Posted on 10/12/2019 11:04:02 AM PDT by ransomnote
Bwahahaha!
Go Flynn! Go Powell!
Thanks, pj’s!
I wonder how the grass fire started. Homeless? Arson?
Spell check was lost temporarily.
Now the ethanol farm is on fire or something.
Whooppee seven dollar gasoline!
POTUS and LL World Champs at WH.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVeryVAi0Zo
Really late to the party!!!
BREAKING: Pelosi just announced that the House will not vote now on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.
It’s time to end this witch hunt!
Who agrees?— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) October 15, 2019
This is some juicy speculation.
I appreciate this kind of stuff. Makes you think without pretensions of being verified or presenting a fake headline to attract clicks. Just some dude putting some disparate facts together ... doing some thinking.
See HB’s weird right eye thingy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
no, I don’t see it - I am ‘blinded by the light’ of his teef!
2100 children
from 2100 event???
https://steempeak.com/informationwar/@gomeravibz/2100-caged-children-liberated-and-saved-by-u-s-marines-and-navy-seals-from-deepstate-owned-underground-bases-in-california
Excellent lecture, my FRiend! You are so right!
I am recommending you for a promotion to Morale Officer.
Greg’s twitter feed.
https://twitter.com/GregRubini
HAHA!!
I am so keeping that one.
White people like Liz warren, Biden, Durban, Feinstein?
All those white people are for the free market?
Or was that your attempt at sarcasm?
“As alleged in today’s indictment, Halkbank’s systemic participation in the illicit movement of billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian oil revenue was designed and executed by senior bank officials. The bank’s audacious conduct was supported and protected by high-ranking Turkish government officials, some of whom received millions of dollars in bribes to promote and protect the scheme. Halkbank will now have to answer for its conduct in an American court.”
~~~~
THAT right there is an example of why DJT is putting the screws to Turkey.
Aiding and abetting the evasion of the sanctions vs. Iran..!
Q
Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016 election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the New York Times.
On Monday, Hill told House investigators that Bolton got into a heated confrontation on July 10 with Trump's EU ambassador, Gordon D. Sondland, who was working with Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani to investigate Democrats. Hill said that Bolton told her to notify the top attorney for the National Security Council about the 'rogue' effort by Sondland, Giuliani and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
"I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up," Bolton apparently told Hill to tell the lawyers.
It was not the first time Mr. Bolton expressed grave concerns to Ms. Hill about the campaign being run by Mr. Giuliani. “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” Ms. Hill quoted Mr. Bolton as saying during an earlier conversation.
The testimony revealed in a powerful way just how divisive Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to extract damaging information about Democrats from Ukraine on President Trump’s behalf were within the White House. Ms. Hill, the senior director for European and Russian affairs, testified that Mr. Giuliani and his allies circumvented the usual national security process to run their own foreign policy efforts, leaving the president’s official advisers aware of the rogue operation yet powerless to stop it. -NYT
When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr.’s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony," according to the Times.
Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley, a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."
Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.
The interviews indicated that House Democrats were proceeding full tilt with their inquiry despite the administration’s declaration last week that it would refuse to cooperate with what it called an invalid and unconstitutional impeachment effort. -NYT
Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper - a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.
Twitter has announced new rules governing how they will now treat world leaders' accounts, making clear that certain content will result in "enforcement action," according to a Tuesday press release.
"There continues to be meaningful public conversation about how we think about Tweets from world leaders on our service. We welcome the conversation and want to share more context on our principles and process for reviewing reported Tweets from these accounts," reads the statement.
When it comes to the actions of world leaders on Twitter, we recognize that this is largely new ground and unprecedented. We understand the desire for our decisions to be “yes/no” binaries, but it’s not that simple. The actions we take and policies we develop will set precedent around online speech and we owe it to the people we serve to be deliberate and considered in what we do.
Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. We also have a responsibility to the people who use Twitter to better explain why we make the decisions we make, which we will do here. -Twitter
That said, world leaders are still to be afforded far greater leeway than the general population, as they state " the accounts of world leaders are not above our policies entirely."
For example, the following areas "will result in enforcement action for any account on our service" regardless of who it is:
Promotion of terrorism;
Clear and direct threats of violence against an individual (context matters: as noted above, direct interactions with fellow public figures and/or commentary on political and foreign policy issues would likely not result in enforcement);
Posting private information, such as a home address or non-public personal phone number;
Posting or sharing intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent;
Engaging in behaviors relating to child sexual exploitation; and
Encouraging or promoting self-harm.
Twitter says that in other cases involving world leaders, they will err on the side of leaving content up if there is a "clear public interest in doing so."
More:
"With critical elections and shifting political dynamics around the world, we recognize that we’re operating in an increasingly complex and polarized political culture. These are constantly evolving challenges and we’ll keep our policies and approach under advisement, particularly as we learn more about the relationship between Tweets from world leaders and the potential for offline harm.
This post seeks to provide clear insight into how we address content from world leaders on Twitter today, and will serve as our statement on the decisions we make, rather than our teams providing feedback on individual Tweets and decisions. We've also updated our dedicated Help Center page to provide a significantly more detailed breakdown of how we make decisions regarding the use of the public interest notice.
Our goal is to enforce our rules judiciously and impartially. In doing so, we aim to provide direct insight into our enforcement decision-making, to serve public conversation, and protect the public’s right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account."
So just how long will it be before Twitter is strong-armed by Schiff et al. into leveraging these new rules to ban one of their most-followed users?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-paves-way-trump-ban-new-content-rules-world-leaders
@Jack is on very thin ice and he seems so very unaware...foolish human (or is he?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.