SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/16/2018 6:46:01 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck3 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
rayrohn
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
She took the job and signed an NDA. I hope she loses everything



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/16/2018 7:17:19 PM
From: FJB  Respond to of 224836
 
Five Mohammeds and others charged for abusing girls as young as 12 in Huddersfield, UK

voiceofeurope.com

By Voice of Europe 15 August 2018

altanaka - Daboost / shutterstock.com

The birthplace of Labour PM Harold Wilson is the latest location of a child sex abuse scandal. Huddersfield.

Charges were filed against 31 people, 12 of whom cannot be named for legal purposes, for offences ranging from facilitating the commission of a child sex offence to rape of young girls, aged between 12 and 18. The offences said to have occurred between 2005 and 2012.

Most of those charged are from the Huddersfield and Dewbury area, which is situated between Leeds and Manchester. One woman and 30 men have been charged and are set to appear before Kirklees Magistrates Court on 5 and 6 September.

The Huddersfield Daily Examiner has published the list of defendants and their charges. The list is as follows:

Mohammed Sajjad, aged 31, of Huddersfield, is charged with four counts of rape of a female age 13-15, one rape of a girl under 13 and facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.

Banaras Hussain, 37, is charged with one count of rape of a female over 16.

Mubasher Hussain, aged 35, of Huddersfield, is charged with rape of a female aged 13-15 and sexual assault.

Banaris Hussain, 35, from Huddersfield, is charged with one count of rape of a girl aged 13 – 15.

Mohammed Suhail Arif, aged 30, also from Huddersfield, is charged with rape of girl aged 13-15.

Shaqeel Hussain, aged 35, of Dewsbury, is charged with rape of a female aged 13-15 and two counts of trafficking.

Iftikar Ali, aged 37, of Huddersfield, is charged with attempted rape of girl aged 13-15 and three counts of rape of a girl aged 13-15.

Fehreen Rafiq, 38, of Huddersfield, she is charged with two counts of facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.

Umar Zaman, aged 30, of Huddersfield, is charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15.

Basharat Hussain, 31, of Huddersfield, is charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15.

Amin Ali Choli, 36, of Huddersfield, is charged with two counts of rape of a female over 16-years-old.

Samuel Fikru, 30, has been charged with two counts of rape of female aged 13-15.

Abdul Majid, 34, is charged with two counts of rape of female aged 13-15.

Mohammed Dogar, aged 35, of Huddersfield, is charged with two counts of facilitating the commission of child sex offence.

Usman Ali, aged 32, of Huddersfield, is charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15.

Mohammed Waqas Anwar, aged 29, of Huddersfield, is charged with five counts of rape of a female aged 13-15.

Gul Riaz, aged 42, of Huddersfield, is charged with rape of a female aged 13-15.

Mohammed Akram, 4, is charged with two counts of trafficking with a view to sexual exploitation of a female and rape of a female aged 14-15.

Manzoor Akhtar, aged 29, is charged with trafficking and three counts of rape of a female aged 13-15.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/17/2018 11:16:10 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
We knew Peter Strzok was gutless.
His begging reveals that he’s shameless, too


| Spectator USA

spectator.us

August 16, 2018

12:21 PM

What’s the most disgusting thing about Peter Strzok, the disgraced anti-Trump FBI agent who was fired a few days ago for unprofessional behaviour? I know, I know, you’ve got a lot to choose from there. Some might say ‘Cheating on his wife with fellow FBI employee and anti-Trump hysteric Lisa Page.’ Some might point to his extraordinary texts about Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. My personal favourite was this exchange between paramour Page and Strzok:

Page: ‘ not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’
Strzok: ‘No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.’


Your partisan, selective enforcing justice department at work, ladies and gentlemen.


All of that is distasteful and, as Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted in is delicately phrased but nonetheless devastating report on the FBI’s bias during the 2016 presidential campaign, grounds for disciplinary action.

At the end of the day, however, I think it is Peter Strzok’s coda that is the most repellent thing about him. Inspired, perhaps, by yet another disgraced FBI agent, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok was barely out on the pavement in front of FBI headquarters before he started a ‘GoFundMe’ campaign.

At first he was asking for $150,000. When the money started pouring in, he raised his goal to $350,000. As I write, his goal is $500,000 and he has managed to attract $417,000 from 10,000 credulous souls.

Everyman’s guide to success and riches in the FBI. 1. Join the bureau. 2. Do bad stuff and get fired. 3. Hit the jackpot.

Five hundred thousand of the crispest. For what? Strzok’s GoFundMe page says that ‘Peter Strzok [is] a man who has spent his entire life working to help keep us and our nation safe.’ Translation: he worked tirelessly to keep like-minded people safe from Donald Trump.

I’m not sure we have really taken on board how bizarre has been the behaviour of the top echelon of Obama’s intelligence and law enforcement services.

It used to be that top government workers would gracefully bow out of the limelight went they left service. Not this crew. John Brennan, Obama’s Communist voting, Islamophilic head of the CIA, has been the source of countless hysterical tweets and commentary on MSNBC about the President of the United States. James Comey, Obama’s head of the FBI, has conducted his own anti-Trump twitter campaign while raking in the royalties from his self-serving anti-Trump memoir. James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, leaked the infamous Steele dossier to CNN, lied about it, and was rewarded with a job at that wretched network. He, too, has been violently vocal in his opposition to the president.

Then there is Sally Yates, formerly Deputy Attorney General, the aforementioned Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, our recently enriched Peter Strzok, and countless minnow-like figures in public life. These ‘public servants’ specialise in shamelessly serving themselves in public: lucrative book and television contracts that parade former high-ranking intelligence and law enforcement officials as circus animals is one gambit.

The ‘GoFundMe’ me wheeze is doubtless the most shameless to date, however. What we’re seeing is the partisan exploitation of an innovative charity that was designed to assist people in real need. Cynical operators like Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok have perverted an enterprise that was meant to aid impecunious cancer patients, widows and orphans, victims of natural disasters, and the like into a get-rich-quick (and get-publicity-quick) scheme for disgraced high level coppers.

The great English essayist William Hazlitt once observed that ‘those who lack delicacy hold us in their power.’ The behaviour of Peter Strzok illustrates that thesis. It also reminds us of the curious linguistic fact that the English words ‘shameless’ and ‘shameful’ are synonyms. Peter Strzok illustrates that oddity as well. He is simultaneously without shame and yet full of it. Doubtless he is laughing on his way to the bank, but I suspect that a public accounting will eventually catch up with him



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/17/2018 11:24:52 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Carolyn
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
KHAN’S LONDON: SIX ARRESTS AFTER TEEN ‘DISEMBOWELED’ IN QUADRUPLE STABBING



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/17/2018 10:31:45 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck4 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
Oblivious
rayrohn
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Your buddy Brennan was a Russian plant



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/18/2018 10:01:27 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Nearly All Criminal Foreigners in U.S. Are from Central, South America - MURDERERS, RAPISTS, MS-13 ANIMALS COSTING US A LOT OF MONEY

breitbart ^ |
JOHN BINDER

Nearly all of the criminal illegal and legal immigrants incarcerated in American prisons derive from six countries in Central and South America. The newest Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reveals how mass immigration to the United States from primarily Central America is leading to a booming foreign incarcerated population from the region. Between Fiscal Year 2011 and 2016, about 91 percent of all criminal illegal and legal immigrants in federal U.S. prisons were nationals from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Guatemala. There are now close to 40,000 criminal illegal and legal immigrants incarcerated in federal prisons across...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/18/2018 11:54:15 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
“A Fish Rots from the Head” and Every Day the Current Leadership of the DOJ and FBI Remain – They Become More Corrupt
August 18, 2018, 7:48 am by Jim Hoft



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/18/2018 3:28:44 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Top 2020 Democrats Under Fire for Hating America Just Like Andrew Cuomo - CUOMO PROCLAIMING HIS HATRED FOR AMERICA WILL MAKE A GOOD CAMPAIGN AD. DON'T YOU THINK...

Cuomo walks back 'America not great' claim




New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been floated as a possible 2020 Democratic presidential pick, was forced to backtrack this week after saying America “was never that great” -- the latest example of top Democrats criticizing what they see as the country’s injustices.

But now Republicans are saying that it represents part of a broader theme for top Democrats, saying that they are united in their "collective bashing of America."

Cuomo shocked supporters, and sparked a national controversy when he said at a bill signing: “We’re not going to make America great again, it was never that great.”

“We have not reached greatness, we will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged, we will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of our population, is gone,” he went on to add.

Cuomo was criticized for the remark on both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, gubernatorial challenger Cynthia Nixon told NY1 it was “another example of Andrew Cuomo trying to figure out what a progressive sounds like and missing by a mile.”

President Trump meanwhile, tore into his long-standing rival in a series of tweets in recent days. He called it “a career threatening statement” from Cuomo and predicted that “his political career is over.”

Cuomo has been walking back the statement. His office released a statement saying that he does, in fact, believe that America is great, but that it has yet to reach its full potential. Meanwhile on Friday in a call with reporters, he said the remark was “inartful."

“Of course America is great and of course America has always been great. No one questions that,” he said.

But the remark is the latest in a series of bolder statements from Democrats in calling out what they see as injustices or inequalities in America.

It’s also something that Republicans are keen to exploit, believing that while such statements may play well with left-wing activists, it will be rejected by the nation at large.

In an email blast this week, The Republican National Committee said that “the only thing that seems to unify prominent Democrats these days is their collective bashing of America.”

Trump suggested Cuomo’s remark was an extension of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s famous statement that half of Trump supporters could be put into “a basket of deplorables.”

“Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it,” she said.

That remark was widely perceived to have hurt her campaign, and many Trump supporters now wear the “deplorable” tag as a badge of honor.

Last week she was criticized for supporting an 11-year-old student who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Keep up the good work Mariana," she tweeted.


But the RNC pointed to other remarks from other possible 2020 candidates who appeared to take a swing at America, or large numbers of people in it.

Earlier this month Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., told an audience in New Orleans that things are “savagely wrong” in America and that there is a “normalcy of injustice.”

“I’m a big believer that if America, if this country hasn’t broken your heart, then you don’t love her enough. Because there’s things that are savagely wrong in this country. There’s a normalcy of injustice that we’ve accepted,” he said.

Also this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary, said that there was something “fundamentally immoral” about America due to its economic inequality.

“I think that there is an understanding there is something fundamentally immoral and wrong about a nation in which we have three people who own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. That does not make sense,” Sanders said in an appearance on CBS.

Meanwhile Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., came under fire from police groups when she described America’s criminal justice system as racist “front to back.”

“The hard truth about our criminal justice system: It’s racist ... front to back.” she said before a college audience.

The GOP said that the remarks show that Democrats are out of touch, and it would appear to be an issue where there isn’t much support from the public. A 2016 Washington Post poll found that only seven percent of those polled said that America has never been great.

Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News.. He can be reached here.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/18/2018 4:48:08 PM
From: FJB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224836
 
The 2nd Special Counsel, Assange, & The 'Free' Press
- THE SECOND SPECIAL COUNSEL WILL BE HEADED BY A HIGH IQ, COMPETENT PATRIOT, NOT AN OLD CORRUPT, CRIMINAL MORON LIKE MUELLER.

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Two thirds of Americans want the Mueller investigation (inquisition, someone called it) over by the midterm elections. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has said that if Mueller wants to interview Trump, he’ll have to do so before September 1, because the Trump camp doesn’t want to be the one to unduly influence the elections. Mueller himself appears to lean towards prolonging the case, and that may well be with an eye on doing exactly that.

And there’s something else as well: as soon as the investigation wraps up, Trump will demand a second special counsel, this time to scrutinize the role the ‘other side’ has played in the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath.

He’s determined to get it, and he’ll fire both Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein if they try to stand in his way.

There have of course been tons of signs that it’s going to happen, but we got two significant ones just the past few days.

The first is the termination of John Brennan’s security clearance. It looks impossible that no additional clearances will be revoked. There are more people who have them but would also be part of a second special counsel’s investigation. That doesn’t rhyme.

The second sign is Senator Rand Paul’s call for immunity for Julian Assange to come talk to the US senate about what he knows about Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Obviously, we know that he denies its very existence, and has offered to provide evidence to that end. But before he could do that, a potential deal with the DOJ to do so was torpedoed by then FBI chief James Comey and Senator Mark Warner.

Both will also be part of the second investigation. Rand Paul’s motivation is simple: Assange’s testimony could be a very significant part of the process of figuring out what actually happened. And that should be what everybody in Washington wants. Question is if they all really do. That’s -ostensibly- why there is the first, the Mueller Russian collusion, investigation. Truth finding.

But Mueller doesn’t appear to have found much of anything. At least, that we know of. He’s locked up Paul Manafort on charges unrelated to collusion, put him in isolation and dragged him before a jury. But don’t be surprised if Manafort is acquitted by that jury one of these days. The case against him seemed a lot more solid before than it does now. A jury that asks the judge to re-define ‘reasonable doubt’ already is in doubt, reasonable or not. And that is what reasonable doubt means.

But it wasn’t just Brennan and Comey and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and all the rest of them in the intelligence community who played questionable roles around the election and the accusations of Russian meddling in it. The American media were also there, and very prominently. Which is why when 300 papers publish editorials pushing against Trump ‘attacking’ the media, you can’t help but -wryly- smile.

Why does Trump attack the press? Because they’ve been attacking him for two years, and they’re not letting go. So the press can attack the president, but he cannot fight back.

That’s the rationale, but with the Mueller investigation not going anywhere it’s a hard one to keep alive.

There are three reasons for the behavior of the New York Times, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN et al.

The first is political, they’re Democrat hornblowers.

The second is their owners have a personal thing against Donald Trump.

But these get trumped by the third reason: Trump is their golden goose. Their opposition makes them a fortune. All they need to do is publish articles 24/7 denouncing him. And they have for two years.

That puts the 300 papers’ editorials in a strange light. Many of them would have been fighting for their very lives if not for anti-Trump rhetoric. All 300 fit neatly and easily in one echo chamber. And, to put it mildly, inside that chamber, not everyone is always asking for evidence of everything that’s being said.

It’s not difficult to whoop up a storm there without crossing all your t’s. And after doing just that for 2 years and change, it seems perhaps a tad hypocritical to claim that you are honest journalists just trying to provide people with the news as it happened.

Because when you’ve published hundreds, thousands of articles about Russian meddling, and the special counsel that was named to a large degree because of those articles, fails to come up with any evidence of it, it will become obvious that you’ve not just, and honestly, been reporting the news ‘as it happened’.

You have instead been making things up because you knew that would sell better.

And when the second special counsel starts, where will American media be? Sure, it may not happen before the midterms, and you may have hopes that the Democrats win those bigly, but even if that comes to pass (slim chance), Trump will still be president, and the hearings and interviews won’t be soft and mild. Also, there will be serious questions, under oath, about leaks to the press.

Still, whichever side of this particular fence you’re on, there’s one thing we should all be able to agree on. That is, when we get to count how many of the 300 editorials have actually mentioned, let alone defended, Julian Assange, and I’ll bet you that number is painfully close to zero, that is where we find out how honest this defense of the free press is.

If for you the free press means that you should be able to write and broadcast whatever you want, even if it’s lacking in evidence, as much of the Russiagate stuff obviously is, and you ‘forget’ to mention a man who has really been attacked and persecuted for years, for publishing files that are all about evidence, you are not honest, and therefore probably not worth saving.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the essence of the free press. A press that is neutral, objective, fearless and determined to get the truth out. The New York Times and CNN simply don’t fit that description -anymore-. So when their editors publish calls to protect free press, but they leave out the one person who really represents free press, and the one person who’s been tortured for exactly that, you have zero credibility.

Sure, you may appear to have credibility in your echo chamber, but that’s not where real life takes place, where evidence is available and where people can make up their own minds based on objective facts provided by real journalists.

You guys just blew this big time. You don’t care about free press, you care about your own asses. And the second special counsel is coming. Good luck. Oh, and we won’t forget your silencing of Assange, or your attacks on him. If you refuse to do it, WE will free the press



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/18/2018 10:37:50 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
rayrohn
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224836
 
'MUST WATCH! #Former #CIA Director #JohnBrennan has been calling @POTUS #Trump treasonous for 19mths. Now, he’s not only backtracking, he’s saying he has no proof @realDonaldTrump is treasonous & he only used the term as a figure of speech b/c he’s “Irish.” #Qanon #MAGA'




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/18/2018 10:39:54 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224836
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/19/2018 10:24:35 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
rayrohn
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 

John Brennan, CIA ‘Kool-Aid drinkers’ blasted by Benghazi terror survivor Kris Paronto

washingtontimes.com

Benghazi terror attack survivor Kris “Tanto” Paronto told Twitter followers on Aug. 16, 2018, that former CIA director John Brennan revoked his security clearance for trying to tell Americans the truth about what happened in Libya. (Image: Twitter, Kris Paronto, ... more >

By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Friday, August 17, 2018

Benghazi terror attack survivor Kris Paronto made it clear this week that he won’t be defending former CIA director John Brennan anytime soon.

The former Army Ranger and CIA contractor who lived to tell the tale of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said Mr. Brennanessentially got off easy when President Trump revoked his security clearance.

Mr. Paronto lost his security clearance years ago for telling his account of the attack.

“My principles are greater than clearances too John, especially when you and the @ CIA kool-aid drinkers punishes us for not going along with the Benghazi cover-up story in order to protect you, @HillaryClinton’s & @BarackObama’s failures. You put your politics before us,” he tweeted at Mr. Brennan.

Mr. Brennan, who was former President Obama’s CIA chief, said Americans should “gravely worry” about the repercussions of Mr. Trump taking away his security clearance.

“Of course the former @ CIA and @ODNIgov directors sign a petition, because they want the continue to feel they are above the law and above us common folk,” Mr. Paronto said. “No more eltists [sic], rules apply to you just like everyone else. The @ CIA @FBI and @NSAGov did everything in it’s power to cover up shady @BarackObama activities, criminal @HillaryClinton activities&tried to influence the presidential election with misinformation&leaking info to the MSM. Now they’re up in arms over their Security clearances?”

Mr. Paronto, who helped write the book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi (later turned into a feature film), told Fox News that he was given three nondisclosure agreements within six months after returning home.
He maintained that his security clearances were revoked under dubious reasons.

“Normally when you have a clearance suspended, you’re supposed to know why … I was never given that,”
he said told the network. “It was his determination whether we kept our clearances or not. … [Our team came] back from being on the ground to be treated as a second class citizen. You come back and you’re called a liar. Brennan came in and there was no talk of ‘hey, good job guys,’ not that you look for it, but instead, it was ‘don’t say anything guys, we don’t want the truth to get out.’”

A 2014 report by the House Intelligence Committee found that the Obama administration acted properly during the attack.

The military and the CIA were also declared clear of any wrongdoing.

“It’s a pity though that the truth is something that’s not very popular in today’s society,” Mr. Paronto and fellow terror survivor John Tiegen toldCNN in December 2014.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/19/2018 11:07:45 AM
From: FJB4 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
rayrohn
Thehammer
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Considering this poll is from Zogby, it probably greatly understates Trump's massive advantage in these areas.

-----------------------------------------------------------
POLL: Trump ‘trusted’ more than Democrats to boost economy, keep US safe.


A new poll that shows Republicans “catching up” to Democrats leading into the fall midterm congressional election also shows that voters trust President Trump more than liberals on fixing the economy and keeping America safe.

By a wide 45 percent to 34 percent margin, the latest Zogby Analytics poll found that voters trust Trump more to “grow the U.S. economy.”


If so that’s amazing, given the tenor of the media coverage.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/19/2018 2:04:23 PM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
Oblivious
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Hah! Rudy Giuliani LAUGHS OUT LOUD AND CLAPS When Told about Crazy John Brennan’s Threats to Sue Him (VIDEO)
August 19, 2018, 9:56 am by Jim Hoft


Rudy Giuliani: The Only Payment from Trump I Want Is “To Get to Depose John Brennan One of the Biggest Frauds in History” (VIDEO)

August 19, 2018, 9:28 am by Jim Hoft



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/19/2018 2:06:42 PM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
rayrohn
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/20/2018 9:14:58 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
NOT LIVING UP TO THE HYPE: In Mueller memo, Papadopoulos emerges as bit player in Trump-Russia affair.
Since the surprise announcement of his indictment and guilty plea on Oct. 30, 2017, the short-term, volunteer Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos has often been described as a central figure in the Trump-Russia affair. Now, a new court filing from special counsel Robert Mueller suggests Papadopoulos was a bit player all along.

Mueller never charged Papadopoulos with any crime involving a conspiracy, or collusion, between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Instead, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. He is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 7.

In preparation, Mueller’s office on Friday submitted a memorandum to U.S. District Court in Washington outlining the special counsel’s position on sentencing. Although Mueller is adamant that Papadopoulos serve some time in jail — the range for the offense is between zero and six months — the special counsel suggested the final sentence should be just 30 days. As justification, Mueller cited the 30-day sentence given to Alex van der Zwaan, one of the small-time figures caught up in the Trump-Russia probe.

It wasn’t the stuff of a “conspiracy against the United States” that Mueller cheerleaders like to cite, nor even of a significant player in the Trump-Russia matter.
Underwhelming.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/20/2018 12:32:54 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Inside the Beltway: Rampant Trump ‘hatred’ damaging the media


A familiar scene: President Trump stands and fields a constant barrage of questions from news reporters earlier this summer. (Associated Press) more >
By Jennifer Harper - The Washington Times - Sunday, August 19, 2018

Over two years ago, New York Times media columnist James Rutenberg suggested that “normal standards” didn’t apply when journalists covered Donald Trump, who had just won the Republican nomination for president. Dean Baquet, the newspaper’s executive editor, publicly agreed.

“Because the Times is the liberal media’s bell cow, the floodgates were flung open to routinely call Trump a liar, a racist and a traitor. Standards of fairness were trashed as nearly every prominent news organization demonized Trump and effectively endorsed Hillary Clinton. This open partisanship was a disgraceful chapter in the history of American journalism,” writes New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin, who added that the “warped coverage continued and became the media wing of the resistance movement.”

Mr. Goodwin dismissed the recent effort by 350 newspapers to collectively discredit or criticize President Trump through editorials, saying the push was driven by “self-interest and rank partisanship masquerading as principle.” Such relentless hostile coverage, the columnist said, damages both the nation and journalism itself by fueling political polarization and denying the public any positive news about the economy and other issues.

That damage to the press is already evident. Mr. Goodwin cited recent, telling poll numbers, such as a significant Gallup/Knight Foundation survey that found 62 percent of Americans now say the news they encounter is biased while 44 percent said it’s inaccurate.

An Axios survey also revealed that 70 percent of the respondents said news organizations report “fake, false or purposefully misleading” information. The survey also found that 92 percent of Republicans don’t trust the press — along with 53 percent of Democrats.

“Yet instead of soberly examining their conduct, most in the media ratchet up the vitriol, apparently believing that screaming louder and longer will lead the public to hate Trump as much as they do. But as the surveys show, their bias is a boomerang. With media behavior undermining public trust more than anything Trump says or does, a return to traditional standards of fairness and a separation of news from opinion are essential. And urgent — for the good of a free press and America,” Mr. Goodwin concludes.


“Real news president.”

— Some pushback from the White House, which now refers to President Trump as the “real news president” in a public outreach called “Resolute Reads,” featuring a new collection of daily coverage from a variety of sources that the president “does not want you to miss.”


FAREWELL, MICHELLE WOLF

Not shy about Trump-bashing, comedian Michelle Wolf charmed the press during her appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April — then went on to land a perch on Netflix showcasing her own brand of unscripted comedy.

After 10 weeks, the show is gone. Netflix has pulled the plug on “The Break with Michelle Wolf,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Wolf’s late-night entry failed to garner the kind of viewership that warrants a second season at the streaming giant,”
the Reporter noted Sunday. “During the series’ brief run, Wolf herself generated considerable press attention and a handful of segments — including an ‘ICE Is’ recruitment video and a salute to abortions, among others.”

Yes, well. It is interesting to note that veteran comedians Steve Martin and Martin Short are about to embark on a national tour, and they’re leaving their Trump jokes at home.

“Before the election, we did a lot of Trump material, a lot of political material, and it was fine. After the election, you started to hear comments from the audience, whether it was a yay or a boo, and we said, we don’t want that. We’re not here to preach. So we started limiting the divisive political material from the act because you get that on late-night TV. It’s not something you want to pay for. We’re just trying to be funny,” Mr. Martin told IndieWire.com.

“When it comes to politics, you don’t want to make half the audience feel like they’re inappropriate,” added Mr. Short.

‘RESULTS NOT RESISTANCE’

The midterm elections are 11 weeks off, and closing in fast. The GOP, however, is more prepared than it has ever been, according to Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.

The RNC has put the best ground game in place. We have trained over 20,000 field organizers across the country. To give you perspective, that’s four times more than we did in 2016. We have raised record money. We are on the ground. It’s about turning out the vote. We don’t think TV just turns out the vote anymore,” she advised Fox News.

“You actually have to engage with those voters on a person-to-person basis and know, through data, what issue will drive them to the polls. We have economic trends that are at our back. So when we talk about jobs, and the economy, and the results that people are seeing, that is the message we are taking to voters. It is results, not resistance, but we are going to be up on a tough midterm,” Mrs. McDaniel said.

A MELANIA MOMENT

First lady Melania Trump attends a cyberbullying prevention summit on Monday just outside the nation’s capital, organized by Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention, an outreach organized by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. Mrs. Trump will address the positive and negative effects of social media on youth — a key issue of her recently introduced “Be Best” campaign.

Mrs. Trump will also serve on a panel with multiple representatives from social media outlets. Curious? C-SPAN will cover the event live at 9:15 a.m. EDT.

POLL DU JOUR
  • • 71 percent of U.S. voters rate the U.S. economy as “good”; 91 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and 52 percent of Democrats agree.
  • • 45 percent of voters overall say President Trump’s policies are responsible “a great deal” for the state of the economy; 66 percent of Republicans, 44 percent of independents and 29 percent of Democrats agree.
  • • 28 percent overall say Trump policies are “somewhat responsible” for the economy; 24 percent of Republicans, 31 percent of independents and 28 percent of Democrats agree.
  • • 19 percent overall say Trump policies are “not very responsible” for the economy; 8 percent of Republicans, 19 percent of independents and 28 percent of Democrats agree.
  • • 8 percent overall say Trump policies are “not at all responsible” for the economy; 1 percent of Republicans, 6 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats agree.

Source: A CBS News poll of 4,989 registered U.S voters conducted Aug. 10-16

Kindly follow Jennifer Harper on Twitter @HarperBulletin



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/20/2018 12:50:59 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224836
 
FLASHBACK: MEDIA DIDN’T CARE WHEN KENYAN NITWIT OBAMA SCRUBBED SECURITY CLEARANCES

20 Aug 2018
567 COMMENTS


The establishment media did not care when the Obama administration called for the aggressive scrubbing of security clearances back in 2013.


According to our media today, revoking security clearances of those who are no longer in government is the stuff of banana republics, of dictators, and a full-blown assault against the First Amendment.

But when President Obama sought to do the exact same on a massive scale, the media hardly blinked and the news only earned dutiful coverage.

“W.H. Looks to Scrub Clearance List,” was the November 21, 2013, headline at the far-left Politico.

In a directive obtained by POLITICO, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper questioned the booming rolls of security-clearance holders. At last count, more than 4.9 million people held clearances, of whom over 1.4 million were cleared for access at the “Top Secret” level.

“I write to express my concern about threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information, particularly Top Secret (TS) and Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information (TS/SCI),” [then Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper wrote in a three-page memo, dated Oct. 31 and cited at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Clapper asked agencies to perform a top-to-bottom scrub of the teeming rolls of people authorized to access classified information and to remove anyone deemed not to have a so-called need to know.

What’s more, Clapper specified his concern about contractors: “Agencies should debrief all government and contractor personnel who no longer require such access and update the appropriate national security database or repository.”

Obviously, Clapper and the Obama administration singling out contractors would result in job and income losses for all those former G-Men.

So where was the media uproar?

Here you have the Obama administration openly taking aggressive action for the exact same reasons the Trump administration is: a legitimate security concern over those no longer in government using their continued security access as a means to obtain wealth and position in the private sector (including anti-Trump media outlets).

But as you can see, when Obama did it no one in the media cared.

As you can see, back in 2013, no one in the media screamed, as our media repeatedly have throughput the last week, that the revocation of these clearances would risk national security, much less be the stuff of a banana republic eager to kill free speech.

The difference, of course, is that during the Obama administration, the establishment media (meaning anti-Trump outlets like CNN, NBC News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post) had zero desire to uncover anything negative about Obama; and so, in turn, they had no desire to put former-government officials on the payroll who would dish dirt on their precious Barry, or to use them as background sources.

Today, however, now that the media want to frame Trump as a Russian spy, hysterically dishonest partisans like former CIA director John Brennan (who just had his security clearances revoked), James Clapper, and Phil “ The Screamer” Mudd are very useful to media, especially when the media can use the imprimatur of these in-the-know partisans to push fake news.

Better still, that same imprimatur allows the media to spread fake news by hiding behind anonymous “intelligence sources” who tell the media the fake news the media are so desperate to publish.

Not that we did not already know this, but the Politico piece from 2013 that no one cared about, once again proves the establishment media are not currently freaking over any kind of moral or professional principle. It is all about partisan politics, it is all about people in government cashing in access for money they could not earn otherwise, and especially those willing to do so in order to aid and abet the media’s ongoing coup against Trump.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/20/2018 2:23:27 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
BEHOLD THE SWAMP DRAINING KENNY. AND THIS ONLY AT THE DOJ. YOU MUST BE OVERJOYED.
---------------------------------------------------------------

You’re Surrounded Mr. Mueller, Give Yourself Up; The Truth is Becoming Too Big To Hide


Anyone who’s ever worked on a jigsaw puzzle knows that the process is tedious in the beginning. First, we place all the similar colored pieces in small groups, try various configurations and then we see how two groups might fit together and so on. At a certain point, the progress becomes faster until finally, a picture starts to emerge.

Thanks to the painstaking efforts of lawmakers such as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the release of the DOJ Inspector General’s report in June and the tireless pursuit of documents by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, a picture of unimaginable deception of breathtaking proportions is emerging before the eyes of an astonished electorate.

The once slow headway in the search for the truth has gained momentum. Democratic lawmakers, officials and most of the mainstream media are still in denial and don’t seem to realize yet that too much of the truth has already been revealed for them to go back to their original narrative. The truth has become too big to hide.

A comparison of the carnage at the very highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ to the complete lack of evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump following over two years of investigations should tell Robert Mueller that it’s time to extricate himself, as gracefully as possible, from this fraud. He needs to admit defeat in his attempt to undo the results of a fair election.

Seamus Bruner of The Epoch Times has just put together a list of 25 DOJ and FBI officials who have resigned or been fired in the last year. Some of them, Rachel Brand for example, have left to take positions in the private sector. Mike Kortan has said he was planning to retire anyway. But many on this list have been fired, or forced out (largely in disgrace) or demoted, because of the Trump/Russia investigation.

  1. James Comey, director ( fired)
  2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director ( fired)
  3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert ( fired)
  4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
  5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
  6. James Baker, general counsel ( resigned)
  7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs ( resigned)
  8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey ( resigned)
  9. James Turgal, executive assistant director ( resigned)
  10. Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs ( resigned)
  11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director ( resigned)
  12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director ( resigned)
  13. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general ( fired)
  14. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general ( twice demoted)
  15. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief ( resigned)
  16. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general ( resigned)
  17. Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
  18. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general ( resigned)
  19. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison ( resigned)
  20. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general ( resigned)
  21. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general ( resigned)
  22. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY ( fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
  23. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division ( resigned)
  24. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights ( resigned)
  25. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division ( resigned)
  26. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division ( resigned)
*Status Unclear

As I look at this list, I know it includes only a fraction of those who have risked their careers and their reputations because they simply couldn’t bear to see Donald Trump in the White House.

Before this is over, others will be added to the list. Perhaps even Rod Rosenstein. And there will likely be former top-level Obama officials caught in the net as well. Perjurers John Brennan and James Clapper come to mind.

In addition to the men and women who have been working against Trump in the DOJ and the FBI, there were/are employees in the State Department and the CIA, holdovers from the Obama administration, who are complicit.

The mainstream media has played a huge role in perpetuating this hoax. They have breathlessly distorted events to influence public opinion. Instead of reporting the news, they have worked overtime to shape it.

For an example of how the mainstream media has aided and abetted the left’s attempt to impeach Trump, we need to look no further than their outrage over the revocation of John Brennan’s security clearance.

We have MSNBC’s Steve Schmidt saying “40% of Americans have surrendered their intellectual sovereignty to Donald Trump.” This from a man who achieved more notoriety by his recent and loud departure from the Republican Party than he ever attained as a political strategist or for running John McCain’s failed bid for the presidency. As if he matters.

CNN Political Commentator Symone Sander’s chimed in on the subject. “Trump sent Sarah Sanders to poop on the people from the Press Secretary Podium.” She’s a real class act. There were other similar and predictable reactions from the left. (Reaction from the left can be heard in first 1:10 on the video below.)

Fox anchor Mark Levin spoke to Sean Hannity and offered a fierce defense of the move:


Hannity: We have never had a former communist who literally we now know spread Russian lies to misinform, propagandize the American people to impact a presidential election either. These are unprecedented times.

Levin: First of all, apparently the fact that Brennan voted for a Stalinist who was funded by the Soviets, a communist party USA was very attractive to Barack Obama who made him CIA director. Think about that.

So how did this man ever get a security clearance? I’m curious about this.

Now, a couple of things. The president is, looking at Brennan, he revokes his security privilege. Professor Dershowitz needs to know that’s a privilege. That’s not a right to security privilege.

The fact to the matter is, nobody is stopping Brennan from speaking. In fact, nobody could stop. He has a big mouth, he will never shut up, he’ll go on TV and be the kook that he is.

The idea that he has a right to access to information because he served in the Obama administration at the CIA is a preposterous argument, but of course the ACLU will take it up the case because they take up a lot of stupid cases. That’s number one.

Number two, who else is the president looking at? Comey and people who are keeping score, Comey is a Republican. How many times have people told the media, Mueller is a Republican, Comey is a Republican, and even they question the president! OK, you got a Republican.

And by the way, for the media, most of these people the president are looking at are white. I know that’s very important to you.

Now Comey was fired at the recommendation of Rosenstein. Comey was a leaker and he absconded with government documents when he left. His security clearance should be pulled. McCabe is under criminal investigation, the number two from the FBI.

Never before in history, media, his security clearance should be pulled! Peter Strzok was just fired. The guy in charge of counterintelligence investigations for misconduct, his security should be pulled!

James Clapper committed perjury. He lied to the American people and Senator Wyden and that committee a long time ago, his security clearance should have been pulled.

Bruce Ohr, another one. Pulled! Yates, another one, not because the president has a problem with Democrats or liberals, he has a problem with these people. And we haven’t even got to the unmasking issue yet. So this is not a First Amendment issue.

Meanwhile — meanwhile! When these people have security clearances, what the hell did they do with them? Well, let’s take a look. The Russians interfered in our election, right? Well, who was president, who was head of the CIA, who was national security advisor, who was the head of the FBI? All of these people with their security clearances in position to power did nothing effective to stop the Russians from interfering in our election.

They did nothing to stop China from stealing our technology. They did nothing to stop North Korea’s nuclear program. And even worse, they awarded the terrorist regime in Tehran with $150 billion, right? With $150 billion and provided them with a pathway to nuclear weapons.

Good job, boys and girl in the Obama administration with your security clearances. The fact that Obama appointed these people and gave them security clearances, it’s not the obligation of this president to let them retain their security clearances. There is no constitutional issue. That’s just nonsense. And again, one of them is a Republican. So that makes this all OK.

Hannity: Mark, I would take away all of their clearances.

Levin: I would take away all of their clearances too. But the fact of the matter is we really need to focus in on the conduct of these individuals. Look at the phony media and the arguments they are making.

This is like a dictatorship. This is — this is — and we’ve never seen anything like this before. All these blabbermouths who know nothing, you are going to see Clapper on TV until you throw up on your loafers.

You are going to see Comey he had his book thing, you are going to see Brennan all over the place, all these phony victims and so forth and so on.

Meanwhile, when they were in office, when they had their security clearances, when they had power, they didn’t stop the Russians, they didn’t stop the red Chinese, they didn’t stop the North Koreans, they funded the Iranians, and, in fact, they are responsible for the greatest scandal in American history by interfering with our election and trying to undermine the Trump campaign.

Hannity: And the Trump presidency. I think we got to remember, hold on, Mark and throw off all my loafers. But more importantly, that’s what we call you the great one. Great commentary, Mark Levin. Thank you.

From the moment candidate Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, the deck was stacked against him. He was a chicken, surrounded by wolves, and they were just waiting for the right moment to consume him. But they all underestimated him. Crazy as people believe Trump to be, he has prevailed in the face of overwhelming opposition.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (212023)8/20/2018 2:26:35 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224836
 
Did Communist Spy John Brennan Admit to Using ILLEGAL Reverse Targeting to Spy on the Trump Campaign in Interview With Rachel Maddow?


Comments made by former CIA Director John Brennan in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow suggests that the CIA may have used a tactic known as “reverse targeting” to collect data on members of the Trump campaign.


In the Aug. 17 interview, Brennan was discussing concerns about Russian contacts with U.S. citizens during the 2016 presidential election.

“I was very concerned and aware that the Russians were trying to leverage U.S. citizens in order to achieve their objectives in the presidential election,” Brennan said.

Despite Brennan’s apparent concerns, he admitted that these contacts may have been completely innocent—there was no proof that these same U.S. citizens had been successfully leveraged by Russian efforts. But that surveillance moved forward anyway. This surveillance may have occurred before and after the election. From Brennan’s interview:

BRENNAN: When I left office on January 20th of 2017, I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not any of those U.S. persons were working in support of the Russian efforts.

MADDOW: And those were referred—those concerns about specific U.S. persons—referred to the FBI.

BRENNAN: We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA’s foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of, leads. We would give it to the FBI.

So, we were picking things up that was of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there—so they could piece it together with whatever they were collecting domestically here.

That’s not how incidental collection is supposed to work. More importantly, the collection described by Brennan doesn’t sound incidental. The surveillance sounds targeted.


Unlike the surveillance of Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page, which used a traditional FISA Warrant granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the surveillance being described by Brennan occurred under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Traditional FISA Surveillance relates to electronic surveillance and physical searches of non-U.S. persons, facilities, or property inside the United States.

Section 702 Surveillance allows for targeted surveillance of foreign individuals located outside the United States for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information.

A “significant” purpose of the surveillance must be to obtain “foreign intelligence information” and U.S. Citizens cannot be intentionally targeted. Provisions known as minimization procedures are intended to protect information “incidentally collected” on U.S. citizens in the course of foreign surveillance.


Unlike traditional FISA surveillance, Section 702 surveillance is not subject to individual FISA Court approvals.

Unfortunately, significant loopholes exist regarding data collection under Section 702. For example, the FBI can “search” collected information using terms that relate to U.S. citizens. And they can do so without a warrant.

Reverse targeting is one technique specifically prohibited under Section 702. Reverse targeting relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.

What Brennan discussed in the interview with Maddow sounds notably similar to reverse targeting. It also sounds eerily close to what the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), disclosed in March last year.


On March 22, 2017, after learning of surveillance on the Trump transition team, Nunes gave an impromptu press conference where he made some startling comments:

“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the President-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in intelligence reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.

From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don’t know exactly how that was picked up but we’re trying to get to the bottom of it.

This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA, where there was incidental collection that then ended up in reporting channels and was widely disseminated. It’s official IC information. These were intelligence reports. It brings up a lot of concerns about whether things were properly minimized or not.”

And it wasn’t just the Section 702 information gathering. There appeared to have been a significant amount of coordination and cooperation between the FBI & CIA:

MADDOW: So, it’s an intelligence sharing operation between…

BRENNAN: Right. We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected.

It’s possible that Brennan’s describing the Multi-Agency Task Force referred to in a BBC article:

“Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him…It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created. The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government.”

It sounds like the legal envelope was being pushed in regards to the CIA’s domestic involvement and investigative pursuit. It also sounds like a coordinated effort to process and share the collected information Brennan referred to during his interview.

More importantly, it sounds like the CIA may have used targeted collection of Section 702 Data, skipped the minimization requirements, and fed the raw surveillance data directly to the FBI.

It would be helpful if the former CIA Director would provide some clarification of his remarks.

What exactly, did he mean by, “Any time we would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it”?

Was this targeted Section 702 surveillance using reverse targeting techniques? Was this being done on all U.S. persons, or did this particular description apply only to specific individuals? Were standard minimization procedures correctly followed by the FBI and CIA?

Incidental collection happens all the time. U.S. citizens are inadvertently caught in foreign surveillance. But Brennan’s comments sounded specific to certain U.S. citizens. Brennan’s comments sounded like a description of the activities Nunes uncovered in March 2017.

A closer examination is needed. Perhaps we’ll get one from the Department of Justice Inspector General’s pending Report on FISA Abuse. Because it sounded like Brennan may have admitted to something close to the illegal targeted surveillance of U.S. citizens.

Jeff Carlson is a CFA® Charterholder. He has worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He runs the website TheMarketsWork.com