thedailycaller--2020-08-13--‘It’s Necessary For Some, It’s Not Necessary For Many Others’: Experts Weigh In On Trump’s Student L

‘It’s Necessary For Some, It’s Not Necessary For Many Others’: Experts Weigh In On Trump’s Student Loan Executive Order

• President Donald Trump ’ s recent executive order extended student loan payment deadlines through the end of 2020 .
• The order may be an opportunity for “ large-scale loan forgiveness , ” education policy analyst Mary Clare Amselem told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
• While the order may be “ necessary for some , it ’ s not necessary for many others , ” AEI resident scholar and director of education policy studies Frederick M. Hess told the DCNF .
President Donald Trump ’ s executive order on coronavirus aid that defers federal student loan payments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an opportunity for progressives to push broader loan forgiveness schemes , but the general deferral is not necessary for many borrowers , education policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Trump issued four executive orders Saturday after negotiations failed for another stimulus package , White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told reporters after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week .
Left-leaning organizations criticized Trump for not going far enough to help borrowers .
Center for American Progress President and CEO Neera Tanden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noting the extension on student loan payments didn ’ t help enough people , according to a statement .
“ The order on student loans leaves out up to 9 million borrowers and does nothing to extend the critical benefits for essential workers , such as teachers and nurses , provided under the CARES Act , ” Tanden said in the statement .
Approximately 9 million borrowers who owe back loans from private lenders and colleges are not covered under the executive order , Politico reported .
Trump signed the executive order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec.31 along with three other measures meant to help Americans struggling with the economic impacts of the pandemic , the Daily Caller reported .
More than 1.19 million Americans filed additional unemployment claims in the last week of July , according to the Department of Labor .
Both Republicans and Democrats criticized the orders , including Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse , who called the orders “ unconstitutional slop ” in a statement .
Education policy analyst Mary Clare Amselem of the Heritage Foundation said the order postponed payments for too long .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute , said Trump ’ s executive order may be necessary for some borrowers struggling to repay their loans during the economic impacts of the pandemic , but not for others .
Due to the coronavirus impacting the economy negatively , “ there certainly was an argument to be made for originally suspending student loan payments , ” Amselem told the DCNF .
“ There might have originally been a case for suspending student loan payments .
I mean , people found themselves out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close down through no fault of their own , ” Amselem said .
“ However , in responding to the coronavirus pandemic , policies needed to be targeted and temporary .
And they needed to be responsive to the current state of the economy and the current state of the fight against coronavirus .
And so , extending the suspension of student loan payments does not meet that targeted and temporary standard , ” Amselem said .
“ I fear that extending the suspension of student loan forgiveness will only open the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming from the left , ” Amselem added .
( RELATED EXCLUSIVE : Congress , White House Unlikely To Deliver Phase 4 Stimulus Before Recess , Sources Say ) Amselem said “ that large scale-forgiveness is not in the best interest of the American people ” and added that she and the Heritage Foundation have opposed it “ for quite a long time.
” “ There are some people who are out of work who owe student loans and right now , that ’ s for some of them a crushing burden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem , ” Hess said .
“ Then there ’ s millions of borrowers who are paying their loans .
So , you know , it ’ s necessary for some , it ’ s not necessary for many others .
Ideally , what we would have is an approach which was more targeted towards , you know , spending repayment for people who are out of work or in need , ” Hess said .
When asked if there is anything further that needs to be done , Hess said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fix ” and said that there are multiple methods available .
Hess noted one possible method is linking payments to taxes based on employment .
“ One for instance is you can just pin student loan repayment to IRS collections .
So that if you ’ re employed , your student loan repayment is just collected along with your tax withholding , which makes it easier on borrowers , helps reduce the amount of concerns you know about cheating or , you know , or mistakes , but it also means that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your hours shrink , you pay less , ” Hess said .
“ If you ’ re laid off , you don ’ t pay anything at all [ because ] you don ’ t have any withholding .
So , that would be the automatic solution , which would very specifically target the people who ’ s hours have been cut or who are out of work by reducing or eliminating their loan repayment for the appropriate period of time , ” Hess said and noted that he thought it was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you do it that way , say you ’ re laid off and you say you ’ re out of work for , you know , three months or six months , not only do you not have to pay any student loan , you ’ re not paying back during that time because you don ’ t have any employment , but you could simply write the program at that point to freeze the interest payments too .
So , you , so not only are you not repaying during those months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more debt , ” Hess added .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order extended student loan payment deadlines through the end of 2020.
The order may be an opportunity for “large-scale loan forgiveness,” education policy analyst Mary Clare Amselem told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
While the order may be “necessary for some, it’s not necessary for many others,” AEI resident scholar and director of education policy studies Frederick M. Hess told the DCNF.
President Donald Trump’s executive order on coronavirus aid that defers federal student loan payments to the end of the year may be an opportunity for progressives to push broader loan forgiveness schemes, but the general deferral is not necessary for many borrowers, education policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Trump issued four executive orders Saturday after negotiations failed for another stimulus package, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told reporters after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week.
Left-leaning organizations criticized Trump for not going far enough to help borrowers. Center for American Progress President and CEO Neera Tanden criticized the president’s executive orders, noting the extension on student loan payments didn’t help enough people, according to a statement.
“The order on student loans leaves out up to 9 million borrowers and does nothing to extend the critical benefits for essential workers, such as teachers and nurses, provided under the CARES Act,” Tanden said in the statement.
Approximately 9 million borrowers who owe back loans from private lenders and colleges are not covered under the executive order, Politico reported.
Trump signed the executive order Saturday suspending federal student loan payments until Dec.31 along with three other measures meant to help Americans struggling with the economic impacts of the pandemic, the Daily Caller reported. More than 1.19 million Americans filed additional unemployment claims in the last week of July, according to the Department of Labor.
Both Republicans and Democrats criticized the orders, including Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who called the orders “unconstitutional slop” in a statement.
Education policy analyst Mary Clare Amselem of the Heritage Foundation said the order postponed payments for too long. Frederick Hess, resident scholar and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said Trump’s executive order may be necessary for some borrowers struggling to repay their loans during the economic impacts of the pandemic, but not for others.
Due to the coronavirus impacting the economy negatively, “there certainly was an argument to be made for originally suspending student loan payments,” Amselem told the DCNF.
“There might have originally been a case for suspending student loan payments. I mean, people found themselves out of work overnight. Businesses were forced to close down through no fault of their own,” Amselem said.
“However, in responding to the coronavirus pandemic, policies needed to be targeted and temporary. And they needed to be responsive to the current state of the economy and the current state of the fight against coronavirus. And so, extending the suspension of student loan payments does not meet that targeted and temporary standard,” Amselem said.
“I fear that extending the suspension of student loan forgiveness will only open the door for large-scale loan forgiveness down the road coming from the left,” Amselem added. (RELATED EXCLUSIVE: Congress, White House Unlikely To Deliver Phase 4 Stimulus Before Recess, Sources Say)
Amselem said “that large scale-forgiveness is not in the best interest of the American people” and added that she and the Heritage Foundation have opposed it “for quite a long time.”
Hess told the DCNF the order is essential based on the borrower’s circumstances.
“There are some people who are out of work who owe student loans and right now, that’s for some of them a crushing burden. For others, it’s a problem,” Hess said.
“Then there’s millions of borrowers who are paying their loans. So, you know, it’s necessary for some, it’s not necessary for many others. Ideally, what we would have is an approach which was more targeted towards, you know, spending repayment for people who are out of work or in need,” Hess said.
When asked if there is anything further that needs to be done, Hess said, “yeah, but it requires a legislative fix” and said that there are multiple methods available. Hess noted one possible method is linking payments to taxes based on employment.
“One for instance is you can just pin student loan repayment to IRS collections. So that if you’re employed, your student loan repayment is just collected along with your tax withholding, which makes it easier on borrowers, helps reduce the amount of concerns you know about cheating or, you know, or mistakes, but it also means that if you’re laid off or if your hours shrink, you pay less,” Hess said.
“If you’re laid off, you don’t pay anything at all [because] you don’t have any withholding. So, that would be the automatic solution, which would very specifically target the people who’s hours have been cut or who are out of work by reducing or eliminating their loan repayment for the appropriate period of time,” Hess said and noted that he thought it was the best method.
“In fact if you do it that way, say you’re laid off and you say you’re out of work for, you know, three months or six months, not only do you not have to pay any student loan, you’re not paying back during that time because you don’t have any employment, but you could simply write the program at that point to freeze the interest payments too. So, you, so not only are you not repaying during those months, but you’re not accumulating more debt,” Hess added.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--Kamala Harris Makes Misleading Attack On Trump By Comparing Coronavirus To Ebola

Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris kicked off her bid for the vice presidency Wednesday with a misleading attack on President Donald Trump .
Harris made a direct comparison between the coronavirus pandemic — which has ravaged most of the world in a matter of months — and the ebola outbreak that took place in 2014 .
( RELATED : ‘ People Will Say Anything To Get Power ’ : Greg Gutfeld Launches Attack On Biden And Harris ) “ It didn ’ t have to be this way .
6 years ago , in fact , we had a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job .
Only two people in the United States died .
Two .
That is what ’ s called leadership , ” Harris said .
But Harris left out a number of details that made it clear that the two viruses were very different .
The death rate from Ebola was much higher — over 50 % — and the CDC recorded 11,325 deaths over the course of two and a half years .
Only eleven cases were treated in the United States , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak was also not technically labeled a “ pandemic , ” meeting only the requirements to be termed an “ epidemic.
” The CDC explains the difference between the two : Several critics — some of them doctors — chastised Harris for drawing the comparison , calling it “ irresponsible , ” “ dishonest ” and “ pure bullsh**t .
”

Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris kicked off her bid for the vice presidency Wednesday with a misleading attack on President Donald Trump.
Harris made a direct comparison between the coronavirus pandemic — which has ravaged most of the world in a matter of months — and the ebola outbreak that took place in 2014. (RELATED: ‘People Will Say Anything To Get Power’: Greg Gutfeld Launches Attack On Biden And Harris)
WATCH:
“It didn’t have to be this way. 6 years ago, in fact, we had a different health crisis. It was called Ebola … Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job. Only two people in the United States died. Two. That is what’s called leadership,” Harris said.
Kamala Harris: “It didn’t have to be this way. 6 years ago, in fact, we had a different health crisis. It was called Ebola … Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job. Only two people in the United States died. Two. That is what’s called leadership.” — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 12, 2020
But Harris left out a number of details that made it clear that the two viruses were very different.
The death rate from Ebola was much higher — over 50% — and the CDC recorded 11,325 deaths over the course of two and a half years. Only eleven cases were treated in the United States, two of which were fatal.
Ebola isn’t nearly as transmissible or contagious as COVID-19. Even at the height of the Ebola epidimic in West Africa, around 11,310 people died from a total of 28,616 cases. https://t.co/5Z1wEeattYhttps://t.co/Xhnaw1mnUBhttps://t.co/dbCtTRHfVN https://t.co/LRXJvaDrXz pic.twitter.com/ZjjgHx67YL — Elias Atienza (@AtienzaElias) August 12, 2020
The Ebola outbreak was also not technically labeled a “pandemic,” meeting only the requirements to be termed an “epidemic.”
.@KamalaHarris falsely claims 2014 US Ebola outbreak was a “pandemic.” While it fit the criteria to be an epidemic, or a sudden spike in cases, it never met the requirements to be labeled a “pandemic” like the coronavirus.https://t.co/ZOsAm1UVA5 — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) August 12, 2020
The CDC explains the difference between the two:
An outbreak is called an epidemic when there is a sudden increase in cases. As COVID-19 began spreading in Wuhan, China, it became an epidemic. Because the disease then spread across several countries and affected a large number of people, it was classified as a pandemic.
Several critics — some of them doctors — chastised Harris for drawing the comparison, calling it “irresponsible,” “dishonest” and “pure bullsh**t.”
There is absolutely no comparision between Ebola and the novel coronavirus/COVID. 2009, H1N1: Obama/Biden abandoned any effort against it months before it faded. They hoped for the best and, per their own “czar” Ron Klain, got lucky. The Ebola-COVID line is pure bullshit. — Nan Hayworth, M.D. (@NanHayworth) August 12, 2020
Ebola was an epidemic. Kamala falsely referred to it as a pandemic. There’s no good comparison between the coronavirus pandemic & the Ebola epidemic, yet a Democratic congressman is trying to justify it. Do Democrats not expect better than “But Trump did” from their VP nominee? https://t.co/QWEUsrLtfx — JERRY DUNLEAVY (@JerryDunleavy) August 12, 2020
Comparing COVID19 to Ebola is irresponsible and highlights how little people understand public health and disease transmission. — Nicole Saphier, MD (@NBSaphierMD) August 12, 2020
Harris now comparing Ebola to COVID-19, which is infinitely more contagious. — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) August 12, 2020


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--‘Rescued Again By Joe Biden’: Tucker Carlson Thanks Biden For Saving Him On Kamala Harris Name Mispr

‘Rescued Again By Joe Biden’: Tucker Carlson Thanks Biden For Saving Him On Kamala Harris Name Mispronunciation

Fox News host Tucker Carlson thanked presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for also mispronouncing California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris ’ name .
“ So if you watched last night ’ s show you may recall that during the opening segment , we apparently unknowingly mispronounced Kamala Harris ’ name , ” Carlson explained on Wednesday night ’ s “ Tucker Carlson Tonight.
” “ It is pronounced comma , not semicolon , comma , like the punctuation mark , ala Harris .
Fine .
It was a mistake.
” “ But it was treated as an act of bigotry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a sitting U.S.
Senator , ” he continued .
“ CNN was outraged .
Of all the things going on in the world today they wanted you to know that someone out there had mispronounced Kamala Harris ’ name.
” The Fox News host played a clip of a CNN panel criticizing his mistake , then read the tweets of some critics who alleged he had done so intentionally .
“ So the bottom line is , look , any criticism of Kamala Harris is immoral , ” Carlson said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name is a racist .
That ’ s what they ’ re telling you .
So with that in mind , pretty amusing to watch old Joe Biden himself mispronounce Kamala Harris ’ name today.
” The Fox News host laughed after playing the clip of Biden pronouncing Harris ’ name the same way that had gotten him lambasted by CNN .
( RELATED : Here ’ s How NYT Covered Kamala Harris Versus How They Covered Mike Pence ) “ It ’ s just too awesome !
” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , old Joe Biden shows up and the sun begins to rise .
Rescued again by Joe Biden .
Thank you , Joe .
What a bigot .
”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson thanked presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for also mispronouncing California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris’ name.
“So if you watched last night’s show you may recall that during the opening segment, we apparently unknowingly mispronounced Kamala Harris’ name,” Carlson explained on Wednesday night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “It is pronounced comma, not semicolon, comma, like the punctuation mark, ala Harris. Fine. It was a mistake.”
WATCH:
“But it was treated as an act of bigotry, a grave offense against the honor of a sitting U.S. Senator,” he continued. “CNN was outraged. Of all the things going on in the world today they wanted you to know that someone out there had mispronounced Kamala Harris’ name.”
The Fox News host played a clip of a CNN panel criticizing his mistake, then read the tweets of some critics who alleged he had done so intentionally.
“So the bottom line is, look, any criticism of Kamala Harris is immoral,” Carlson said. “Anyone who so much as mispronounces her name is a racist. That’s what they’re telling you. So with that in mind, pretty amusing to watch old Joe Biden himself mispronounce Kamala Harris’ name today.”
The Fox News host laughed after playing the clip of Biden pronouncing Harris’ name the same way that had gotten him lambasted by CNN. (RELATED: Here’s How NYT Covered Kamala Harris Versus How They Covered Mike Pence)
“It’s just too awesome!” he said. “Just when you think darkness is descending, old Joe Biden shows up and the sun begins to rise. Rescued again by Joe Biden. Thank you, Joe. What a bigot.”


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--Kamala Harris Had Nearly 2,000 People Locked Up On Marijuana Charges: Report

Sen. Kamala Harris , presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden ’ s running mate , reportedly prosecuted nearly 2,000 people on marijuana-related charges during her time as California attorney general .
A total of 1,974 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses during Harris ’ s 2011-2016 tenure as the Golden State ’ s lead prosecutor , the Washington Free Beacon reported .
Harris is now on board with Biden ’ s criminal justice plan that seeks to “ end all incarceration for drug use alone.
” A unity task force meant to unify Biden ’ s camp and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic Party recommended decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level and legalizing it for medicinal use .
Harris , when she was seeking the Democratic nomination , released a criminal justice plan , which detailed her plans to “ End ‘ The War On Drugs , ' ” and legalize marijuana .
Harris ’ s campaign also included statistics in the plan that black people are four times more likely than white people to be arrested for possession of cannabis .
Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard confronted Harris about the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead prosecutor in one of the Democratic debates last year .
“ She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana , ” Gabbard told the audience , according to Rolling Stone .
“ This is the work I ’ ve done .
Am I going to take hits ?
Of course , incoming , there are going to be hits on a debate stage when people are trying to , you know , make a name for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Rolling Stone .
Executive director for The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Erik Altieri said Harris ’ stance on marijuana is “ problematic ” and her views on the drug would not “ qualify as progressive , ” he told the magazine in August 2019 .
Harris ’ s AG record has other potential vulnerabilities as well .
She reportedly defended prosecutor Robert Murray , who admitted to falsifying a man ’ s confession in 2015 , according to The Observer .
The indictment was dismissed due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision to throw out the case , claiming physical brutality is the only justification for dismissing charges in this manner , The Observer reported .
Harris during her time as prosecutor did mandate officers wear body cameras as a means for holding them accountable , but only those who worked with her were required — it did not apply to all local cops , according to a 2019 fact check by the Sacramento Bee .
Biden ’ s website mentions his desire to end “ mass incarceration ” and Harris ’ 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , Harris resisted a judge ’ s decision in California , which ordered the state to implement a new parole program that would free certain prisoners early due to rampant , unconstitutional overcrowding , according to the Los Angeles Times .
Harris ’ lawyers insisted that the order would cause a void in the prison labor pool that paid incarcerated people between 8 and 37 cents an hour , the Times reported .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Sen. Kamala Harris, presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, reportedly prosecuted nearly 2,000 people on marijuana-related charges during her time as California attorney general.
A total of 1,974 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses during Harris’s 2011-2016 tenure as the Golden State’s lead prosecutor, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Harris is now on board with Biden’s criminal justice plan that seeks to “end all incarceration for drug use alone.” A unity task force meant to unify Biden’s camp and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s wing of the Democratic Party recommended decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level and legalizing it for medicinal use.
Harris, when she was seeking the Democratic nomination, released a criminal justice plan, which detailed her plans to “End ‘The War On Drugs,'” and legalize marijuana. Harris’s campaign also included statistics in the plan that black people are four times more likely than white people to be arrested for possession of cannabis.
Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard confronted Harris about the number of marijuana arrests recorded during her time as lead prosecutor in one of the Democratic debates last year.
“She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard told the audience, according to Rolling Stone.
“This is the work I’ve done. Am I going to take hits? Of course, incoming, there are going to be hits on a debate stage when people are trying to, you know, make a name for themselves,” Harris responded, according to Rolling Stone.
Executive director for The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Erik Altieri said Harris’ stance on marijuana is “problematic” and her views on the drug would not “qualify as progressive,” he told the magazine in August 2019.
Harris’s AG record has other potential vulnerabilities as well.
She reportedly defended prosecutor Robert Murray, who admitted to falsifying a man’s confession in 2015, according to The Observer.
The indictment was dismissed due to the falsification, but Harris’ administration appealed the decision to throw out the case, claiming physical brutality is the only justification for dismissing charges in this manner, The Observer reported.
Harris during her time as prosecutor did mandate officers wear body cameras as a means for holding them accountable, but only those who worked with her were required — it did not apply to all local cops, according to a 2019 fact check by the Sacramento Bee.
Biden’s website mentions his desire to end “mass incarceration” and Harris’ 2019 justice plan also advocated for the move. However,
Harris resisted a judge’s decision in California, which ordered the state to implement a new parole program that would free certain prisoners early due to rampant, unconstitutional overcrowding, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Harris’ lawyers insisted that the order would cause a void in the prison labor pool that paid incarcerated people between 8 and 37 cents an hour, the Times reported.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--If You Want To Truly Understand How Corporate America Went Nuts, You Should Read This Piece

I once committed the faux pas , at a gathering for business executives to discuss workforce investment , of proposing legislation that would require them to invest more in their workforces .
“ This group should not be in the business of changing the behavior of our businesses , ” retorted an indignant participant unironically .
The many comments preceding mine had suggested new public programs , partnerships , and tax credits that might reward employers for changing their behavior .
Those were welcome .
The prospect of a constraint , however , was heresy .
Constraints are precisely what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many forms .
Some are legal—requirements for what a firm must do and prohibitions on what it must not .
Some are economic—the result of competitive pressures and the demands made by counter-parties with whom the firm transacts .
Some are social—shaping the business leader ’ s understanding of his obligations and promising censure for falling short .
A well-functioning market system depends on all of these mechanisms to ensure that the private sector delivers on capitalism ’ s incredible capacity to support a flourishing nation .
Corporate responsibility entails accepting—indeed , supporting—such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrasts starkly with the new-age dogma of “ Corporate Social Responsibility ” ( CSR ) , which is built on the premise that constraints are unnecessary because firms will voluntarily advance the common good .
CSR reached its apogee one year ago in the Business Roundtable ’ s lauded and nonsensical announcement that it was “ redefin [ ing ] the purpose of a corporation ” with a commitment from nearly 200 CEOs “ to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders.
” Trust us , we can behave ourselves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ web videos touting enthusiasm for “ sustainability , ” “ diversity , ” and now “ equity and justice.
” Read between the lines and the glossy façade whispers precisely the opposite—that modern multinational corporations have become unmoored from their social purpose and incapable of delivering on it .
Their “ responsibility ” campaigns are the indulgences they pay to maintain this status quo , calibrated to deliver the maximum political return on the minimum investment .
( RELATED : Businesses Drastically Reduced New Hires In July According To Private Payroll Processor ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prerequisite for restoring America ’ s economic engine to a condition that generates broadly shared growth and prosperity .
It will require a concerted effort to re-establish rules , norms , institutions and transparency that once bound business leaders and their firms in relationships of mutual obligation to workers , their families and communities , and the nation they all call home .
Received wisdom in the business community and among self-declared guardians of the “ free market ” holds that maximizing profit maximizes growth and prosperity , and so the fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard Law School professor Jesse Fried warns that if corporations are asked to do more than pursue profit , “ excess capital would be trapped .
… Resources would be misinvested .
… The economy would suffer.
” But one man ’ s trapped excess capital is another ’ s long-term investment , and whether it redounds to the benefit of a nation ’ s economy and workers is a very different question from whether it maximizes shareholder return .
In the century before Milton Friedman ’ s 1970 condemnation of “ social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialism , ” the unprecedented innovation and dynamism of the American economy operated quite effectively within legal , economic , and social constraints far stronger than today ’ s .
Indeed , a focus on building strong , resilient , and far-sighted organizations rather than generating immediate returns was vital to the nation ’ s economic success .
It was in the context of shareholders asserting their primacy and heightening the focus on their own returns , not the context of limited global markets and strong organized labor and heavy sectoral regulation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wages and productivity stagnated , and inequality surged .
What changed ?
Businessmen did not suddenly become more greedy or unscrupulous ; to the contrary , many of the worst labor abuses , most dangerous working conditions , and tawdriest scams can be found in an earlier time .
Rather , a tsunami of broader political , economic and social trends swept away the constraints within which businessmen operated .
One such trend has been globalization .
Whereas firms once had no choice but to think and act locally—buying from , producing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and typically regional ) market—the greatest profit is now often associated with doing just the opposite .
A corollary is that workers find themselves far less able to exercise countervailing power .
Americans compete in a labor market that now includes hundreds of millions of foreign workers in laxer regulatory environments and with lower reservation wages and costs of living .
Meanwhile , unionization has declined precipitously and the rise of the “ fissured ” workplace means jobs are more likely to be temporary , on-call , and freelance .
Another corollary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less connection and accountability to their communities or their nation .
The American model of meritocracy extracts talented young people from around the country , concentrates them in elite universities , and then launches them into professional careers in select economic hubs .
Perched thusly , these professionals tend to identify and affiliate most closely with their fellow placeless knowledge workers and with peers in similar hub cities around the world , rather than with either their newfound homes or their erstwhile hometowns .
Places that are not talent destinations , meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned businesses that traditionally played a cornerstone role .
Owners , for their part , have become not only diffuse and anonymous but also in many cases hidden behind layers of legal fiction .
The owners of a widely-held , publicly-traded firm are difficult to identify and their preferences impossible to discern .
They are not accountable , or even known , to the communities in which their companies operate .
They likely do not know , or care to know , how those companies operate .
( RELATED : Questioning Tech Execs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hearings , Rep. Buck Says ) All of these actors now operate in a radically less constrained competitive landscape , reshaped as policymakers gave priority to market “ efficiency , ” deregulating the economy sector by sector and imposing constraints only for purposes of correcting “ externalities.
” Fifty years ago , bank holding companies could not acquire banks across state lines and most states limited branching even within their own borders .
The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded flight routes to airlines and set ticket prices .
Federal antitrust doctrine still considered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix of economic , social , and political goals , ” rather than merely “ consumer welfare.
” Each of these changes may well have been salutary , but taken together ( and with countless others ) they transformed the economy from a zoo of caged habitats to a veritable savannah .
With fewer constraints came massively increased profits .
Wages stagnated , but U.S. corporate profits rose by 145 % from 1978 to 2015 after adjusting for both population growth and inflation .
CEO pay at the 350 largest American firms went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s salary to 286 times .
For the capital class , things were going almost too well .
A democratic society will tolerate such trends only so long before a backlash occurs ; how to keep the gravy train running ?
Enter Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR ) .
The central fact of CSR is that it is a sham .
Both corporate leaders and outside consultants understand and are surprisingly candid that CSR is intended not to constrain or cost firms at all , but rather to pursue profit more effectively , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of appearing socially responsible .
McKinsey , for instance , notes that the “ best ” programs “ create financial value in ways the market already assesses—growth , return on capital , risk management , and quality of management .
Programs that don ’ t create value in one of these ways should be reexamined.
” Unsurprisingly , the “ best ” programs tend to focus on “ diversity ” and “ sustainability ” —areas already governed by extensive regulation and tailor-made for marketing campaigns that contribute directly to the bottom line without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More recently , these themes have given way to what is called “ woke capital , ” the direct engagement of the corporate sector in progressive political causes , seemingly to placate and distract progressive critics who might otherwise demand economic reform .
Just as CSR is notable for the naked admission of its practitioners that the goal remains unconstrained profit maximization , woke capital is admirably upfront about its cynicism .
Apple and the NBA , for instance , remain silent on human-rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang , but found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people use public bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex .
“ I think we deal with whatever set of circumstances are dealt to us , ” said Commissioner Adam Silver when pressed on his principles .
“ I don ’ t have a cut-and-dried response to that .
… It ’ s net incredibly positive for us to be [ playing games in China ] .
It wasn ’ t a net positive to continue the track we were on and playing our All-Star Game this season in Charlotte.
” Corporate decisions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are incomprehensible when viewed through the lens of principle .
They make perfect sense if understood as profit maximization and , specifically , an effort to curry favor with the highest-value consumers and employees , who are presumed to be cultural elites with socially progressive priorities .
Sometimes firms even say the quiet part out loud .
Trendy companies like Zoom , Slack , Square and BirchBox published a full-page ad in the New York Times warning that abortion restrictions are “ bad for business.
” Nearly 400 companies including McKinsey , Goldman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Supreme Court in Obergefell vs. Hodges asserting that “ allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity.
” They added , lest there be any confusion , “ our corporate principles of diversity and inclusion are the right thing to do .
Beyond that , however , such policies contribute to … significant returns for our shareholders and owners.
” The publicly-held multinational corporation has no moral intuition .
Its owners do , but they are rendered powerless , anonymous and unaccountable behind layers of abstraction and aggregation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the express premise of shareholder primacy is to disavow and override any broader sense of obligation .
Constraints will have to be imposed from the outside , by policymakers in government and institutions of civil society .
In some cases , old ones can be re-imposed .
In others , new ones will be needed .
The first step is to establish the right focus .
Declaring everyone a stakeholder and everything a priority is a surefire recipe for avoiding meaningful action or accountability .
The needed social functions for which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good jobs for workers , maintaining a workplace compatible with family life , providing the economic foundation for strong communities and advancing the long-term prosperity of the nation .
These are where corporate actual responsibility should focus .
( RELATED : The American System : How We Return To An Economy That Lifts All Americans ) Workers are particularly well positioned to hold corporations accountable—their working conditions , their families , their communities , even their nation are what is at issue .
But to impose economic pressure they must have countervailing power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it need not .
European-style “ works councils , ” for instance , create collaborative relationships between management and worker committees at the local facility level , which is what workers say they want .
At broader scale , “ sectoral bargaining ” would allow representatives of labor and capital to establish broad ground-rules industry- or economy-wide .
“ Co-determination ” places representatives of labor directly on corporate boards , short-circuiting the default assumptions of shareholder primacy by including workers among those to whom management is accountable .
While social pressure can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Transparency , for instance , works more reliably when disclosures are mandated .
New relationships with , and forms of , organized labor would improve on today ’ s dysfunctional system .
In other cases , legal reform is the only pathway .
For instance , trade and immigration policies that constrain access to foreign labor or outright require domestic production have a way of focusing corporate attention .
An education system that emphasizes on-the-job training could dragoon the corporate sector into a constructive role if participation were vital for gaining access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be prohibiting the requirement of a college degree in a job description .
Finally , like Odysseus at the mast , corporate leaders could facilitate the process of constraint .
Suppose they do acknowledge and wish to fulfill their obligations , but feel powerless in the face of economic and legal imperatives to maximize profit .
A remedy is available : act together ; not with empty “ stakeholder ” commitments , but with concrete pledges .
Nothing stops the Business Roundtable ’ s members from agreeing to eliminate non-compete and no-poach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apprenticeship system that pairs community-college coursework with on-the-job training .
They could agree tomorrow to stop seeking handouts from states as a precondition of their investments , an unsavory practice that reached its nauseating nadir in Amazon ’ s “ HQ2 competition.
” Upon making pledges like these , keeping their word would immediately become rational .
And with all likewise constrained , none would be at a competitive disadvantage .
How will the economy manage to thrive in the face of so many inconvenient obligations ?
Concerns that constraining the pursuit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allocation of resources lose much of their force upon realization that they beg the question , starting from a definition of “ efficient ” as the allocation that would occur absent constraint .
That outcome is not necessarily a desirable one for our country .
The mystery is not how prosperity emerges when the interests of workers , families , communities and the nation factor into business decisions alongside shareholder returns .
It is how we ever thought the contrary .
This article is adapted from “ Constraining the Corporation , ” published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project on Corporate Actual Responsibility .
Oren Cass is the executive director at American Compass .
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by the DCNF is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

I once committed the faux pas, at a gathering for business executives to discuss workforce investment, of proposing legislation that would require them to invest more in their workforces. “This group should not be in the business of changing the behavior of our businesses,” retorted an indignant participant unironically. The many comments preceding mine had suggested new public programs, partnerships, and tax credits that might reward employers for changing their behavior. Those were welcome. The prospect of a constraint, however, was heresy.
Constraints are precisely what businesses need. They can come in many forms. Some are legal—requirements for what a firm must do and prohibitions on what it must not. Some are economic—the result of competitive pressures and the demands made by counter-parties with whom the firm transacts. Some are social—shaping the business leader’s understanding of his obligations and promising censure for falling short. A well-functioning market system depends on all of these mechanisms to ensure that the private sector delivers on capitalism’s incredible capacity to support a flourishing nation. Corporate responsibility entails accepting—indeed, supporting—such constraints and acting within them.
This contrasts starkly with the new-age dogma of “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR), which is built on the premise that constraints are unnecessary because firms will voluntarily advance the common good. CSR reached its apogee one year ago in the Business Roundtable’s lauded and nonsensical announcement that it was “redefin[ing] the purpose of a corporation” with a commitment from nearly 200 CEOs “to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders.” Trust us, we can behave ourselves, say the slickly produced marketing brochures and web videos touting enthusiasm for “sustainability,” “diversity,” and now “equity and justice.” Read between the lines and the glossy façade whispers precisely the opposite—that modern multinational corporations have become unmoored from their social purpose and incapable of delivering on it. Their “responsibility” campaigns are the indulgences they pay to maintain this status quo, calibrated to deliver the maximum political return on the minimum investment. (RELATED: Businesses Drastically Reduced New Hires In July According To Private Payroll Processor)
A return of actual corporate responsibility is a prerequisite for restoring America’s economic engine to a condition that generates broadly shared growth and prosperity. It will require a concerted effort to re-establish rules, norms, institutions and transparency that once bound business leaders and their firms in relationships of mutual obligation to workers, their families and communities, and the nation they all call home.
* * *
Received wisdom in the business community and among self-declared guardians of the “free market” holds that maximizing profit maximizes growth and prosperity, and so the fewer constraints on that pursuit the better. Harvard Law School professor Jesse Fried warns that if corporations are asked to do more than pursue profit, “excess capital would be trapped. … Resources would be misinvested. … The economy would suffer.”
But one man’s trapped excess capital is another’s long-term investment, and whether it redounds to the benefit of a nation’s economy and workers is a very different question from whether it maximizes shareholder return. In the century before Milton Friedman’s 1970 condemnation of “social responsibility” by corporations as “unadulterated socialism,” the unprecedented innovation and dynamism of the American economy operated quite effectively within legal, economic, and social constraints far stronger than today’s. Indeed, a focus on building strong, resilient, and far-sighted organizations rather than generating immediate returns was vital to the nation’s economic success. It was in the context of shareholders asserting their primacy and heightening the focus on their own returns, not the context of limited global markets and strong organized labor and heavy sectoral regulation, that investment plunged, growth slowed, wages and productivity stagnated, and inequality surged.
What changed? Businessmen did not suddenly become more greedy or unscrupulous; to the contrary, many of the worst labor abuses, most dangerous working conditions, and tawdriest scams can be found in an earlier time. Rather, a tsunami of broader political, economic and social trends swept away the constraints within which businessmen operated.
One such trend has been globalization. Whereas firms once had no choice but to think and act locally—buying from, producing for, and hiring in the domestic (and typically regional) market—the greatest profit is now often associated with doing just the opposite. A corollary is that workers find themselves far less able to exercise countervailing power. Americans compete in a labor market that now includes hundreds of millions of foreign workers in laxer regulatory environments and with lower reservation wages and costs of living. Meanwhile, unionization has declined precipitously and the rise of the “fissured” workplace means jobs are more likely to be temporary, on-call, and freelance.
Another corollary of globalization is that managers and owners have less connection and accountability to their communities or their nation. The American model of meritocracy extracts talented young people from around the country, concentrates them in elite universities, and then launches them into professional careers in select economic hubs. Perched thusly, these professionals tend to identify and affiliate most closely with their fellow placeless knowledge workers and with peers in similar hub cities around the world, rather than with either their newfound homes or their erstwhile hometowns. Places that are not talent destinations, meanwhile, find themselves without the leaders and locally owned businesses that traditionally played a cornerstone role.
Owners, for their part, have become not only diffuse and anonymous but also in many cases hidden behind layers of legal fiction. The owners of a widely-held, publicly-traded firm are difficult to identify and their preferences impossible to discern. They are not accountable, or even known, to the communities in which their companies operate. They likely do not know, or care to know, how those companies operate. (RELATED: Questioning Tech Execs On Conservative Bias Is Crucial During Antitrust Hearings, Rep. Buck Says)
All of these actors now operate in a radically less constrained competitive landscape, reshaped as policymakers gave priority to market “efficiency,” deregulating the economy sector by sector and imposing constraints only for purposes of correcting “externalities.” Fifty years ago, bank holding companies could not acquire banks across state lines and most states limited branching even within their own borders. The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded flight routes to airlines and set ticket prices. Federal antitrust doctrine still considered the concerns of small business and “a mix of economic, social, and political goals,” rather than merely “consumer welfare.” Each of these changes may well have been salutary, but taken together (and with countless others) they transformed the economy from a zoo of caged habitats to a veritable savannah.
With fewer constraints came massively increased profits. Wages stagnated, but U.S. corporate profits rose by 145% from 1978 to 2015 after adjusting for both population growth and inflation. CEO pay at the 350 largest American firms went from 30 times the median worker’s salary to 286 times.
For the capital class, things were going almost too well. A democratic society will tolerate such trends only so long before a backlash occurs; how to keep the gravy train running? Enter Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
The central fact of CSR is that it is a sham. Both corporate leaders and outside consultants understand and are surprisingly candid that CSR is intended not to constrain or cost firms at all, but rather to pursue profit more effectively, in part by earning the public-relations benefits of appearing socially responsible. McKinsey, for instance, notes that the “best” programs “create financial value in ways the market already assesses—growth, return on capital, risk management, and quality of management. Programs that don’t create value in one of these ways should be reexamined.” Unsurprisingly, the “best” programs tend to focus on “diversity” and “sustainability”—areas already governed by extensive regulation and tailor-made for marketing campaigns that contribute directly to the bottom line without requiring significant changes to business practices.
More recently, these themes have given way to what is called “woke capital,” the direct engagement of the corporate sector in progressive political causes, seemingly to placate and distract progressive critics who might otherwise demand economic reform. Just as CSR is notable for the naked admission of its practitioners that the goal remains unconstrained profit maximization, woke capital is admirably upfront about its cynicism. Apple and the NBA, for instance, remain silent on human-rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, but found intolerable North Carolina’s requirement that people use public bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex.
“I think we deal with whatever set of circumstances are dealt to us,” said Commissioner Adam Silver when pressed on his principles. “I don’t have a cut-and-dried response to that. … It’s net incredibly positive for us to be [playing games in China]. It wasn’t a net positive to continue the track we were on and playing our All-Star Game this season in Charlotte.”
Corporate decisions on when to take a stand or demur are incomprehensible when viewed through the lens of principle. They make perfect sense if understood as profit maximization and, specifically, an effort to curry favor with the highest-value consumers and employees, who are presumed to be cultural elites with socially progressive priorities. Sometimes firms even say the quiet part out loud. Trendy companies like Zoom, Slack, Square and BirchBox published a full-page ad in the New York Times warning that abortion restrictions are “bad for business.” Nearly 400 companies including McKinsey, Goldman Sachs and Google submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Obergefell vs. Hodges asserting that “allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity.” They added, lest there be any confusion, “our corporate principles of diversity and inclusion are the right thing to do. Beyond that, however, such policies contribute to … significant returns for our shareholders and owners.”
* * *
The publicly-held multinational corporation has no moral intuition. Its owners do, but they are rendered powerless, anonymous and unaccountable behind layers of abstraction and aggregation. The managers who make its decisions do, but the express premise of shareholder primacy is to disavow and override any broader sense of obligation. Constraints will have to be imposed from the outside, by policymakers in government and institutions of civil society. In some cases, old ones can be re-imposed. In others, new ones will be needed. The first step is to establish the right focus.
Declaring everyone a stakeholder and everything a priority is a surefire recipe for avoiding meaningful action or accountability. The needed social functions for which firms are the indispensable contributors are creating good jobs for workers, maintaining a workplace compatible with family life, providing the economic foundation for strong communities and advancing the long-term prosperity of the nation. These are where corporate actual responsibility should focus. (RELATED: The American System: How We Return To An Economy That Lifts All Americans)
Workers are particularly well positioned to hold corporations accountable—their working conditions, their families, their communities, even their nation are what is at issue. But to impose economic pressure they must have countervailing power. This could mean formal unionization, but it need not. European-style “works councils,” for instance, create collaborative relationships between management and worker committees at the local facility level, which is what workers say they want. At broader scale, “sectoral bargaining” would allow representatives of labor and capital to establish broad ground-rules industry- or economy-wide. “Co-determination” places representatives of labor directly on corporate boards, short-circuiting the default assumptions of shareholder primacy by including workers among those to whom management is accountable.
While social pressure can often motivate progress, legal reforms help. Transparency, for instance, works more reliably when disclosures are mandated. New relationships with, and forms of, organized labor would improve on today’s dysfunctional system. In other cases, legal reform is the only pathway. For instance, trade and immigration policies that constrain access to foreign labor or outright require domestic production have a way of focusing corporate attention. An education system that emphasizes on-the-job training could dragoon the corporate sector into a constructive role if participation were vital for gaining access to new talent. One easy adjustment would be prohibiting the requirement of a college degree in a job description.
Finally, like Odysseus at the mast, corporate leaders could facilitate the process of constraint. Suppose they do acknowledge and wish to fulfill their obligations, but feel powerless in the face of economic and legal imperatives to maximize profit. A remedy is available: act together; not with empty “stakeholder” commitments, but with concrete pledges. Nothing stops the Business Roundtable’s members from agreeing to eliminate non-compete and no-poach agreements or to partner in creating an apprenticeship system that pairs community-college coursework with on-the-job training. They could agree tomorrow to stop seeking handouts from states as a precondition of their investments, an unsavory practice that reached its nauseating nadir in Amazon’s “HQ2 competition.” Upon making pledges like these, keeping their word would immediately become rational. And with all likewise constrained, none would be at a competitive disadvantage.
How will the economy manage to thrive in the face of so many inconvenient obligations? Concerns that constraining the pursuit of profit will prevent an “efficient” allocation of resources lose much of their force upon realization that they beg the question, starting from a definition of “efficient” as the allocation that would occur absent constraint. That outcome is not necessarily a desirable one for our country. The mystery is not how prosperity emerges when the interests of workers, families, communities and the nation factor into business decisions alongside shareholder returns. It is how we ever thought the contrary.
This article is adapted from “Constraining the Corporation,” published by American Compass as part of its project on Corporate Actual Responsibility.
Oren Cass is the executive director at American Compass.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation. Content created by the DCNF is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@ .


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--Tucker Carlson On Media, Wall Street Support For Kamala Harris: ‘It’s Oligarchy, And It Has Conseque

Tucker Carlson On Media, Wall Street Support For Kamala Harris: ‘It’s Oligarchy, And It Has Consequences’

Fox News host Tucker Carlson argued that media and Wall Street support for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s pick of California Sen. Kamala Harris is evidence of “ oligarchy ” that will “ have consequences for everyone.
” Carlson used his Wednesday night “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” opening monologue to explain why he believes Democratic donors , big banks , Wall Street , and media are firmly behind the choice of Harris , even if ordinary voters may not be .
“ The first thing to know about Harris is that in just a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the Fox News host opined .
“ If Biden wins the presidential election , Kamala Harris will effectively become the president .
Everyone knows that .
Democratic donors understand it best of all .
America ’ s big banks have long controlled Joe Biden .
For years in the Senate , for decades , he faithfully did their bidding .
And in return , they sent him money .
They still do , in fact far more than they send to the incumbent president.
” Carlson contended that banks , consulting groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nervous for a moment about the prospect that Biden might pick Stacey Abrams , ” were “ thrilled when Biden choose Harris ” and are betting that even unenthused voters will put the Biden and Harris ticket in power based on hatred for President Donald Trump .
“ Like their friends at Google , the Biden campaign understands it has a monopoly , ” he said .
“ And they plan to exploit it .
This is not the democracy we were promised .
In fact it ’ s not democracy at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has consequences for everyone.
” “ It ’ s all pretty sad and unnerving if you think about it , ” the Fox News host continued .
“ What if we had an election , and no one cared what voters thought ?
We ’ re about to find out .
But before you get too depressed , take this moment to enjoy the breathtaking absurdity of it all .
The most oblivious politician in America has joined forces with the most calculating politician in America .
Hilarity ensues .
Neither one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows what day it is.
” To make his point that Harris is far from what the New York Times called a “ pragmatic moderate , ” Carlson proceeded to play several video clips , including her scripted telephone acceptance of the vice-presidential nominee slot , contending that 16-year-olds should vote and that resources during the pandemic – presumably vaccines – should be “ based on race.
” ( RELATED : ‘ That ’ s Called Affirmative Action ’ : Leo Terrell Blasts Kamala Harris Pick ) Carlson ended the segment by showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The anchors on CNN were especially supportive , ” he said .
“ Kamala Harris is the only politician their boss , the tiny but secretive Jeff Zucker , has ever publicly endorsed .
When she ran for attorney general in California , Zucker said this , quote : ‘ Kamala is not just important for the city of San Francisco , the state of California , but for the entire country.
’ According to Zucker , Harris is that important .
Existentially important .
Probably too important to cover like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take over your country .
So stop asking questions .
Obey .
”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson argued that media and Wall Street support for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s pick of California Sen. Kamala Harris is evidence of “oligarchy” that will “have consequences for everyone.”
Carlson used his Wednesday night “Tucker Carlson Tonight” opening monologue to explain why he believes Democratic donors, big banks, Wall Street, and media are firmly behind the choice of Harris, even if ordinary voters may not be.
“The first thing to know about Harris is that in just a few months, she could run your country,” the Fox News host opined. “If Biden wins the presidential election, Kamala Harris will effectively become the president. Everyone knows that. Democratic donors understand it best of all. America’s big banks have long controlled Joe Biden. For years in the Senate, for decades, he faithfully did their bidding. And in return, they sent him money. They still do, in fact far more than they send to the incumbent president.”
WATCH:
Carlson contended that banks, consulting groups, and Wall Street, while “nervous for a moment about the prospect that Biden might pick Stacey Abrams,” were “thrilled when Biden choose Harris” and are betting that even unenthused voters will put the Biden and Harris ticket in power based on hatred for President Donald Trump.
“Like their friends at Google, the Biden campaign understands it has a monopoly,” he said. “And they plan to exploit it. This is not the democracy we were promised. In fact it’s not democracy at all. It’s oligarchy, and it has consequences for everyone.”
“It’s all pretty sad and unnerving if you think about it,” the Fox News host continued. “What if we had an election, and no one cared what voters thought? We’re about to find out. But before you get too depressed, take this moment to enjoy the breathtaking absurdity of it all. The most oblivious politician in America has joined forces with the most calculating politician in America. Hilarity ensues. Neither one believes anything but only one of them knows what day it is.”
To make his point that Harris is far from what the New York Times called a “pragmatic moderate,” Carlson proceeded to play several video clips, including her scripted telephone acceptance of the vice-presidential nominee slot, contending that 16-year-olds should vote and that resources during the pandemic – presumably vaccines – should be “based on race.” (RELATED: ‘That’s Called Affirmative Action’: Leo Terrell Blasts Kamala Harris Pick)
Carlson ended the segment by showing clips of media figures fawning over Harris.
“The anchors on CNN were especially supportive,” he said. “Kamala Harris is the only politician their boss, the tiny but secretive Jeff Zucker, has ever publicly endorsed. When she ran for attorney general in California, Zucker said this, quote: ‘Kamala is not just important for the city of San Francisco, the state of California, but for the entire country.’ According to Zucker, Harris is that important. Existentially important. Probably too important to cover like you would a mere politician who wants to take over your country. So stop asking questions. Obey.”


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Suggest ‘Child Lifes Matter’ Should Be Painted On The Streets Of Hollyw

FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Suggest ‘Child Lifes Matter’ Should Be Painted On The Streets Of Hollywood?

An image shared on Facebook claims President Donald Trump tweeted , “ WHO Thinks ‘ Child Lifes ( sic ) Matter ’ Should Be PAINTED In The STREETS Of Hollywood ?
?
?
” There is no record of Trump ever tweeting this message .
The image shows what appears to be a screen grab of a tweet from the president , reading , “ WHO thinks ‘ CHILD LIFES MATTER ’ Should Be PAINTED In The STREETS Of HOLLYWOOD ?
” The message appears to allude to the number of unfounded rumors of celebrities engaged in child sex trafficking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter murals that have been painted in the streets of cities across the U.S. in recent weeks .
But there is no evidence Trump actually tweeted the question .
Trump ’ s Twitter account has a blue checkmark , signifying Twitter has verified the account as authentic , whereas the account shown in the screen grab does not .
It has the wrong handle – @ realDonaldTrump_ rather than @ realDonaldTrump .
( RELATED : Did Mel Gibson Say Hollywood ‘ Is An Institutionalized Pedophile Ring ’ ? )
A search of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realDonaldTrump and @ POTUS – turned up no matches for the tweet .
Nor did the Daily Caller News Foundation find the tweet in the Trump Twitter Archive , a database of Trump ’ s tweets dating back to May 2009 .
The DCNF also searched an archive of his deleted tweets , but found no similar tweets .
This isn ’ t the first time a tweet has been falsely attributed to Trump .
Social media users often fabricate Trump tweets using websites such as FakeTrumpTweet.com and FakeTweetGenerator.com , but in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account attempting to impersonate the president by using the same profile picture and a similar username .
Check Your Fact has debunked numerous fake tweets attributed to Trump in recent months .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ] .

An image shared on Facebook claims President Donald Trump tweeted, “WHO Thinks ‘Child Lifes (sic) Matter’ Should Be PAINTED In The STREETS Of Hollywood???”
Verdict: False
There is no record of Trump ever tweeting this message.
Fact Check:
The image shows what appears to be a screen grab of a tweet from the president, reading, “WHO thinks ‘CHILD LIFES MATTER’ Should Be PAINTED In The STREETS Of HOLLYWOOD?” The message appears to allude to the number of unfounded rumors of celebrities engaged in child sex trafficking, as well as the Black Lives Matter murals that have been painted in the streets of cities across the U.S. in recent weeks.
But there is no evidence Trump actually tweeted the question. Trump’s Twitter account has a blue checkmark, signifying Twitter has verified the account as authentic, whereas the account shown in the screen grab does not. It has the wrong handle – @realDonaldTrump_ rather than @realDonaldTrump. (RELATED: Did Mel Gibson Say Hollywood ‘Is An Institutionalized Pedophile Ring’?)
A search of Trump’s verified Twitter accounts – @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS – turned up no matches for the tweet. Nor did the Daily Caller News Foundation find the tweet in the Trump Twitter Archive, a database of Trump’s tweets dating back to May 2009. The DCNF also searched an archive of his deleted tweets, but found no similar tweets.
This isn’t the first time a tweet has been falsely attributed to Trump. Social media users often fabricate Trump tweets using websites such as FakeTrumpTweet.com and FakeTweetGenerator.com, but in this case, the tweet came from an account attempting to impersonate the president by using the same profile picture and a similar username. Check Your Fact has debunked numerous fake tweets attributed to Trump in recent months.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].


thedailycaller--2020-08-13--‘Abolish The United States Of America’: Radical ‘Youth Liberation Front’ Active In Portland Encourag

‘Abolish The United States Of America’: Radical ‘Youth Liberation Front’ Active In Portland Encourages Violence, Explicitly Rejects Peaceful Protesting

• A group calling themselves the Youth Liberation Front is credited in media reports with organizing anti-police rallies in Portland that have often turned violent .
• The group openly cheers violence and explicitly rejects peaceful protesting on social media .
• YLF says it wants to “ destroy the United States of America.
” A radical group credited with organizing anti-police rallies in Portland openly cheers violence and explicitly rejects efforts to keep protests peaceful , a Daily Caller News Foundation review found .
The Youth Liberation Front is credited with organizing protests in Portland last week that extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent , The Seattle Times and the Associated Press have reported .
Portland police declared riots on multiple nights throughout the week .
The radical group ’ s goals extend far beyond changing policies and even beyond abolishing the police , as noted in a July 8 tweet : “ we don ’ t want to be led , and we don ’ t want to lead , we just want to destroy the United States of America.
” “ Abolish the United States of America , ” the group wrote on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 32,000 followers on the social media platform .
“ Members of our group report that watching the senate hearing on Antifa was very inspiring .
Countless times the movement was referred to as being well organized , and it was conceded that ‘ they are winning ’ on various occasions .
We will succeed in abolishing amerikkka !
” YLF wrote on Twitter on Aug. 4 , following a Senate hearing on Antifa violence .
A July 25 tweet from the group cheered agitators in Seattle who set fire to trailers at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting off the day strong !
” the tweet said .
“ Let ’ s keep this energy up tonight , Portland !
” When some members of a crowd at a June 2 protest booed the burning of the American flag , the group tweeted : “ If you are booing someone burning a symbol of white supremacy and state violence at a protest against white supremacist state violence , what the fuck is wrong with you ?
” The group on July 23 tweeted instructions to burn American flags if anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see someone waving an American flag… burn it , ” the group wrote .
YLF has denounced those who seek to keep protests peaceful .
“ To all the people on the streets who call themselves ‘ peaceful protesters ’ .
I don ’ t know where you ’ ve been for the past 4+ years , but being peaceful doesn ’ t stop the police , how do I know this ?
Because people have been doing this for years before you hopped on the protest trend , ” the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The pigs are in a PR battle so they say there ’ s a difference from ‘ peaceful ’ and ‘ violent ’ protesters .
When in fact what we are fighting is the ultimate form of violence , making any and all resistance self and community defense , ” the group added .
“ If you ’ re gon na use violence to police other protestors , our fight is just as much with you as it is with the cops on uniform ; you just do that shit for free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any help , ” the group wrote on Twitter on July 4 .
The tweet included an image that read : “ Peace police are police.
” ( RELATED : ‘ We Will Not Prosecute ’ : Left-Wing Prosecutors , Many Backed By Soros Cash , Implement Soft-On-Crime Policies Across America ) The group ’ s members describe themselves as predominantly made up of teenagers .
“ We ’ re a bunch of teenagers armed with ADHD and yerba mate— we can take a 5 AM raid and be back on our feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around a bit , found some shit out , and we ’ ll be back again and again and again , until every prison is reduced to ashes and every wall to rubble , ” YLF wrote in a June 18 tweet .
“ So our soft age range right now is 14 to about 25 , ” one YLF member said on an anarchist podcast in October .
“ We have members that are older than youth , but who are still in like the same schools as youth and stuff like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with other youth members of the YLF who are like specifically facing a lot of the same issues that the YLF are facing , ” the member added .
“ We are aware of this group , however we do not assign actions to a group .
We will take action against individuals when we have probable cause that they have committed a crime , ” Sergeant Kevin Allen of the Portland Police Department told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an email .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

A group calling themselves the Youth Liberation Front is credited in media reports with organizing anti-police rallies in Portland that have often turned violent.
The group openly cheers violence and explicitly rejects peaceful protesting on social media.
YLF says it wants to “destroy the United States of America.”
A radical group credited with organizing anti-police rallies in Portland openly cheers violence and explicitly rejects efforts to keep protests peaceful, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
The Youth Liberation Front is credited with organizing protests in Portland last week that extended into the early morning hours and turned violent, The Seattle Times and the Associated Press have reported. Portland police declared riots on multiple nights throughout the week.
The radical group’s goals extend far beyond changing policies and even beyond abolishing the police, as noted in a July 8 tweet: “we don’t want to be led, and we don’t want to lead, we just want to destroy the United States of America.”
“Abolish the United States of America,” the group wrote on Twitter in October. YLF has more than 32,000 followers on the social media platform.
“Members of our group report that watching the senate hearing on Antifa was very inspiring. Countless times the movement was referred to as being well organized, and it was conceded that ‘they are winning’ on various occasions. We will succeed in abolishing amerikkka!” YLF wrote on Twitter on Aug. 4, following a Senate hearing on Antifa violence.
YLF has applauded violence and explicitly rejects peaceful protesting.
A July 25 tweet from the group cheered agitators in Seattle who set fire to trailers at a proposed juvenile detention center. “Seattle starting off the day strong!” the tweet said.
“Let’s keep this energy up tonight, Portland!”
When some members of a crowd at a June 2 protest booed the burning of the American flag, the group tweeted: “If you are booing someone burning a symbol of white supremacy and state violence at a protest against white supremacist state violence, what the fuck is wrong with you?”
The group on July 23 tweeted instructions to burn American flags if anyone was seen waving them. “If you see someone waving an American flag… burn it,” the group wrote.
YLF has denounced those who seek to keep protests peaceful.
“To all the people on the streets who call themselves ‘peaceful protesters’. I don’t know where you’ve been for the past 4+ years, but being peaceful doesn’t stop the police, how do I know this? Because people have been doing this for years before you hopped on the protest trend,” the group wrote in a June 6 tweet.
“The pigs are in a PR battle so they say there’s a difference from ‘peaceful’ and ‘violent’ protesters. When in fact what we are fighting is the ultimate form of violence, making any and all resistance self and community defense,” the group added.
“If you’re gonna use violence to police other protestors, our fight is just as much with you as it is with the cops on uniform; you just do that shit for free. The pigs don’t need any help,” the group wrote on Twitter on July 4.
The tweet included an image that read: “Peace police are police.” (RELATED: ‘We Will Not Prosecute’: Left-Wing Prosecutors, Many Backed By Soros Cash, Implement Soft-On-Crime Policies Across America)
The group’s members describe themselves as predominantly made up of teenagers.
“We’re a bunch of teenagers armed with ADHD and yerba mate— we can take a 5 AM raid and be back on our feet a few hours later. We fucked around a bit, found some shit out, and we’ll be back again and again and again, until every prison is reduced to ashes and every wall to rubble,” YLF wrote in a June 18 tweet.
“So our soft age range right now is 14 to about 25,” one YLF member said on an anarchist podcast in October.
“We have members that are older than youth, but who are still in like the same schools as youth and stuff like that who are in like community colleges with other youth members of the YLF who are like specifically facing a lot of the same issues that the YLF are facing,” the member added.
“We are aware of this group, however we do not assign actions to a group. We will take action against individuals when we have probable cause that they have committed a crime,” Sergeant Kevin Allen of the Portland Police Department told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.
YLF didn’t return an email seeking comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thedailycaller--2020-08-12--Chicago Rioters Struck Ronald McDonald House While More Than 30 Families And Sick Children Slept Ins

Chicago Rioters Struck Ronald McDonald House While More Than 30 Families And Sick Children Slept Inside

Looters in Chicago struck a Ronald McDonald House early Monday morning while sick children and their families slept inside , CBS Chicago reported .
Amid looting and riots in Chicago that began overnight Sunday , vandals smashed several windows at the charity , which gives families housing and other resources while a sick child receives hospital treatment , according to CBS Chicago .
The violence prompted the charity to board up its front doors to prevent further damage , and over 30 families and their sick children inside were placed on lockdown while rioters descended on the street outside .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all times – whether there ’ s a pandemic or civil unrest , we need to make sure that we are here allowing families to get the rest they need while they have a child in the hospital seeking care , and so it ’ s so important that anything that might be going on outside , we maintain our care for families , ” Lisa Mitchell of Ronald McDonald House told CBS .
“ They ’ re already in a really , really difficult spot , and having this additional stress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the hospital even though we ’ re five blocks away because of safety concerns is just doubling strain , ” Mitchell said in a video interview with ABC 7 .
Over 100 people were arrested and 13 officers injured amid overnight looting and violence in Chicago reportedly prompted by an officer-related shooting .
( RELATED : Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls Looting , Riots In Chicago ‘ Planned Attacks ’ ) Officers responded to reports of a man carrying a gun on the street Sunday in Englewood and an individual who matched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire at officers upon arrival , Chicago police said according to Newsweek .
Officers reportedly returned fire and shot the suspect .
One officer was reportedly hit during the shootout as well , according to Newsweek .
Looters targeted high-end stores , including in shopping districts like Magnificent Mile , and were seen carrying items like clothing and jewelry .

Looters in Chicago struck a Ronald McDonald House early Monday morning while sick children and their families slept inside, CBS Chicago reported.
Amid looting and riots in Chicago that began overnight Sunday, vandals smashed several windows at the charity, which gives families housing and other resources while a sick child receives hospital treatment, according to CBS Chicago.
The violence prompted the charity to board up its front doors to prevent further damage, and over 30 families and their sick children inside were placed on lockdown while rioters descended on the street outside.
“We’re here for families at all times – whether there’s a pandemic or civil unrest, we need to make sure that we are here allowing families to get the rest they need while they have a child in the hospital seeking care, and so it’s so important that anything that might be going on outside, we maintain our care for families,” Lisa Mitchell of Ronald McDonald House told CBS.
SAD & UNACCEPTABLE: “The Ronald McDonald House in Chicago was vandalized during looting early Monday morning while families & their sick children huddled inside.” The liberal mayor must control her streets!https://t.co/xu1G99LZrV — Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) August 12, 2020
“They’re already in a really, really difficult spot, and having this additional stress and worrying about being able to and from the hospital even though we’re five blocks away because of safety concerns is just doubling strain,” Mitchell said in a video interview with ABC 7.
Over 100 people were arrested and 13 officers injured amid overnight looting and violence in Chicago reportedly prompted by an officer-related shooting. (RELATED: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls Looting, Riots In Chicago ‘Planned Attacks’)
Officers responded to reports of a man carrying a gun on the street Sunday in Englewood and an individual who matched the description of the suspect began to fire at officers upon arrival, Chicago police said according to Newsweek.
Officers reportedly returned fire and shot the suspect. One officer was reportedly hit during the shootout as well, according to Newsweek.
This isn’t protesting. This is looting I’m sorry but there is a difference. ????????♀ #Chicago #BLM pic.twitter.com/utoetexFa7 — Angela Stanton King ???????? (@theangiestanton) August 10, 2020
Looters targeted high-end stores, including in shopping districts like Magnificent Mile, and were seen carrying items like clothing and jewelry.


thedailycaller--2020-08-12--Despite Red Flags, Christopher Steele Apparently Believes Dossier Will Be Vindicated, That Trump Tap

Despite Red Flags, Christopher Steele Apparently Believes Dossier Will Be Vindicated, That Trump Tape Might Exist

• Former MI6 officer Christopher Steele believes that his anti-Trump dossier will one day be vindicated , even though U.S. investigators have debunked key claims in it .
• According to a published Wednesday , Steele has told associates that the dossier is a “ damn good ” intelligence report .
• Steele ’ s intelligence firm seemingly endorsed the report by tweeting that the story was “ a useful corrective ” to recent revelations about the dossier .
• Steele , who investigated President Donald Trump on behalf of Democrats in 2016 , still reportedly believes that Russia has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Moscow .
Former British spy Christopher Steele reportedly believes that his infamous dossier will still be vindicated , even though U.S. investigators have debunked key allegations in the salacious document .
Journalist Paul Wood provided new insight into Steele ’ s views of the dossier in the wake of revelations about the information that his primary source , Igor Danchenko , provided the FBI .
Steele ’ s firm , Orbis Business Intelligence , seemingly endorsed Wood ’ s story , calling it “ a useful corrective ” on Twitter .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian government has some sort of sexual blackmail material on Trump .
Steele alleged in the dossier that Russian intelligence had a video of Trump with prostitutes urinating on each other in a Moscow hotel room in 2013 .
Trump has vehemently denied the allegation , as have associates who traveled to Moscow with Trump on the trip in question .
A Justice Department inspector general ’ s report also said the FBI received evidence that the allegation of a so-called “ pee tape ” may have been the product of Russian disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kremlin has sexual blackmail material on Trump .
“ But he is apparently convinced that the Russians have sexual kompromat of some kind on Trump , enough to blackmail him , ” writes Wood .
“ He tells his friends and supporters that the dossier was a ‘ damn good ’ piece of intelligence work that will be vindicated.
” Wood ’ s report provides the first insight into what Steele thinks about his dossier in the wake of revelations about Danchenko ’ s statements to the FBI .
The Justice Department inspector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised significant questions about the credibility of the dossier , which the FBI cited extensively to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) warrants against Carter Page .
( RELATED : Steele Source Had Meeting In Russia At Key Point In Dossier Saga ) The dossier also fueled media-driven conspiracy theories that the Kremlin was blackmailing Donald Trump with a sex tape , and that members of the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government .
According to an FBI memo from January 2017 , Danchenko told investigators that he provided Steele @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up over drinks with friends he had in Russia .
He said that he was unable to verify the allegations that Steele put in the dossier .
He also disputed some of Steele ’ s characterizations of the information he shared with the ex-spy .
Danchenko ’ s interview also suggested that he and his network of sub-sources were far removed from the top echelons of the Kremlin .
According to Danchenko , some of his sources had connections to government officials , but none had direct access to any of the information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most glaring inconsistency between Danchenko and Steele ’ s accounts involves Sergei Millian , a Belarusian-American businessman who was initially fingered in the media as a key but unwitting source for the dossier .
News reports that popped up shortly after the dossier was published on Jan. 10 , 2017 , said that Millian was the source for the “ pee tape ” allegation .
But Danchenko told the FBI that he is not sure if he actually ever spoke to Millian .
Danchenko said he received a phone call in late July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Millian .
The phone call would have occurred more than a month after Steele ’ s memo containing the sex tape allegation .
But according to journalist Paul Wood , Steele claims that Danchenko told him that he met three times with Millian .
“ But I ’ m told that in 2016 Danchenko gave Steele accounts of three meetings with Millian , as they happened , at restaurants in Washington DC , New York and Charleston , ” Wood wrote .
Wood suggests that Danchenko , a Russian national , gave misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being arrested and deported .
“ You can certainly imagine Danchenko ’ s state of mind , a Russian in the United States , terrified of being arrested and deported , trying to downplay his role in finding dirt on America ’ s new president , ” writes Wood .
A source close to Danchenko told the Daily Caller News Foundation last week that he stands by the accuracy of the information he passed to Steele .
Danchenko told the FBI that Steele hired him several years ago to collect information regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through 2010 for the Brookings Institution .
Wood maintains that Steele has found new evidence of a Trump sex romp at the Moscow Ritz Carlton .
“ Since then , I ’ m told that Steele has had ‘ new reporting ’ about another Trump sexual encounter in the Ritz Carlton : just one woman this time , it ’ s claimed , allegedly there the evening after the supposed bevy of urinating hookers , ” Wood writes .
Left unmentioned in the essay is that key allegations in the dossier have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released no evidence publicly to support his theories of conspiracy .
Perhaps the most prominent Steele claim that has been debunked is the one alleging that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials to discuss payments to hackers .
The alleged trip is the dossier ’ s most specific allegation of collusion between Team Trump and Team Putin .
The IG report says that Cohen never visited Prague , and that the FBI received evidence on Jan. 12 , 2017 ( two days after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegation may have been planted by Russian intelligence officers .
According to Danchenko , his source for the Cohen allegation was a woman he knew from middle school .
Danchenko described her as a “ key ” source for the dossier , who also provided allegations about Carter Page , the Trump aide , and Aleksej Gubarev , the owner of a Russian web hosting firm .
Steele has also been ordered to pay legal damages in the U.K. over inaccuracies in the dossier regarding the owners of Alfa Bank , a Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illicit contacts with Vladimir Putin .
Judge Mark Warby ordered Steele on July to pay damages of around $ 50,000 , asserting that the dossier was “ inaccurate ” and “ misleading.
” Steele revealed during that court proceeding that he wiped all of his emails and other correspondence with Danchenko and others regarding his work on the dossier .
Steele has largely avoided speaking publicly about the dossier .
His firm has repeatedly declined requests for comment , though it did accuse a reporter for the DCNF last week of leveling “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Former MI6 officer Christopher Steele believes that his anti-Trump dossier will one day be vindicated, even though U.S. investigators have debunked key claims in it.
According to a published Wednesday, Steele has told associates that the dossier is a “damn good” intelligence report.
Steele’s intelligence firm seemingly endorsed the report by tweeting that the story was “a useful corrective” to recent revelations about the dossier.
Steele, who investigated President Donald Trump on behalf of Democrats in 2016, still reportedly believes that Russia has a blackmail tape of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow.
Former British spy Christopher Steele reportedly believes that his infamous dossier will still be vindicated, even though U.S. investigators have debunked key allegations in the salacious document.
Journalist Paul Wood provided new insight into Steele’s views of the dossier in the wake of revelations about the information that his primary source, Igor Danchenko, provided the FBI.
Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, seemingly endorsed Wood’s story, calling it “a useful corrective” on Twitter.
According to Wood, Steele believes that the Russian government has some sort of sexual blackmail material on Trump. Steele alleged in the dossier that Russian intelligence had a video of Trump with prostitutes urinating on each other in a Moscow hotel room in 2013.
Trump has vehemently denied the allegation, as have associates who traveled to Moscow with Trump on the trip in question. A Justice Department inspector general’s report also said the FBI received evidence that the allegation of a so-called “pee tape” may have been the product of Russian disinformation.
But Steele remains confident that the Kremlin has sexual blackmail material on Trump.
“But he is apparently convinced that the Russians have sexual kompromat of some kind on Trump, enough to blackmail him,” writes Wood.
“He tells his friends and supporters that the dossier was a ‘damn good’ piece of intelligence work that will be vindicated.”
Wood’s report provides the first insight into what Steele thinks about his dossier in the wake of revelations about Danchenko’s statements to the FBI.
The Justice Department inspector general’s report said that Danchenko raised significant questions about the credibility of the dossier, which the FBI cited extensively to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Carter Page. (RELATED: Steele Source Had Meeting In Russia At Key Point In Dossier Saga)
The dossier also fueled media-driven conspiracy theories that the Kremlin was blackmailing Donald Trump with a sex tape, and that members of the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.
According to an FBI memo from January 2017, Danchenko told investigators that he provided Steele with rumors and speculation that he picked up over drinks with friends he had in Russia.
He said that he was unable to verify the allegations that Steele put in the dossier. He also disputed some of Steele’s characterizations of the information he shared with the ex-spy.
Danchenko’s interview also suggested that he and his network of sub-sources were far removed from the top echelons of the Kremlin. According to Danchenko, some of his sources had connections to government officials, but none had direct access to any of the information laid out in the dossier.
The most glaring inconsistency between Danchenko and Steele’s accounts involves Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-American businessman who was initially fingered in the media as a key but unwitting source for the dossier.
News reports that popped up shortly after the dossier was published on Jan. 10, 2017, said that Millian was the source for the “pee tape” allegation. But Danchenko told the FBI that he is not sure if he actually ever spoke to Millian.
Danchenko said he received a phone call in late July 2016 from someone he believed to be Millian. The phone call would have occurred more than a month after Steele’s memo containing the sex tape allegation.
But according to journalist Paul Wood, Steele claims that Danchenko told him that he met three times with Millian.
“But I’m told that in 2016 Danchenko gave Steele accounts of three meetings with Millian, as they happened, at restaurants in Washington DC, New York and Charleston,” Wood wrote.
Wood suggests that Danchenko, a Russian national, gave misleading information to the FBI out of fear of being arrested and deported.
“You can certainly imagine Danchenko’s state of mind, a Russian in the United States, terrified of being arrested and deported, trying to downplay his role in finding dirt on America’s new president,” writes Wood.
A source close to Danchenko told the Daily Caller News Foundation last week that he stands by the accuracy of the information he passed to Steele.
Danchenko told the FBI that Steele hired him several years ago to collect information regarding Russia and Ukraine. Danchenko had worked through 2010 for the Brookings Institution.
Wood maintains that Steele has found new evidence of a Trump sex romp at the Moscow Ritz Carlton.
“Since then, I’m told that Steele has had ‘new reporting’ about another Trump sexual encounter in the Ritz Carlton: just one woman this time, it’s claimed, allegedly there the evening after the supposed bevy of urinating hookers,” Wood writes.
Left unmentioned in the essay is that key allegations in the dossier have already been debunked, and that Steele has released no evidence publicly to support his theories of conspiracy.
Perhaps the most prominent Steele claim that has been debunked is the one alleging that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials to discuss payments to hackers. The alleged trip is the dossier’s most specific allegation of collusion between Team Trump and Team Putin.
The IG report says that Cohen never visited Prague, and that the FBI received evidence on Jan. 12, 2017 (two days after the dossier was published) that the Cohen allegation may have been planted by Russian intelligence officers.
According to Danchenko, his source for the Cohen allegation was a woman he knew from middle school. Danchenko described her as a “key” source for the dossier, who also provided allegations about Carter Page, the Trump aide, and Aleksej Gubarev, the owner of a Russian web hosting firm.
Steele has also been ordered to pay legal damages in the U.K. over inaccuracies in the dossier regarding the owners of Alfa Bank, a Russian bank accused in the dossier of having illicit contacts with Vladimir Putin.
Judge Mark Warby ordered Steele on July to pay damages of around $50,000, asserting that the dossier was “inaccurate” and “misleading.”
Steele revealed during that court proceeding that he wiped all of his emails and other correspondence with Danchenko and others regarding his work on the dossier.
Steele has largely avoided speaking publicly about the dossier. His firm has repeatedly declined requests for comment, though it did accuse a reporter for the DCNF last week of leveling “poisonous attacks” on Steele.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.