law of treaties.

    Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties, once a nation signs a treaty -- or merely does something that could be interpreted as “express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty” -- that nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”


    https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2017/05/31/dont-stop-with-paris/

    ReplyDelete
  36. But...

    McCarthy's a Moron, Quirk's a Constitutional Scholar.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "In other words, the Constitution notwithstanding, once a presidential administration signs or otherwise signals assent to the terms of an international agreement, the United States must consider itself bound – even though the Senate has not approved it, even though it has not been ratified.

    If a subsequent president wants to get the United States out from under this counter-constitutional strait-jacket, it is not enough merely to refrain from submitting the treaty to the Senate. The later president must take an affirmative action that withdraws the prior president’s assent. That is why Trump cannot not just ignore the Paris agreement; he needs to openly and notoriously pull out of it.

    Want to know how far gone we are? The treaty on treaties has never been ratified by the United States.

    So why do we care about it? Because Nixon signed it. Could the reasoning here be more circular? The Constitution requires a signed treaty to be ratified before it becomes binding, yet we consider ourselves bound by signed but unratified treaties because a signed but unratified treaty says so.

    How does that square with the Constitution? Wrong question. The right one, apparently, is: Who needs the Constitution when you have the State Department? That bastion of transnational progressives advises that, despite the lack of ratification under our Constitution, “many” of the treaty on treaties’ provisions are binding as -- what else? -- “customary international law.”"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. President Trump should not stop at Paris. While he’s at it, he should affirmatively withdraw the United States from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. We don’t need an international convention on that. We have a Constitution that renders multilateral boondoggles unbinding in the absence of super-majority Senate consent. Want to put “America first”?

      Then it is past time to reify our sovereignty and the rule of law -- our law.

      Delete
  38. I like it too. Have the Senate ratify the sucker.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      Don't miss Mark Steyn on Tucker Carlson tonight.

      :)

      Classic.

      How Hillary lost the election....according to Hillary.....CambridgeAnalytica, The Ruskie, The Macedonians....you will finally understand how you, you morons, got bamboozled.....by a man who had never even run for the school board before...

      Delete
    2. Only Quirk might believe it....

      Delete
    3. He's thinking of patenting a new form of Google Glasses that never present anything right of center.

      The ad campaign's theme will be:

      So What?

      Delete
  40. .

    Fair and balanced, since you agree, and immerse yourself in the MSM Sewer.


    You are a fool, Doug. If anyone disagrees with you, it must be because they are influenced by the MSM which only publishes 'fake news'.

    Simple excuses for simple minds.

    You rip all the stuff I put up as 'fake news' but you never seem to get around to actually providing any proof that it's fake. You badger me constantly over some childish piece of trivia and then when I offer an extended slap down of your position, you come up with some inane bull like "Well, why didn't you say so?" Real humorous.

    I don't need the MSM to tell me that...

    Trump is rude and crude and obnoxious.

    That he's a conman who admits it and revels in it.

    That he's a narcissist, that his thin skin is indicative of a massive inferiority complex, that he is at times a buffoon and at all times a braggard.

    That he lied his way into the presidency and has completely reversed his positions on the promises he made to the American people.

    That he is not all that smart.

    That his foreign policy is as incoherent as his predecessors and that he is doubling down on it.

    That his economic policies are a sop to his class and to the worst of the GOP leadership like Ryan.

    That he is a thin reed blowing in the wind, changeable and inconsistent, moved this way and that by the last one speaking into his ear.

    I don't need the MSM to tell me these things. They are clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

    I suggest you check on a new pair of glasses, Dougo, and maybe have that hearing checked out too. You seem to be having some problems.

    And, oh yeah, quit the whining. It makes you look petty.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YOU quit whining, Quirk, your lady lost.

      Delete
    2. Rant on.

      I was discussing the Paris Accord.

      Since your "arguments" were pathetic, you're back to your rants on Trump.

      Delete
    3. Doug
      I'm simply saying Google search has gone to Hell.

      Quirk
      So what?

      Use your brain to tell you what is true or not.

      You are looking for someone who agrees with you scroll right through the pages until you find one.

      Maybe the National Review doesn't get enough hits make the top ten."

      Doug

      Hundreds of links and not one from National Review.

      ...example of your pathetic "arguments."

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. .

      Bullshit.

      It was your usually MSM whine.

      No analysis. No argument. Simply your constant whine. It's all you've got.

      Are you incapable of laying out a case for your position and defending it?

      Or, are you just too damn lazy?

      .

      Who the hell knows what the hell you are talking about at any given moment.

      Delete
    6. .

      Find in this thread where I said Fake News.

      Go piss up a rope. It's your second favorite term after MSM. They seem to be all you've got. Throw those around a few times and you've shot your wad.

      Why would I waste my time looking up links for some dipshit that can only speak in monosyllables, that three words encompass the totality of his ability to offer argument, a man who takes Chauncey Gardner's observations to heart and assumes the important thing is just 'being there'.

      .

      Delete
    7. I was talking about the demise of objectivity in Google Search when politics is involved.

      Delete
    8. .

      I was talking about the demise of objectivity in Google Search when politics is involved.

      Gee, I thought you just said you were talking about the Paris Accord.

      I was discussing the Paris Accord.

      You seem a little confused, Doug. Maybe, a cold compress and a little warm milk before bed.

      You know trying to think wears you out.

      .

      Delete
  41. Hillary Spends Over An Hour Pissing In De Nile

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/31/nothing-ever-hillary-clintons-fault-especially-last-years-election-loss/

    2nd video

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:30 - on....


      1,000 Russian agents....

      Weaponized information tech warfare....

      220,000 surveys....

      CambridgeAnalytica....

      PsychoGraphic....

      The Russians.....

      Information War....

      1,000 agents again....

      Cyber Attacks....

      Macedonians running fake new sites....

      All guided by....Trumpers.....

      WikiLeaks/Ruskies same thing....


      She's crazy as hell





      Delete
    2. "vast Russian conspiracy"

      Yes, she actually said that.

      27:45

      Delete
    3. "VAST RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY", folks.

      That's why The Witch lost, according to The Witch.

      bwabwabwabwahahahahaha

      Delete
    4. .

      Once again, the irritating screech of the Idaho Loon wafts through the EB.

      .

      Delete
  42. .

    Quirk will read and comment.

    Or he won't and proclaim that it's fucked.


    Options 1.

    It's another example of Lowry playing fast and loose with his arguments and his facts. At one point he argues the accord is useless since it's voluntary and doesn't impose any kind of sanction for failing to meet the agreed upon targets so why bother. The next he is arguing that somehow through moral suasion and phantom judges the goals will somehow become mandatory and we will be forced to live up to our commitments. A specious argument on its face but especially so given that any decision along those lines would eventually end up in SCOTUS and we have been assured Trump has packed the court with sufficiently malleable justices to back him up on issues like this.

    Then Lowry conflates two other factors, TPP and NATO, with the Paris accords in a manner that could only be called mental gymnastics if there were any 'mental' involved. The issues have zip to do with the accords or with each other for that matter other than as straw men used to lure in the benighted or provide confirmation support to any wavering Trumpkins.

    He shows where he is coming from and what his main concerns are when he mentions TPP and Big Oil. He talks about TPP and 'its strategic benefits in Asia.' TPP wasn't a trade agreement. Seventy percent of it revolves around the rights of multinational corporations and their patent rights; it provided mechanisms that allowed corporations to sue sovereign countries if they do anything to suppress company profits, such as health and safety regulations, child labor laws, etc. And it established a friggin tribunal made up of corporate lawyers to judge these cases. The decisions of the tribunal were pretty much non-appealable. It was a sop to corporations, banks, and big business. What else could you expect from Lowry? As for Big Oil, more of the same. While demand for oil is slowing around the world, Lowry tries to gin it up.

    Then he moves on and complains that China is getting a better deal out of the Accord than the US, ignoring the fact that China is fully committed to renewable enterprises and is a leader in many, solar, wind, hydro, electric vehicles, etc… There are many regions in China where it’s impossible to get a permit to put up a coal fueled power plant. Lowry views renewable energy as a burden. China sees it as the future, as a business opportunity, and as a national priority given the density of its population and the opportunities it can provide.

    Lowry cites the American Enterprise Institute a conservative think tank as saying the climate control features of the Paris Accords is insufficient to reduce global heating more than .17 degrees Celsius. What’s the point? I happen to agree with the AEI point though I don’t necessarily agree with it’s number. Most sources I’ve seen agree that optimistically if all countries met their goals it would only be able to slow the rise about 1 degree Celsius, about ½ the stated goal of 2 degrees Celsius.

    The climate of the earth is affected by too many variable to be predicted by any model especially given the fact we have little firm knowledge of how some of them really work. The climate change proponents argue that a consensus of most of the models support their theory. Perhaps, but I’m not buying. I feel that we are at point beyond which we can meet our goals and that therefore we should concentrate any money spent on major projects on adaptive solutions in response to the effects of the changes.

    However, that doesn’t mean there is no value in the Paris accords.

    {...}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. {...}


      Lowry’s says, No U.S. interest is served by remaining part of the accord.

      I would ask him what U.S. interest is served by pulling out of the accord, I mean other, than to keep a dying fossil fuel industry alive long enough to suck out all the profits they can regardless of the consequences.

      Tax breaks and subsidies for renewable energy products? What about the decades of breaks, depletion allowances and subsidies we have provided to fossil fuel industries, coal, oil, gas companies that pretty consistently rack up huge profits?

      What about jobs? If you’ve ever visited an oil refinery you quickly learn how few actual people it takes to operate one. On the other hand, Deuce has shown some of the employment numbers from an expanding solar sector.

      I disagree with Lowry. There are US interests served by staying in the Accord. The fact that the US is maintaining its leadership role in a campaign recognized by all the countries in the world as important rather than to voluntarily give up that leadership role and further distance itself from allies and competitors alike is IMO a big one.

      The growing opportunity for jobs in expanding industries beats trying to save a few jobs in a dying one such as coal.

      Whether the US leads or not, the world will move on without us. Whether the federal government supports renewables or not and limits emissions, our states and cities will continue to move on without it. They cannot afford not to. The same applies to major corporations.

      From what I can see, there is no reason to pull out of the Accord, and a lot of geopolitical, economic, and health and safety reasons to stay in. If somehow our efforts help to slow climate change a little, so much the better.

      We can either lead or suck the hind tit.

      .



      Delete
    2. We could put it up to the Senate.

      We are already sucking the hind tit.

      No one else is living up to anything.

      While we are now one of the cleanest countries on earth.

      Delete
    3. There is the minor issue of the Constitution vs Nixon's Treaty on Treaties.

      ...and Judiciaries more than willing to legislate.

      Delete
    4. .


      I have no problem with he Accord going to the Senate. Spread the responsibility for any decision made. I'd love it.


      .



      Delete
    5. The Senate wouldn't do it.

      Delete
  43. Hey, Quirk, Hillary lost because of a vast Russian conspiracy....her words....

    see above:

    BobThu Jun 01, 12:00:00 AM EDT
    "vast Russian conspiracy"

    Yes, she actually said that.

    27:45

    and

    BobWed May 31, 11:39:00 PM EDT
    Hillary Spends Over An Hour Pissing In De Nile

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/31/nothing-ever-hillary-clintons-fault-especially-last-years-election-loss/

    2nd video


    It's a gas, man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's another article and videos -

      Video: Yep, Hillary’s all-in on the “collusion” theory
      POSTED AT 10:41 PM ON MAY 31, 2017 BY ALLAHPUNDIT


      When the guy’s right, he’s right.

      Follow
      Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
      Crooked Hillary Clinton now blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate. Hits Facebook & even Dems & DNC.
      5:40 PM - 31 May 2017
      15,987 15,987 Retweets 55,558 55,558 likes

      This afternoon’s interview was a tour de force of blame-shifting, as you’re about to see.....

      http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/31/video-yep-hillarys-collusion-theory/

      Delete
    2. The terrible candidate that got more popular votes than did Mr Trump, the "unpopular" President.

      That Mr Trump is obsessed with the past, and not looking to get a Health Care bill through the Senate, or a Tax Reform proposal introduced in the House ...

      Cannot get funding for his "Wall" ...

      Mr Trump, the "Emasculated President", 128 days in.

      Delete
  44. TRUMP PLANS TO PULL OUT OF PARIS CLIMATE DEAL...

    Rose Garden Announcement Thursday Afternoon....DRUDGE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, maybe not -


      TRUMP TO ANNOUNCE DECISION ON PARIS CLIMATE PACT THURSDAY
      BY JILL COLVIN AND JULIE PACE
      ASSOCIATED PRESS

      http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_CLIMATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-31-09-01-31

      Trump's influential daughter Ivanka Trump's preference is to stay, but she has made it a priority to establish a review process so her father would hear from all sides, said a senior administration official.

      Delete
  45. What happened to the Kyoto Climate Deal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is Paris Climate Accord ‘Kyoto 2.0’?
      JACK FITZPATRICK | APRIL 21, 2016 | 05:10 PM


      ....One of the most important debates about the agreement is how much it resembles the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement the U.S. did not ratify and that failed to have much of an impact on global emissions. Opponents of the Paris deal say it’s basically the same as Kyoto, an ambitious agreement that countries won’t follow through on.

      Supporters say it’s the opposite. The Paris deal loops in more countries than the Kyoto Protocol and gives them more flexibility to meet goals....


      https://morningconsult.com/2016/04/21/paris-climate-agreement-kyoto-2-0/

      Delete
  46. Dr. Steven J. Allen was a featured guest on The Real Side radio show with Joe Messina on May 24, where he discusses the history of climate change fears used to justify political agendas.

    ...

    In fact, the only consistent message is one of fear – and the need for greater government control over our lives and liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It's good that the MSM is 90 percent left.

    It doesn't matter that Google Search now often excludes right wing sites.

    So what?

    There: I've learned my lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I learned today that Hillary was defeated by a 'vast Russian conspiracy'.

    She said so herveryself.

    bwahaha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't realize until now that I was 'voting Ruskie' when I voted against The Hag.

      Delete
    2. I thought I was just voting anti-Hag.

      Delete
    3. Damned cop keeps Whining about Tiger not following the light.

      https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tiger+woods+arrest+video

      Delete
    4. I heard he passed the breath test.

      Delete
    5. Don't know about the cop.

      Delete
    6. Blew a zero.

      Should have had a couple of beers and skipped the meds.

      Delete

    7. You were ALWAYS a pro-Russia Trumpkin, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      You just did not know it.


      But, it was pretty common knowledge that Mr Trump admired Putin, it was no secret that the anti-Islamic State and anti-radical Islaic jihad position of the Russians was inline with the "Trump Agenda", excluding, of course, any provocation of the Wahhabi money men on the Trumpster's part.

      But that the Trump Group was in bed with Russians, and the Wahhabists, well known in the business community.

      His son boasted of it.

      Delete
    8. You're as crazy as Hillary, Jack "Daughter Abandonment" Hawkins.

      You're the only one that doesn't know it.

      Since you are back it's -

      Ciao

      Cheers to all the others and

      Off to bed

      Delete

    9. Bye, bye, "Draft Dodger", it is good to see you go.

      Delete
  49. Spicer was asked if Trump’s late night tweet with the apparent typo “covfefe”, which lingered online for hours, is a matter of concern.

    “No,” he answered gruffly, adding the extraordinary claim: “I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.”

    ...

    Democratic US senator Al Franken, in a CNN interview, joked: “A covfefe is a Yiddish term for ‘I got to go to bed now’.”

    ReplyDelete
  50. .

    DougThu Jun 01, 12:03:00 AM EDT

    I was talking about the demise of objectivity in Google Search when politics is involved.


    :o)

    Gee, I thought you just said you were talking about the Paris Accord.

    DougWed May 31, 11:42:00 PM EDT

    I was discussing the Paris Accord.


    And all in the same post stream.

    You seem a little confused, Doug. Maybe, a cold compress and a little warm milk before bed.

    You know trying to think wears you out.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Sorry to talk about two subjects in the same thread.

      Truly deplorable, possibly deranged.

      Delete
    2. Good that you think the extreme bias in Google Search and the MSM is no big deal.

      Delete

    3. Google is a private company that can do as it pleases, Doug.
      I do recall that Google's CEO worked for the Obama administration, just as Mr Trump has the World Wrestling Entertainment working in his.

      You'd be welcomed a Yahoo or Bing.
      Your mouse votes, Doug.

      Delete

    4. The "MSM and Google" are all part and parcel capitalist system, Doug.
      I there were no viewers, the advertisers would not fund the networks.
      When the networks violate public norms and standards, they are removed, by the advertisers.

      This has evidenced at both CNN and Fox News, lately.

      You object to capitalism, Doug?

      Delete

    5. If there were no viewers, the advertisers would not fund the networks.

      Delete
  51. Major investors put U.S. industry on notice on Wednesday that climate change matters, even as reports emerged that President Donald Trump plans to withdraw the United States from an international pact to fight global warming.

    A number of large institutional fund firms including BlackRock Inc, the world's largest asset manager, supported a shareholder resolution calling on Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) to share more information about how new technologies and climate change regulations could impact the business of the world's largest publicly traded oil company. The proposal won the support of 62.3 percent of votes cast.

    The victory, on such a wide margin, was hailed by climate activists as a turning point in their decades-long campaign to get oil and gas companies to communicate how they would adapt to a low-carbon economy.

    With major investors now seeing climate change as a major risk, activists said U.S. corporations will have to be more transparent about the impact of a warming planet even if the United States withdraws from the 2015 Paris climate accord, as Trump promised during his presidential campaign.

    "Economic forces are outrunning any other considerations," said Anne Simpson, investment director for sustainability at the California Public Employees' Retirement System, one of the sponsors of the resolution.

    She credited big investors in Exxon for the change, since at least some of them switched their votes after last year when a similar measure won just 38 percent support.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-investors-idUSKBN18R3D6

    ReplyDelete
  52. The Russia scandal is big, but among the growing number of voters who favor impeaching Trump in the Politico/Morning Consult poll, the reason they want the President removed from office isn’t crimes, but that he is unfit to occupy the Oval Office.

    The Morning Consult/Politico poll has been one of the more favorable polls to Trump, but even their poll revealed that support for impeachment has grown from 38% to 43% since their last poll.
    Morning Consult reported on their poll, “For the Americans who said they want to see Republicans impeach a sitting president of their own party, their desire appears to be borne from the notion that Trump is generally unfit for office. More than half (54 percent) of the voters who said Trump should be impeached said it was because “he is unfit to serve,” while 43 percent said it was because they thought Trump had committed an impeachable offense, such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. A majority of Democrats (54 percent) and independents (56 percent) who said Trump should be impeached cited a lack of fitness for the presidency, while a slim plurality of Republicans (48 percent) agreed.”

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/05/31/bombshell-poll-reveals-voters-trump-impeached-russia-mentally-unfit.html

    ReplyDelete
  53. If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you need to watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Get your ex CRAWLING back to you...?

    ReplyDelete