Upcoming shows
Real News

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Story Time

1:00 am 6:00 am



Maga First News

Upcoming Shows

Join The MAGA Network on Discord

0 0

Auto giants battle used car dealers for Africa’s huge market

The Mobius II first generation SUV by Kenyan car maker Mobius Motors is seen in the company's show room in Nairobi
The Mobius II first generation SUV by Kenyan car maker Mobius Motors is seen in the company's show room in Nairobi, Kenya March 6, 2019. REUTERS/Baz Ratner

April 12, 2019

By Joe Bavier, Emma Rumney and Duncan Miriri

JOHANNESBURG/NAIROBI (Reuters) – At the edge of Nairobi’s Ngong Forest, thousands of used cars glitter in the hot sun on a dusty field, waiting for buyers.

Imported from Japan or the Middle East, they offer an affordable route to vehicle ownership in Kenya and have dominated the market for decades.

That is an obstacle big carmakers must overcome if they are to crack Africa, a market promising rapid growth as trade tensions threaten sales elsewhere. African consumers also still need conventional engines just as demand in more traditional markets is curbed by restrictions on carbon emissions.

Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Nissan and others have joined forces to lobby governments for steps that would reduce the imports that have made sub-Saharan Africa notoriously difficult terrain and allow local production to flourish.

“The question on Africa isn’t, ‘Is it a market of the future?'” Mike Whitfield, Nissan’s top executive for Africa, told Reuters. “It’s a case of when.”

Four years after forming the Association of African Automotive Manufacturers (AAAM) their efforts are starting to bear fruit. Carmakers that set up local assembly plants could get tax holidays of up to 10 years and duty exemptions in Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, according to government plans seen by Reuters.

Thomas Schaefer, who heads Volkswagen’s Africa business, said there is a potential market in sub-Saharan Africa for 3 to 4 million new cars, up from just 420,000 in 2017.

But that will require addressing the well-entrenched interests of second-hand car dealers, smugglers and lowering the price of new cars.

“It will largely depend on how successful the African governments are in limiting the amounts of second-hand imports and how price-competitive new vehicles can be with their tariffs,” said Craig Parker, Africa research director at Frost & Sullivan, a U.S.-based market research firm.

MULTIPLYING EFFECTS

Africa’s population and household incomes are rising rapidly. But its 1 billion inhabitants account for only 1 percent of the world’s new passenger car sales, industry data shows. South Africans bought over 85 percent of those vehicles.

The AAAM identified Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana as potential manufacturing hubs and helped draft legislation setting up standards and incentives.

Details of governments’ plans provided to Reuters demonstrate that African nations are keen to secure a spot as a beachhead for the industry.

Nigeria and Ghana are preparing to offer automakers tax holidays of up to 10 years and duty-free imports of parts and components used in local assembly. Nigeria also plans to double the levy on new, fully-built imported vehicles to 70 percent to boost demand for locally produced cars, though the policy’s approval has been delayed.

In Kenya, automakers will pay no import or excise duties and get a 50-percent corporate tax break.

For African nations facing massive demographic pressures, such concessions make sense if they create jobs, said Jelani Aliyu, of Nigeria’s National Automotive Design and Development Council.

“The multiplying effects are exponential,” said Aliyu, who foresees supporting industries developing around the plants.

Legislative and fiscal frameworks are being finalised, but companies are already investing millions of dollars in new plants.

VW and Nissan have set up operations in Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana or have pledged to do so. Honda and Peugeot have launched assembly plants in Nigeria, and Peugeot has done the same in Kenya.

Carmakers sorely need the business. Their South African divisions, which typically direct operations elsewhere on the continent, face stagnating domestic sales and scant growth prospects in their main export market, Europe. A chaotic Brexit or U.S. tariff hikes could further dampen sales.

Toyota South Africa’s chief executive Andrew Kirby said the strategy is: “Focus on Africa because Africa is going to grow significantly.”

A pivot to Africa could also help insulate automakers from the immediate effects of the electric vehicle revolution. The continent is ill-placed to join it at the moment due to the higher prices of EVs and unreliable power grids.

Just 66 electric cars were sold last year in South Africa – the continent’s most developed economy.

“Africa will most likely remain as the last bastion of internal combustion engines,” Parker said.

DISTORTED MARKET

Nevertheless, industry officials say the biggest hurdle to developing the market for new cars is dumping from countries such as Japan, where strict vehicle inspections force cars out of circulation after just a few years.

They say this distorts the market by allowing dealers to buy the cars at scrap prices and export them to Africa.

They blame the cheap imports for killing off assembly sectors in a number of African countries including Nigeria, which built around 150,000 cars per year until the 1980s.

Political will is needed to change that, and without it there is little point in considering a country for local production, according to VW’s Schaefer.

“The markets … are literally not functioning right now due to importation of used vehicles,” he said.

In Kenya, the government plans to wind down imports of cars more than three years old by 2021. Exceptions will be made for passenger vehicles with 1.5 liter or smaller engines.

The policy could see mid-range imported models double in price, according to the 300-member Kenya Auto Bazaar Association (KABA). The lobby group has taken out ads in local newspapers denouncing the policy and is demanding a meeting with Kenya’s president.

Mark Oburu, KABA’s vice-chairman, said the move would hit an industry that delivers 85 percent of Kenyan car purchases.

“The middle class will not be able to own a vehicle of their choice,” he said.

In the Nairobi bazaar, Grace was shopping for her eldest son’s first car. She said she could not afford to buy a new one.

“If they don’t rescind that decision, we will be on boda bodas (motor-bikes).”

Both Ghana and Nigeria have also pledged to tackle the issue. Nigeria hiked taxes on imported used cars in 2014, but smuggling has undermined that effort to boost demand for local production, according to manufacturers and government officials.

Used cars are also among the leading imports in many African countries, and governments will have to wean themselves off the associated tax revenues.

There are other stumbling blocks: access to financing is limited, and countries that don’t host assembly plants must also be persuaded to limit used imports and reduce tariffs on African-made vehicles. That will be hard to do if the only outcome they see is higher sticker prices.

“The purpose is not to take the most lucrative slice of the industry,” said Ghana’s minister of trade and industry, Alan Kyerematen, suggesting that neighbors could produce components for his country’s assembly plants.

Auto executives acknowledge the challenges but point to a famous precedent. When VW and GM entered China in the 1980s and 90s, vehicle ownership rates were lower than in many African markets. Today, those two companies alone sell over 3.5 million vehicles annually in China.

“Everybody was laughing, saying China doesn’t need cars, they only need bicycles,” Schaefer said.

(Joe Bavier and Emma Rumney reported in Johannesburg and Duncan Miriri in Nairobi; Additional reporting by Clement Uwiringiyimana in Kigali and Chijioke Ohuocha in Lagos; Editing by Alexandra Zavis and Anna Willard)

Source: OANN

0 0

NY Times: Nielsen Prevented From Addressing Russian Interference

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s attempts to raise the alarm about Russian interference in American elections was thwarted by White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who told her not to bring up the subject with President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Mulvaney made it clear that Trump viewed any public talk of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory and thus did not want the subject discussed.

Even though the Department of Homeland Security has the main responsibility for civilian cyberdefense and Nielsen was extremely concerned about Russia’s interference in the 2018 midterm elections and future ones, she gave up on attempts to organize a White House meeting of cabinet secretaries to coordinate a strategy to protect next year’s elections due to Trump’s attitude.

Nielsen’s frustrations were described to the Times by three senior administration officials and a former one, with the White House refusing to provide comment.

The opening page of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, which was compiled by government intelligence agencies and delivered to Congress earlier this year, warned that “Russia’s social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians" and that Moscow may increase its tactis "in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions and elections.”

Nielsen grew so frustrated with Trump’s refusal to discuss an overall strategy that she twice held her own top-level meetings on the subject.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denied that the administration sidestepped the topic, saying “I don’t think there’s been a discussion between a senior U.S. official and Russians in this administration where we have not raised this issue.”

Related Stories:

Source: NewsMax Politics

0 0

Mosque shooting erodes New Zealand reputation for safety, tolerance

An injured person is loaded into an ambulance following a shooting at the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch
An injured person is loaded into an ambulance following a shooting at the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, March 15, 2019. REUTERS/SNPA/Martin Hunter

March 15, 2019

(Reuters) – A deadly mass shooting at two mosques in New Zealand during Friday prayers has horrified residents of the South Pacific nation known for its low levels of gun violence and a reputation for tolerance and safety.

Forty nine people were killed and more than 20 seriously wounded in the attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand Police Commissioner Mike Bush said.

Video footage widely circulated on social media, apparently taken by a gunman and posted online live as the attack unfolded, showed him driving to one mosque, entering it and shooting randomly at people inside.

“It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, adding it marked one of New Zealand’s darkest days.

“Many of those who would have been affected by this shooting may be migrants to New Zealand. They may even be refugees here. They have chosen to make New Zealand their home and it is their home,” she said.

Online discussion site 8chan, known for a wide range of content including hate speech, carried an anonymous post that linked to the gunman’s online live footage of the attack on one of the two mosques and a “manifesto” denouncing immigration.

The manifesto said New Zealand was not originally chosen for the attack, but was identified as a “target rich of an environment as anywhere else in the West”.

An attack in New Zealand would show “that nowhere in the world was safe, the invaders were in all of our lands, even in the remotest areas of the world and that there was nowhere left to go that was safe and free from mass immigration,” the manifesto read.

Reuters was unable to confirm the authenticity of the manifesto.

Paul Buchanan, a former intelligence and defense policy analyst now with consultancy 36th Parallel Assessments, said the threat from neo-Nazi groups in New Zealand was well-known.

“Christchurch has a very active white supremacist community, a community that has attacked refugees and people of color on multiple occasions over the last 20 years,” he told Radio New Zealand.

“It shows we don’t live in a benign environment in this day and age, we’ve been infected with the virus of extremism. The thing is it came from white supremacists, not from the Islamic community that was the target today.”

Muslims account for just over 1 percent of New Zealand’s population, a 2013 census showed, with more than three-quarters born overseas.

A 2011 study by Victoria University of Wellington found migrants from some Muslim majority countries were viewed less favorably than migrants from Britain and elsewhere.

Media discourse suggested many New Zealanders may be uncertain about, if not unreceptive to, Muslim immigrants, the study said.

In the wake of the attack, there was an outpouring of sympathy and disbelief.

“I’m just heartbroken. In fact I’m sitting here crying,” Muslim Association of Marlborough chairman Zayd Blissett told the Stuff website. “This is New Zealand. This can’t happen here.”

New Zealand has experienced several mass shootings in recent decades, including when a lone gunman killed 13 people in the small South Island town of Aramoana in 1990 following a dispute with neighbors.

The gunman was shot and killed by police, and gun licensing laws were strengthened to include tight restrictions on military style semi-automatic firearms.

According to gun control advocacy group GunPolicy.org, hosted by the University of Sydney, New Zealand’s population of almost 5 million has around 1.2 million guns in private hands.

In the decade to 2013, the most recent figures, gun homicides in the country ranged from three to 12 deaths per year.

Ardern said New Zealand was a not a target because it was a safe harbor for those who hate, condoned racism, or because it was an enclave for extremism.

“We were chosen for the very fact we are none of these things, because we represent diversity, kindness, compassion, a home for those who share our values, refuge for those who need it,” she told reporters. “And those values, I assure, will not and cannot be shaken by this attack.”

(Reporting by Lincoln Feast in SYDNEY; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Source: OANN

0 0

Chris Christie: White Working-Class Voters Could Win Biden White House

Former Vice President Joe Biden could defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election by securing support from a key demographic, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday on the TBD with Tina Brown podcast..

"His best argument is electability," Christie said.

"If Biden can make it through the primaries, he's the one Dem candidate who appeals to the white working-class voters who handed the election to Trump — and could hand 2020 to Biden instead."

After months of speculation and build-up, Biden announced Thursday morning he is running for the White House in a bid to unseat Trump. Biden, a longtime senator, unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988 and 2008, and then served as vice president for eight years.

Christie said Biden is the one Democratic candidate who can appeal to the aforementioned group of voters, which could tip the election in his favor.

"Someone who could give [Trump] a run is Joe Biden," Christie said. "I say that because in essence, [the 2016] election was decided by 80,000 voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and most of those voters were white working-class voters.

"I think if you look at the 19 candidates on the other side of the aisle, the one who can best have an opportunity to appeal to those white working-class voters is Joe Biden."

Source: NewsMax Politics

0 0

France hosts wary G7 in shadow of Trump snub, Brexit and yellow vests

A man looks at the slogan which reads
A man looks at the slogan which reads "Revolution - The people are rising up" written on a wall in Dinard, France, April 5, 2019. REUTERS/Stephane Mahe

April 5, 2019

By Richard Lough and John Irish

DINARD, France (Reuters) – France offered a wary welcome to foreign ministers from the Group of Seven on Friday for a meeting overshadowed by a snub from Donald Trump’s U.S. administration, a meltdown in Britain over Brexit and months of anti-government protests at home.

Protesters spray-painted slogans attacking President Emmanuel Macron in the sleepy coastal resort of Dinard where the ministers were due to gather to set the agenda for their leaders at the annual big power summit in August.

Workers at dawn scrubbed furiously at walls daubed with “Thieving banks”, “Revolution” and “No to the G7”, slogans which mirrored the anger vented across France in more than five months of anti-government “yellow vest” protests.

French diplomats say they have scaled back their ambitions for their presidency of the club of big rich countries, after Trump backed out of a joint communique at last year’s summit in Canada and criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will not attend and is sending a deputy. One seasoned diplomat in Paris said Pompeo had sent a message that he had “better things to do”.

Still, the agenda includes important issues from cyber security and foreign interference in democracies, to countering trafficking in the Sahel and inequality.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said he would call on his European counterparts to support his government’s request for a further delay to Britain’s exit from the EU, scheduled to take place in a week unless EU countries agree an extension.

Prime Minister Theresa May has been unable to pass her withdrawal agreement in parliament. Hunt said the G7 was proof Britain was not pulling back from a leading international role.

“The UK’s involvement in the G7 is vital for our collective security and prosperity as we seek to protect the rules-based international system,” he said. “Be in no doubt that once Brexit has happened, the UK will remain a global power.”

Along with the United States, France and Britain, the group includes Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada and the European Union. The ministerial meeting is meant to ensure that when the leaders convene in Biarritz in August, they are largely in agreement.

But tensions between the United States and its European allies, particularly over trade, climate change and the nuclear deal with Iran, have meant that where they were once largely in accord, they now seek the lowest common denominator.

(Reporting by Richard Lough and John Irish in Dinard, additional reporting by William James in London; Editing by Peter Graff)

Source: OANN

0 0

FBI Man’s Testimony Points to Wrongdoing Well Beyond Spying

X

Story Stream

recent articles

Bill Priestap, left, with Michael Horowitz, DoJ inspector general.

By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations
April 12, 2019

Attorney General William Barr shocked official Washington Wednesday by saying what previously couldn't be said: That the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 involved “spying.”

The recent release of transcripts of testimony by key players in the Trump-Russia probe suggests that the spying, which Barr vowed to investigate, is not the only significant possible violation of investigative rules and ethics committed by agents, lawyers, managers, and officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice.  

A catalogue of those abuses can be found in testimony Edward William Priestap provided to Congress in a closed-door interview last summer. From the end of 2015 to the end of 2018 Bill Priestap was assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, which meant he oversaw the FBI’s global counterintelligence efforts.

In that role, he managed both of the bureau’s most politically sensitive investigations: the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information and the probe into whether Donald Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. His testimony provides rare insight into the attitudes and thoughts of officials who launched the Russia probe and the probe of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the release of whose final report is imminent.

More important, his testimony contains extensive indications of wrongdoing, including that the FBI and DoJ targeted Trump and did so with information it made no effort to verify. It paints a portrait of the Obama-era bureau as one that was unconcerned with political interference in investigations and was willing to enlist the help of close foreign allies to bring down its target. And, perhaps presaging a defense to Barr’s claim that American officials had spied on the Trump campaign, it showcases the euphemisms that can be used to disguise “spying.”

Filling In the Blanks

Priestap’s testimony took place on June 5, 2018, in Room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The questioning, by congressmen and House committee staff, focused on whether the FBI had applied the same rigor to the Clinton investigation that it had to the Trump probe.

The transcript the public can read today contains not only those questions and Priestap’s responses, but also the tell-tale redactions of anxious bureaucrats. One thing that is very clear is that the Sharpie brigades at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice really, really didn’t want anyone to know where Bill Priestap was a week into May 2016.

Rep. Jim Jordan: Where in the world was Bill Priestap?

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Not long into the questioning that Tuesday morning last summer, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked, “Do you ever travel oversees?”

“Yes,” said Priestap.

 “How often?”

 “As little as possible.”

The seeming comedy routine notwithstanding, Jordan later asked how many times in his 2½ years running the counter-intelligence shop Priestap had traveled abroad.

 “I want to say three times,” he said.

 “And can you tell me where you went?” Jordan asked.

“The ones I’m remembering are the [REDACTED].”

Jordan drilled in: “All three times to [REDACTED]?

Priestap said the trips he remembered “off the top of my head were all [REDACTED].”

Jordan asked whether Priestap remembered when he went to this place. Priestap said “No.”

Jordan was back at it in later rounds of questioning, asking whether Priestap had traveled to a given location at a given time in 2016. Over and again, censors from the FBI and DoJ have redacted the location and the time.

What could this exotic destination be?  How is the timing of Priestap’s trip there a matter of national security? What secrets were the redactors trying to protect?

Peter Strzok: "Bill" was in London. 

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

It turns out the Sharpie people weren’t nearly as thorough as they presumably thought. Newly released transcripts of congressional testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page – the paramours who worked on both the Clinton and Trump investigations – provide one answer.  It’s right there on the page detailing text messages between the two on May 4, 2016. At around 9:31 that Wednesday evening, Strzok writes to say he is worried about getting a memo into shape that is expected that night or the next morning. He feels pressured even though “I don’t know that Bill will read it before he gets back from London next week.” Go to a text from the next Monday morning, May 9, and Strzok is wondering who will be receiving the daily report on the Clinton investigation, what “with Bill out.”

So there we have it. Bill Priestap was in London on or around May 9. Which strongly suggests that all three of the international trips taken by him during his tenure as FBI counterintelligence chief were to London.

Still, there is a reason the censors had out their Sharpies. It has to do with another question Jordan asked Priestap: “Okay. So what were you doing in [REDACTED] in the [REDACTED] of 2016?”

“So,” Priestap replied, “I went to meet with a foreign partner, foreign government partner.” In other words, almost certainly British intelligence. Not exposing our British partners has been the Justice Department’s justification for locking up secrets about the beginnings of the Trump investigation. The redactions try and fail to hide that Priestap met repeatedly with his British counterparts in 2016.

Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was also in London. So was the FBI, around the same time.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

Students of the Russia-collusion saga will recall that some of the earliest and most significant events cited as leading to the FBI’s investigation of Team Trump took place in a certain REDACTED country during a REDACTED season in 2016. It was over breakfast on April 26 in London that the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, told young Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Five days later, on May 1, Papadopoulos had drinks with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in a London bar where he shared this piece of gossip/intel. And, of course, London is home to the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Christopher Steele.

According to the official story laid out in the New York Times, Australian officials did not pass on this new information for two months. And while Steele was retained by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the spring to dig up dirt on Trump for the Clinton campaign, the official story is that he did not start working with U.S. officials until the summer.

And so it is more than passingly curious that Priestap kept going to London when these significant events were occurring. Jordan asked Priestap about his second trip there: “What did it have to do with?”

Priestap demurred: “I'm not at liberty to discuss that today.”

After some dodging and weaving, Jordan came back to the question, but this time with an uncomfortable specificity: “Was your second trip then concerning the Trump-Russia investigation?” he asked.

“Sir, again, I'm just not at liberty to go into the purpose of my second trip.”

Priestap could have answered “no” without perjuring himself, he could have quickly put this matter to bed.  His “I’m not at liberty” answers strongly suggest that the Trump-Russia investigation was exactly what his second trip to London was about.

Spying, Redefined

Attorney General Barr’s statement that "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign makes another part of Priestap’s testimony – about why an FBI asset in London named Stefan Halper reached out to Papadopoulos and to another Trump foreign policy adviser, Carter Page -- even more significant.

Stefan Halper: also in London.

Voanews.com/Wikimedia

Weeks before Priestap’s testimony was taken last summer, the efforts of Halper, an American scholar who works in Britain, had been exposed. Republicans had been spluttering with outrage that the FBI would deploy a spy against an American presidential campaign. Democrats had been countering that while the bureau used informants, only the ignorant and uninitiated would call them spies.

Democratic staff counsel Valerie Shen tried to use her questioning of Priestap to put the spying issue to bed. “Does the FBI use spies?” she asked the assistant director for counterintelligence (who would be in a position to know).

“What do you mean?” Priestap responded. “I guess, what is your definition of a spy?”

“Good question,” said Shen. “What is your definition of a spy?”

Before Priestap answered, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, intervened. “Just one second,” he said. Then Ettinger – who was one of President Bill Clinton’s attorneys during the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandal – conferred with his client.

Back on the record, Priestap presented what smacks of pre-approved testimony: “I've not heard of nor have I referred to FBI personnel or the people we engage with as – meaning who are working in assistance to us – as spies. We do evidence and intelligence collection in furtherance of our investigations.”

Shen was happy with the answer, and so she asked Priestap to confirm it: “So in your experience the FBI doesn't use the term ‘spy’ in any of its investigative techniques?” Priestap assured her the word is never spoken by law-enforcement professionals – except, he said (wandering dangerously off-script), when referring to “foreign spies.”

“But in terms of one of its own techniques,” Shen said, determined to get Priestap back on track, “the FBI does not refer to one of its own techniques as spying?”

“That is correct, yes.”

“With that definition in mind, would the FBI internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens?”

“No.”

So there we have it with all the decisive logic of a Socratic dialogue: The FBI could not possibly have spied on the Trump campaign because bureau lingo includes neither the noun “spy” nor the verb “to spy.” Whatever informants may have been employed, whatever tools of surveillance may have been utilized, the FBI did not spy on the Trump campaign – didn’t spy by definition, as the bureau doesn’t use the term (except, of course, to describe the very same activities when undertaken by foreigners).

What’s telling about this line of questioning is that it inadvertently confirms Republican suspicions — and Attorney General Barr’s assertion. If House Democrats believed there had been no spying on the Trump campaign, they could have asked Priestap whether the FBI ever spies on Americans, given the common meaning of the verb “to spy.” They could have flat-out asked whether the FBI had spied on Trump World. Instead, Democratic counsel asked whether, given the FBI’s definition of spying, the bureau would “internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens.” It would seem that Democrats were every bit as convinced as Republicans that the FBI spied on Trump’s people.

Interpreting ‘Political Interference’

Later in the day, Democratic lawyer Shen seemed to be engaged in more damage control when she asked Priestap whether “political interference in the Department of Justice or FBI investigation [is] ever proper?”

Surprisingly, Priestap said it was: “In my opinion, I can imagine situations where it would be proper.” He explained that the political appointees in an administration might determine “that the national security interests of the country outweigh the law enforcement/prosecutive interest of the FBI and Department of Justice.”

Shen then appeared to push him to clean up his answer, suggesting that what Priestap was describing wasn’t “a political determination” but “a policy interpretation balancing national security and law enforcement.”

“Yeah. I guess,” Priestap said. “And maybe I misunderstood your question.” Then what does he do but repeat his belief that political appointees — and “by political, I could imagine, for example, the National Security Council” — might act on the notion that national security outweighs other considerations.”

“Right. Yeah. Right,” Shen said. “Let me rephrase.” She explained she wasn’t asking about decisions political officials make, but rather, decisions officials make for political reasons. Then came the rephrased question: “Is interference in a Department of Justice or FBI investigation ever proper when motivated by purely political considerations?” [Emphasis added]

“Not in my opinion,” responded Priestap.

What Shen was laboring to establish was that the only sort of investigative behavior that could be called political interference was when someone at DoJ or FBI acted out of “purely political considerations.” That’s a standard that leaves plenty of room for politics.

Targeting Trump?

But does it leave room enough for the “dossier”? The political abuse foremost in Republican minds was, and remains, that collection of howlers and hearsay allegedly compiled by Christopher Steele, who was sold to the public as a high-minded former British spy instead of a man being paid by the Clinton campaign to dirty up Trump.  Steele’s efforts were lapped up by the FBI and DoJ even though the lawmen knew Steele was peddling political work-product — opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Carter Page: Was he the real quarry, or was Donald Trump?

Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP

In particular, Republicans have charged that Steele’s dossier was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without full disclosure of its partisan origins, thus perpetrating a fraud on the FISA court. The accusation was formalized in May 2018, when Republicans demanded the appointment of a second special counsel because, they claimed, “the FBI and DOJ used politically biased, unverified sources to obtain warrants issued by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA Court) that aided in the surveillance of U.S. citizens, including Carter Page.”

Shen, the House Oversight Committee minority counsel, brushed that accusation aside with what appeared to be an unambiguous and definitive question: “Mr. Priestap,” she asked, “are you aware of any instances of the FBI and DOJ ever using politically biased, unverified sources in order to obtain a FISA warrant?”

Priestap gave the most unambiguous and definitive of answers: “No.” One might be tempted to think that was an endorsement of the dossier, a confirmation that the FISA warrant applications were largely based on information that was neither politically biased nor unverified. But that would be taking the question and the answer on face value, when something rather less straightforward was going on.

Shen followed with another broad, all-encompassing question about the propriety of the FBI and DoJ’s behavior: “Are you aware,” she asked Priestap, “of any instances where the FBI or DOJ did not present what constituted credible and sufficient evidence to justify a FISA warrant?”

Priestap’s response is a textbook case of circular logic: “If it's not justified, the court doesn't approve it. So, like, if we're not meeting the standard required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the requests are turned down.”

“So, in other words,” said the Democratic counsel, “by definition, if you presented information and a FISA court approved it, that would constitute credible sufficient information?”

“In my opinion,” said Priestap, “yes.”

Sit back and savor that exchange for a moment. One of the most senior officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation – an organization that regularly refers for prosecution people who don’t tell the full truth – champions this peculiar standard of credibility: If you can snooker a FISA court judge, the information used to traduce the court is rendered by definition “credible sufficient information.” What is the condition of the FBI if its leaders think whatever you can get past a judge is good enough?

This strange concept of legal alchemy aside, the question remains whether the dossier was used merely as a vehicle to get information on Carter Page, or whether the real quarry was Donald Trump himself. As before, Shen was unintentionally helpful at winkling inadvertent truths out of her cooperative witness. It started with the softest of softballs: “Are you aware of any FBI investigations motivated by political bias?”

“I am not.”

“Are you aware of any Justice Department investigations motivated by political bias?”

“No.”

“Are you aware of any actions ever taken to damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”

“No.”

And there Shen might have left it, having elicited basic denials that the FBI and Justice had abused their power. But then she pushed her luck, asking a question that wasn’t worded quite carefully enough: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”

Priestap must have pulled quite the face because Shen immediately declared, “I’ll rephrase.” Here’s how she tried it the second time: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”

Before Priestap can answer, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, interjected: “I think you need to rephrase your question.”

At which point Shen’s Democratic colleague Janet Kim jumped in to help: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI for the purpose of politically undercutting him?”

At last, Priestap was able to say, “No.”

That long road to “no” strong suggests that the highest levels of Justice and the FBI personally targeted Trump and took action against him. The only caveat is that Priestap believes none of that targeted action was done to undercut Trump politically. That may be so (however much the savvy observer may think otherwise). But it doesn’t blunt the main takeaway — that the bureau and DoJ targeted Trump.

In Summary…

So what did we learn from Bill Priestap’s compendious and revealing testimony?

  • We learned that the FBI and Justice targeted and took action against Trump.
  • We learned that the FBI, according to Priestap, is incapable of securing a FISA warrant with information that isn’t credible, although the judge’s approval of the warrant means by definition that the information is credible.
  • We learned that the FBI believes political interference in an investigation can be proper as long as the bureau isn’t acting purely politically.
  • We learned that the FBI did send at least one asset to do to the Trump campaign an activity that even the bureau would call “spying” — if it were done by foreign operatives.
  • We learned that the origins of the Trump-Russia tale will never be fully understood until the part played by British intelligence is made clear.

That’s an awful lot to take away from one largely neglected transcript. But it suggests just how much remains unknown about the Trump-Russia investigation while providing a glimpse at the people that want to keep it that way.

Related Articles

0 0

Remember When Donald Trump Spoke Out Against Vaccines?

Super Male Vitality

Limited Advanced Release

69.95

31.47

The all new and advanced Super Male Vitality formula uses the newest extraction technology with even more powerful concentrations of various herbs and extracts designed to be even stronger.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/smv-200.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=jftqm&utm_campaign=IW+-+SuperMale+-STFA+-+55%25+Off+-+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-STFA-SuperMale-55%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=jftqm&utm_campaign=IW+-+SuperMale+-STFA+-+55%25+Off+-+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-STFA-SuperMale-55%25off-Widget

Super Male Vitality

69.95

31.47

The all new and advanced Super Male Vitality formula uses the newest extraction technology with even more powerful concentrations of various herbs and extracts designed to be even stronger.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/smv-200.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=jftqm&utm_campaign=IW+-+SuperMale+-STFA+-+55%25+Off+-+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-STFA-SuperMale-55%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=jftqm&utm_campaign=IW+-+SuperMale+-STFA+-+55%25+Off+-+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-STFA-SuperMale-55%25off-Widget

Brain Force Plus

39.95

15.98

Flip the switch and supercharge your state of mind with the all-new Brain Force PLUS: 20% more capsules and a critically enhanced formula featuring a brand new ingredient and increased potency* – all for the same low price.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bf-300-1.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/brain-force.html?ims=bnlem&utm_campaign=IW+-+Brain+Force+-STFA+-+60%25+Off+-+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-STFA-BrainForce-60%25off-Widget

https://www.infowarsstore.com/brain-force.html?ims=bnlem&utm_campaign=IW+-+Brain+Force+-STFA+-+60%25+Off+-+Widget&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-STFA-BrainForce-60%25off-Widget

DNA Force Plus

149.95

59.80

With one of our most advanced formulas yet, DNA Force Plus is finally here. Focusing on overhauling your body's cellular engines and protecting them from reactive oxygen species, DNA Force Plus has one of the best combinations of antioxidants on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dna-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=xxqxg&utm_campaign=DNA+Force+Plus+-+STFA+Ending+Soon+-+60%25+Off+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-60%25off-STFA

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=xxqxg&utm_campaign=DNA+Force+Plus+-+STFA+Ending+Soon+-+60%25+Off+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-60%25off-STFA

DNA Force Plus

149.95

59.80

With one of our most advanced formulas yet, DNA Force Plus is finally here. Focusing on overhauling your body's cellular engines and protecting them from reactive oxygen species, DNA Force Plus has one of the best combinations of antioxidants on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dna-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=xxqxg&utm_campaign=DNA+Force+Plus+-+STFA+Ending+Soon+-+60%25+Off+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-60%25off-STFA

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=xxqxg&utm_campaign=DNA+Force+Plus+-+STFA+Ending+Soon+-+60%25+Off+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-60%25off-STFA

DNA Force Plus

149.95

59.80

With one of our most advanced formulas yet, DNA Force Plus is finally here. Focusing on overhauling your body's cellular engines and protecting them from reactive oxygen species, DNA Force Plus has one of the best combinations of antioxidants on the market.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dna-210.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=xxqxg&utm_campaign=DNA+Force+Plus+-+STFA+Ending+Soon+-+60%25+Off+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-60%25off-STFA

https://www.infowarsstore.com/dna-force-plus.html?ims=xxqxg&utm_campaign=DNA+Force+Plus+-+STFA+Ending+Soon+-+60%25+Off+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=IW-DNAFP-Widget-60%25off-STFA

Source: InfoWars

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Story Time

1:00 am 6:00 am



A California man who allegedly fatally shot his ex-girlfriend in broad daylight last month before fleeing the country has been returned to the U.S. following his arrest in Mexico on Wednesday, authorities said.

Julio Cesar Rocha, 25, of Montlcair, is accused of shooting his 25-year-old ex-girlfriend Thalia Flores and a second unidentified male victim March 21 around 2:45 p.m. while the two were sitting in a vehicle in the parking lot of a discount store in Chino. Both communities are about 36 miles east of Los Angeles.

ARREST MADE IN DOUBLE HOMICIDE OF EX-PRO HOCKEY PLAYER, COMMUNITY ADVOCATE, POLICE SAY

Julio Cesar Rocha, 25, of Montlcair, Calif. was located in Mexico Wednesday and returned to California where he faces murder and attempted murder charges related to the death of his ex-girlfriend, Thalia Flores.

Julio Cesar Rocha, 25, of Montlcair, Calif. was located in Mexico Wednesday and returned to California where he faces murder and attempted murder charges related to the death of his ex-girlfriend, Thalia Flores. (City of Chino Police Department)

Flores died at the scene. The man, whose name was not released, walked to a nearby hospital where he’s recovering from his gunshot wounds.

Rocha allegedly fled the scene and remained at large for more than a month, the Daily Bulletin reported. He was formally arrested at 4:30 p.m. after arriving at Los Angeles International Airport from Mexico, KTLA-TV reported.

The suspect was booked at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on murder and attempted murder charges, the City of Chino Police Department said on Facebook.

Flores ended her seven-year relationship with Rocha just two months before her death and still lived in fear of him until that point, a sister of the victim, Bernice Flores, told the Daily Bulletin.

“He said himself so many times to other people, ‘If I can’t have her, no one will.’ ” Flores said, adding that her sister stayed in the relationship longer that she would have liked in fear that Rocha would hurt her or her family if they broke up.

Rocha was convicted on misdemeanor battery in 2016 and sentenced to 60 days in prison. He was originally charged with misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon, but the charges were lowered in a plea deal, the Daily Bulletin reported.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Rocha was convicted of misdemeanor resisting or obstructing a peace officer in 2014. A second charge of misdemeanor battery was dropped in a plea deal, and Rocha was ordered to complete a 26-week anger management course, according to San Bernardino County Superior Court records. Rocha was later arrested and sentenced to 10 days behind bars for failing to complete the course.

Source: Fox News National

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Multiple people died Thursday when a semitrailer plowed into stationary traffic that resulted in explosions and flames on a Colorado freeway, authorities said.

The incident occurred just before 5 p.m. in the Denver suburb of Lakewood when a truck driver lost control while traveling east on Interstate 70, according to a preliminary investigation. The collision started a chain reaction and a diesel fuel spill, Lakewood police spokesman Ty Countryman told the Denver Post.

“This is looking to be one of the worst accidents we’ve had here in Lakewood,” he said.

The driver of the runaway truck survived. At least one truck was carrying lumber, another was hauling gravel and the third may have been carrying mattresses, KDVR-TV reported.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lakewood police tweeted there were multiple fatalities but did not give a specific number. Six people were taken to a hospital. Their conditions were not released, according to the paper.

Lanes in both directions were closed and expected to remain so into Friday morning.

Source: Fox News National

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

President Trump will address members and leaders of the National Rifle Association on Friday at the group’s annual convention in Indiana.

Around 80,000 gun enthusiasts and more than 800 exhibitors are expected to pack the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis for the three-day event, the Indianapolis Star reported. It will mark the third straight year that Trump will deliver the keynote address, where he is expected to champion the rights of gun owners.

“Donald Trump is the most enthusiastic supporter of the Second Amendment to occupy the Oval Office in our lifetimes,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), said in a statement. “President Trump’s Supreme Court appointments ensure that the Second Amendment will be respected for generations to come. Our members are excited to hear him speak and thank him for his support for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.”

“Donald Trump is the most enthusiastic supporter of the Second Amendment to occupy the Oval Office in our lifetimes.”

— Chris Cox, executive director, NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

COLORADO ENACTS ‘RED FLAG’ LAW TO SEIZE GUNS FROM THOSE DEEMED DANGEROUS, PROMPTING BACKLASH

President Donald Trump speaks at the National Rifle Association annual convention in Dallas last year. (Associated Press)

President Donald Trump speaks at the National Rifle Association annual convention in Dallas last year. (Associated Press)

Trump and Vice President Mike Pence spoke at last year’s convention in Dallas. During his speech, Trump assured gun owners that he would protect their Second Amendment rights, according to the paper.

“Your Second Amendment rights are under siege,” Trump told the cheering audience in Dallas. “But they will never, ever be under siege as long as I am your president.”

Trump has supported some gun control measures in the past. Last year, his administration imposed a ban on bump stocks, attachments that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire in rapid bursts. Although, he most recently threatened to veto two Democratic gun control bills.

This year’s convention comes as the NRA faces outside pressure and internal problems. The group has seen its legislative agenda stall amid a series of mass shootings — including a massacre at a Parkland, Fla., high school in February 2018 that left 17 dead and launched a youth movement against gun violence.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It’s also grappling with infighting in its ranks, money problems and investigations into whether Russian agents courted officials and funneled money through the group.

“I’ve never seen the NRA this vulnerable,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control measure.

The convention will run through the weekend and conclude Sunday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
FILE PHOTO: Shoppers walk past the Debenhams department store on Oxford Street in London
FILE PHOTO: Shoppers walk past the Debenhams department store on Oxford Street in London, Britain December 15, 2018. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

April 26, 2019

(Reuters) – Ailing British retailer Debenhams said two proposed company voluntary arrangements (CVA) could see all its stores remaining open during 2019, with 22 closures planned for next year, putting about 1,200 jobs at risk.

Debenhams’ lenders took control of the retailer earlier this month in a process designed to keep its shops open at the expense of shareholders.

(Reporting by Noor Zainab Hussain in Bengaluru; editing by Gopakumar Warrier)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
FILE PHOTO: Xiaomi branding is seen on a carrier bag at a UK launch event in London
FILE PHOTO: Xiaomi branding is seen on a carrier bag at a UK launch event in London, Britain, November 8, 2018. REUTERS/Toby Melville

April 26, 2019

BENGALURU (Reuters) – Chinese brands controlled a record 66 percent of Indian smartphone market in the first quarter, led by Xiaomi Corp, a report showed, with volumes rising 20 percent on the back of popularity for brands like Vivo, RealMe and Oppo.

Xiaomi’s India shipments fell by 2 percent over last year, but the Beijing-based company was still the biggest smartphone brand in the country, followed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, according to Hong-Kong based Counterpoint Research.

Shipment volumes for Vivo jumped 119 percent, while those of Oppo rose 28 percent.

“Vivo’s expanding portfolio in the mid-tier range ($100 to $180) drove its growth along with aggressive Indian Premier League cricket campaign,” Counterpoint analysts said.

India is the world’s fastest growing market for smartphones, where affordable pricing coupled with features like “selfie” cameras and big screens have popularized Chinese brands.

Video streaming services like Netflix Inc and Hotstar, as well as heavy usage of messaging apps like Facebook Inc’s WhatsApp have further spurred demand.

“Data consumption is on the rise and users are upgrading their phones faster as compared to other regions,” Counterpoint’s Tarun Pathak said.

“As a result of this, the premium specs are now diffusing faster into the mid-tier price brands. We estimate this trend to continue leading to a competitive mid-tier segment in coming quarters.”

(Reporting By Arnab Paul in Bengaluru; Editing by Subhranshu Sahu)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
Current track

Title

Artist