Good Covfefe Morning
Here’s what is on President Trump’s agenda today
- In the morning, President Donald J. Trump will receive his daily intelligence briefing.
- The President will then meet with National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster.
- In the afternoon, the President will make a statement regarding the Paris Accord.
We’ll always have Paris…or not.
The president said he will announce his decision about whether to withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement this afternoon. The agreement aims to reduce carbon emissions, slow global warming, and help countries deal with “climate change.” Allegedly.
Under the terms of the agreement, signatories committed to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”
The deal requires countries to set their own targets for reducing emissions by 2020. The Obama administration committed the U.S. to reducing carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
Trump has moved to reverse many of Obama’s “climate change” policies and campaigned on doing so. Many in the climate change industry have predicted bad things if the U.S. withdraws from Paris. AP has a nice story with two dozen climate “scientists” telling you what would happen if we scrap the deal.
CBS News tells us:
Withdrawing from the deal could result in an additional 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere each year, speeding up the rate of rising sea levels and melting ice sheets. The U.S. could contribute to an increase of as much as 0.3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by the end of the century if if [sic] abandons the deal, according to one simulation.
Rumors are the Trump will back the U.S. out of the agreement.
Crazy old lady rants about the injustices of the universe.
Hillary Clinton was spinning like a whirling dervish yesterday, blaming everyone but herself for her presidential loss. Memaw Clinton appeared at a tech conference hosted by Recode’s Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg. Politico writes that Clinton “made a point to say that she took responsibility for her campaign and ‘every choice’ she made” and then proceeded to blame everything and everyone she could on her loss.
Clinton blamed Comey for investigating her use of a private, homegrown email server to conduct all her State Department business, classified information and matters included. But Comey didn’t make her set up a shadow tech operation to avoid federal disclosure requirements and she was even advised by the State Department not to use a private email server. Clinton didn’t even use her state.gov email address. Ever.
Clinton blamed the DNC and said the party had bad data and was broke. But Clinton raised far more money than Trump did during the campaign and when John Podesta’s emails were hacked and released, we learned the DNC was favoring Clinton over her primary opponent, Sanders.
Clinton blamed the Russians (of course) but the Podesta hack didn’t generate the emails in his account. All we saw with those emails was the business of the Democrats and if it wasn’t flattering, that’s on them, not the Russians. Clinton also said the Russians were spreading #fakenews which is laughable if you consider the MSM, very much in the tank for Hillary, barely covered the WikiLeaks emails and was very clearly promoting positive coverage for Hillary and negative coverage for Trump. How exactly was all this #fakenews getting to the voters?
“The Russians, in my opinion … could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they have been guided … by Americans,” Clinton said.
“I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign, and how did they know what messages to deliver?” she said. “Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, and colluding with?”
What the hell is she talking about and why wasn’t she called on this delusional mumbo-jumbo by her “interviewers”? Exactly how and what information was weaponized? Where was it delivered? Certainly not on CNN, MSNBC, in the NYT or in the WaPo.
Clinton blamed social media, which in many ways is a great equalizer and doesn’t have a “smart people filter” to decide what’s important and what the public needs to think like they have in the mainstream media outlets.
The 2016 election was “the first time you had the tech revolution weaponized politically,” she said. “Before it was just a way to reach voters, That changed this time,”
Fake news articles “were flat-out false” and delivered in “a very personalized way,” said Clinton. Fingering Facebook, she said the “vast majority of the news items were fake,” people believed them and either voted against her or not at all.
“If I put myself in the position of Facebook, they have to get back to curating (the News Feed) it more effectively and preventing fake news from creating a new reality,” Clinton said.
She also took on Twitter, wondering why the president has a larger following: 31 million to her 15 million.
“We know they’re bots,” she said. The bots are “to make him look more popular than he is.”
She wants more censorship, of course. That’s today’s Democrats, wanting to make sure you have the proper thoughts and opinions.
Here’s the worst part of the whole affair yesterday: “I’m not going anywhere,” Clinton said. “I have a big stake in what happened in this country. I am very unbowed and unbroken about what happened because I don’t want it to happen to anybody else.”
I’m sick of seeing her but it’s not good for the Democrats for Clinton to maintain visibility. She’s a twice-failed candidate, she’s old and out of touch with voters, not trustworthy, and people don’t like her. She lost for the same reasons, it’s very simple. If she wants to stick around and remind everyone about what the Democrats are, more power to her.
Welcome to Subpoena City, population seven
Yesterday, the House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Four of them are immediately related to the Russian issue and three are related to the questionable “unmasking” of Trump campaign officials.
Those three subpoenas went to the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and are related to questions — primarily from Republicans — about how the names of associates of President Trump were un-redacted and distributed in classified Obama administration reports during the transition period.
The committee said in a statement that it had issued subpoenas to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and one company associated with the former intelligence official, Flynn Intel Group LLC; and longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and his firm, Michael D. Cohen & Associates PC.
The statement did not address the three subpoenas related to unmasking, reportedly related to requests made by former national security adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former United Nations Ambassador Susan Power.
According to Fox News, the committee is not engaging in a “fishing expedition” on the unmasking issue but already has some kind of evidence that led them to demand additional documents.
Who would pay to have John Boehner give a speech?
Former Speaker of the House John Boehner is making money giving speeches, speaking truth to RINO power about President Trump.
Former speaker John Boehner is still grabbing headlines more than a year after leaving office — and making big bucks along the way by offering his blunt take on the Trump presidency and his one-time Republican colleagues in Congress.
Boehner has given at least eight speeches, one recent speech was to a group of tax consultants where he said that Trump’s record on domestic issues is a “total disaster.”
Well, Boehner would know about disasters.
The former speaker is also raking in the big bucks in the private sector of the political industry.
The speeches are not Boehner’s only post-Congress source of income. He is also serving as a “strategic adviser” at Squire Patton Boggs, a powerful Washington lobbying firm that has a major presence in Cincinnati. And he’s serving on several corporate boards, including tobacco giant Reynolds American Inc.
ISIS is using Hollywood movies in their propaganda.
Footage from Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers (2006) has found its way into the 22-minute propaganda short Healing of the Believers’ Chests, created by the terror group. And a shot mimicking the 86-year-old director and well-known Republican’s American Sniper (2014) appears in another ISIS video, Shoot to Redeem Yourself 2, which re-creates Sniper‘s slow-motion image of a bullet fired from a rifle.
Both exemplify the increased use of Hollywood footage in videos made by ISIS, which is “deliberately and strategically using these references,” says Lara Pham, deputy director of the Counter Extremism Project, an organization (co-founded by former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend and other foreign-policy experts) that has analyzed 1,275 films made by ISIS media companies. “I haven’t found anything suggesting Hollywood is aware of this, but I’m sure plenty of individuals would be concerned,” adds Pham.
The videos come from Al Furqan Media, ISIS’s media company. The original owner, Abu Muhammad al-Furqan, was killed in a drone strike (a professional hazard) and it is unknown who is running the operation now.
“ISIS fighters are forbidden to watch American movies,” notes Pham, “which is ironic, since they use these images to attract people to their cause.”
Rich 1%ers buy $8.1M home in DC following life of public service.
The Obamas are buying their fancy home in Washington D.C. for a whopping $8.1M. Not bad for a former community organizer turned politician.
A spokesman confirmed to the Chicago Sun-Times that the pair are settling down in the same Kalorama neighborhood house in Washington while keeping their home on Chicago’s South Side.
“Given that President and Mrs. Obama will be in Washington for at least another two and a half years, it made sense for them to buy a home rather than continuing to rent property,” spokesman Kevin Lewis said.
That’s all I’ve got, now go beat back the angry mob!