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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (147743)4/12/2019 2:29:55 AM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
marcher

  Respond to of 217556
 
i suspect your hostility towards Meng and your attitude towards Assange gives you away as either deep-state sympathiser or as a tool. whatever the case, no matter, because as the kidnap of Meng shall be rued by the perps, so shall the tormentors of Assange.

it is good, the sunshine, when it shines on deep fissures where issues reside, and do as should to germs.

btw, people.com how good people are only becomes clear once the chips are down, rubber meets the road, etc etc




To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (147743)4/12/2019 3:54:03 AM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217556
 
speaking of deep-state

and liver issues

and the empty south china sea and populated South America continent

and sunshine and germs

newsweek.com

U.S. Ready to Take on Russia, China, Iran and Other 'Foreign Powers' in Venezuela, John Bolton Says

By Tom O'Connor On 4/10/19 at 2:55 PM EDT

President Donald Trump's national security adviser John Bolton has warned nations seen as obstacles to U.S. plans for Latin America that they must leave Venezuela and stop defending the socialist government opposed by the Trump administration.

Venezuela's economic crisis boiled over into a geopolitical flashpoint in January that has polarized world powers, as the U.S. and its allies proclaimed their support for opposition leader Juan Guaidó's political challenge to President Nicolás Maduro. Responding to Tuesday's Newsweek article discussing the recent arrival of Russian, Chinese and Iranian planes intended to support Maduro and his government, Bolton told radio host Hugh Hewitt that "President Trump is determined not to see Venezuela fall under the sway of foreign powers."

Bolton praised President James Monroe's 19th-century efforts to expel European colonial powers from the continent (known as the Monroe Doctrine) and President Ronald Reagan's anti-communist crusade there in the 1980s—policies that greatly expanded the U.S. footprint in the region. He also railed against attempts by Trump's predecessor, President Barack Obama, to diplomatically court leftist Latin American leaders long targeted by U.S. foreign policy.

"If the Monroe Doctrine fails, if China and Russia, along with Cuba, establish domination over Venezuela, I think American strategic interests will be harmed," Bolton said. "And as I said at the beginning, the people of Venezuela will be trapped in this dictatorship. We are seeing here the palpable proof of eight years of Obama administration policy mistakes."

A Yangtze River Express Airlines Boeing 747 cargo plane, loaded with medicines and disposable medical supplies, runs next to a Russian Ilyushin Il-62M Air Force plane at Simon Bolivar International Airport on March 29 in Maiquetia, Venezuela. The two powers were among those supporting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, as the U.S. and its allies sought to replace him with parliament speaker Juan Guaidó, YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images

Obama's decisions to reverse decades-long trends in isolating the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran and the communist-led island of Cuba were widely welcomed by the international community, but the Trump administration has portrayed them as pandering to traditional foes accused of human rights abuses. The current White House has rolled back both Obama-era efforts and has hardened the U.S. position internationally.

With the notable exception of North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un, with which Trump forged a historic bilateral peace effort, the administration has doubled down on efforts to oust unfavorable governments around the world through the use of sanctions and threats of military action. Most recently, Trump warned that "all options are open" in not only deposing Maduro, but in expelling his international allies from the Western Hemisphere as well.

"Look, our objective is a peaceful transition of power to Juan Guaidó and the opposition," Bolton said during Wednesday's program. "But let’s not forget we’ve got between 40,000 to 50,000 American citizens in Venezuela."

"We’ve got countries, as you mentioned, Colombia and Brazil on the border with millions of Venezuelan refugees who have come across. We’ve got terrorist organizations like the ELN [National Liberation Army] and FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia] who threaten Colombia," he added. "We’re going to protect American national interest, and Maduro and his cronies ought to know that President Trump is very serious when he says all options are on the table."

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, left, and opposition leader Juan Guaidó deliver speeches during separate gatherings with their respective supporters in Caracas, Venezuela, on February 2. YURI CORTEZ/JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images

Moscow deployed up to 100 military personnel to Venezuela last month for a "military-technical cooperation" mission reportedly regarding the Russia-built S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system. China joined Russia in also sending humanitarian assistance to Venezuela, but denied media reports suggesting Beijing sent up to 120 troops as well. Iranian officials arrived Tuesday to restart flights to Caracas via the privately owned Mahan Air, which the U.S. sanctioned for allegedly serving the elite Revolutionary Guard, declared a terrorist organization by the Trump administration this week.

These countries have defended their ongoing dealings with Maduro as part of legitimate bilateral relations not concerning the U.S., which possesses a number of bases across Latin America, including in Colombia, as part of a global military network likely unrivaled by all other nations combined.

Most Latin American nations, as well as the EU, Albania, Australia, Georgia, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Ukraine, have joined the U.S. in backing Guaidó. Those recognizing Maduro included—in addition to China, Cuba, Russia and Iran—Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Mexico, Nicaragua, North Korea, the Palestinian National Authority, Serbia, South Africa, Syria, Turkey and Uruguay.

The United Nations also continued to recognize Maduro as Venezuela's head of state, something Vice President Mike Pence protested Wednesday at a U.N. Security Council meeting. Following his appeal, Pence directly addressed Caracas' envoy Samuel Moncada—who spent much of Pence's speech toying with his phone—saying, "With all due respect, Mr. Ambassador, you shouldn't be here, you should return to Venezuela and tell Nicolás Maduro that his time is up, it's time for him to go."




To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (147743)4/12/2019 6:46:02 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217556
 
Soon your Potus Trump shall win a great victory, and be set to win bigger 2020 based on solid basic support, unwavering fandom, and the chabuduo certainty that his oppositions will likely gobble each other alive like so much sashimi.

zerohedge.com

Beijing 'Sweetens' Cloud Computing Offer As Mnuchin Says Agreement Reached On 'Enforcement Offices'

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed during an interview with CNBC that the issue of enforcement of a US-China trade deal, believed to be one of the most troublesome obstacles to a final agreement, had finally been resolved after both sides agreed to open 'enforcement offices' in their respective countries. This followed reports last week that Trump would give China until 2025 to make good on its promises, including massive purchases of agricultural goods, effectively punting the task of enforcement to his successor.



The agreement was finally struck during a call with Liu He, the Chinese vice premier and head trade negotiator, on Tuesday. But just because the enforcement issue has been "pretty much" resolved, doesn't mean that the deal will be completed within a month, as President Trump has said.

"We’ve pretty much agreed on an enforcement mechanism,” Mnuchin said during the interview. "We’ve agreed that both sides will establish enforcement offices that will deal with the ongoing matters. This is something both sides are taking very seriously."

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal published another optimistic trade update, claiming that China has 'sweetened' its offer to open up its market to US cloud computing companies following extensive lobbying by trade negotiators and - get this - Amazon CEO and Trump nemesis Jeff Bezos. US negotiators had rejected a previous proposal last week, saying it was "inadequate."

Per WSJ, the new offer would involve issuing licenses for foreign businesses to operate data centers on the mainland, and lifting a 50% equity cap that requires foreign companies like Amazon to seek out domestic partners.

With the enforcement issue resolved, and Beijing having passed a law intended to stop forced technology transfers and IP theft, the main issues up for debate now focus squarely on access for American tech firms like Amazon, Microsoft and Apple. These companies have invested millions of dollars in China already, but have been hamstrung by restrictive regulations. The new proposal expands on an offer made by Premier Li Kequiang had proposed during a meeting with tech executives, which was panned as "weak and unrealistic."

The second proposal followed a meeting earlier this week between US tech firms and China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the country's top tech regulator.

American tech firms like Amazon have already formed partnerships with Chinese firms to gain entree to the mainland economy.

Given the regulatory hurdles, some foreign companies have formed partnerships with local cloud companies, licensing technologies and have them run data centers in China.

Amazon Web Services, for example, partners with Beijing Sinnet Technology Co. to operate the AWS China cloud-computing service in the Beijing region. Sinnet owns the hardware while AWS says it provides technology, guidance and expertise to Sinnet.

Still, the new proposal didn't address the issue of data transfers. Under current Chinese law, American tech firms must store data from their Chinese operations on the mainland. But the US is insisting that this rule be changed as part of a final deal.

Setting aside issues of market access, the biggest obstacle to a final deal remains Washington's insistence that some of its trade war tariffs be maintained, at least in the near term, to ensure compliance with the deal. Beijing has repeatedly insisted that all tariffs be dropped.

As the two sides appear to have made little progress on the issue, it's worth wondering: Will Trump cave on this to salvage his deal and secure a major PR victory as the 2020 race heats up?



To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (147743)4/13/2019 12:36:49 AM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
ggersh

  Respond to of 217556
 
Following up to your deep-state-sympathy hostility towards Assange and his cat, I watch & brief and note to you that as in the case of kidnapped Ms Meng, Assange shall triumph over deep-state rendition protocol, to the joy of reasonable non-Neo-con and amicable non-Neo-lib, and changrin of the deep rot cretindom of Neo-con and the disappointment of moronscape of Neo-lib

Nothing political on this thread, and only usual cafe chatter

Hot cocoa?

zerohedge.com

'No Constitutional Difference' Between WikiLeaks And New York Times: Dershowitz

Op-Ed | Alan Dershowitz via The Hill

Alan Dershowitz: Is Julian Assange another Pentagon Papers case?

Before WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gained asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012, he and his British legal team asked me to fly to London to provide legal advice about United States law relating to espionage and press freedom. I cannot disclose what advice I gave them, but I can say that I believed then, and still believe now, that there is no constitutional difference between WikiLeaks and the New York Times.

If the New York Times, in 1971, could lawfully publish the Pentagon Papers knowing they included classified documents stolen by Rand Corporation military analyst Daniel Ellsberg from our federal government, then indeed WikiLeaks was entitled, under the First Amendment, to publish classified material that Assange knew was stolen by former United States Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning from our federal government.

So if prosecutors were to charge Assange with espionage or any other crime for merely publishing the Manning material, this would be another Pentagon Papers case with the same likely outcome. Many people have misunderstood the actual Supreme Court ruling in 1971. It did not say that the newspapers planning to publish the Pentagon Papers could not be prosecuted if they published classified material. It only said that they could not be restrained, or stopped in advance, from publishing them. Well, they did publish, and they were not prosecuted.

The same result would probably follow if Assange were prosecuted for publishing classified material on WikiLeaks, though there is no guarantee that prosecutors might not try to distinguish the cases on the grounds that the New York Times is a more responsible outlet than WikiLeaks. But the First Amendment does not recognize degrees of responsibility. When the Constitution was written, our nation was plagued with irresponsible scandal sheets and broadsides. No one described political pamphleteers Thomas Paine or James Callender as responsible journalists of their day.

It is likely, therefore, that a prosecution of Assange for merely publishing classified material would fail. Moreover, Great Britain might be unwilling to extradite Assange for such a “political” crime. That is why prosecutors have chosen to charge him with a different crime of conspiracy to help Manning break into a federal government computer to steal classified material. Such a crime, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would have a far weaker claim to protection under the Constitution. The courts have indeed ruled that journalists may not break the law in an effort to obtain material whose disclosure would be protected by the First Amendment.

But the problem with the current effort is that, while it might be legally strong, it seems on the face of the indictment to be factually weak. It alleges that “Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records” from federal government agencies, that “Manning provided Assange with part of a password,” and that “Assange requested more information.” It goes on to say that Assange was “trying to crack the password” but had “no luck so far.” Not the strongest set of facts here!

The first question is whether a legal theory based on such inchoate facts will be sufficient for an extradition request to be granted. Even if it is, a grant of extradition could be appealed through several layers of courts, which would take a long time. The second question is what would happen to Assange while these appeals proceeded. If he were locked up, he might well waive extradition in the hope of winning his case in the United States. The third question is whether American prosecutors might amend the indictment to make it legally and factually stronger and, if they did so, whether they would take such action before or after he was extradited.

The last question is whether Manning will testify against Assange. It is not clear whether prosecutors really need her testimony or whether they can make the case based on emails and other documents, but her testimony surely would be helpful if she were to corroborate or expand on the paper trail. President Obama commuted her sentence in 2017 and she was freed from prison, but she was jailed last month for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. Manning could be given immunity from further prosecution and compelled to testify. But if she refused, would prosecutors keep her in prison? There are lots of moving parts to this process, all of which make its outcome and timetable unpredictable.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.