bonginoreport--2020-01-11--Iran Adopted the Liberal Media’s Talking Points About the Downed Ukrainian Flight

After first denying responsibility for the Ukrainian airliner that crashed near Tehran , killing everyone onboard , Iranian authorities conceded early Saturday that they had accidentally shot it down — but that “ U.S .
adventurism ” was to blame .
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Sharif tweeted his official statement , calling it a “ sad day ” and offered “ our profound regrets ” to those affected by the tragic turn of events — but reserving some blame for the United States .
“ Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement echoed those made by a number of media personalities and Trump critics , including some contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination .
( RELATED : Iranian Military Apologizes For Shooting Down Ukraine-Bound Flight , Cites ‘ Human Error ’ : Report ) Television personality Piers Morgan wasted no time in blasting the Iranian statement , saying , “ After lying for days , Iran finally admits killing 176 innocent people by ‘ accidentally ’ shooting down a passenger plane .
They blame ‘ U.S .
adventurism ’ .
No , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And this terrible tragedy is far , FAR worse than killing a despicable terror chief.
” According to later reports , however , the plane may have actually been targeted intentionally .
Not because the Iranians intended to take down a civilian target , but because someone made the wrong call with a limited window to determine whether it was a plane or an incoming missile .
Both Canada and Ukraine have demanded a “ full admission of guilt ” from Iran .
Most of the passengers onboard that flight were either Canadian @ @ @

After first denying responsibility for the Ukrainian airliner that crashed near Tehran, killing everyone onboard, Iranian authorities conceded early Saturday that they had accidentally shot it down — but that “U.S. adventurism” was to blame.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Sharif tweeted his official statement, calling it a “sad day” and offered “our profound regrets” to those affected by the tragic turn of events — but reserving some blame for the United States. “Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster,” his tweet read.
A sad day. Preliminary conclusions of internal investigation by Armed Forces: Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster Our profound regrets, apologies and condolences to our people, to the families of all victims, and to other affected nations.
???? — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 11, 2020
Zarif’s statement echoed those made by a number of media personalities and Trump critics, including some contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. (RELATED: Iranian Military Apologizes For Shooting Down Ukraine-Bound Flight, Cites ‘Human Error’: Report)
My heartfelt condolences & love to the families of victims of plane “crash” in Iran. One of the great tragedies of war are unintended consequences & so-called “collateral damage.” Once hostilities begin things quickly get out of control & no one knows where it may end #NoIranWar — Tulsi Gabbard ???? (@TulsiGabbard) January 11, 2020
Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier Blames Trump For Iran Shooting Down Ukrainian Airplanehttps://t.co/YsKD00uPyZ pic.twitter.com/KguSF3ll5K — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 9, 2020
No one can convince me this wasn’t intentional and directly tied to @realDonaldTrump ordering #SoleimaniAssassination. And look how many innocent people are dead as a result. More blood on this sociopath’s hands… #Trump #Iran https://t.co/UzexdijQ0U — Andy Ostroy (@AndyOstroy) January 11, 2020
If Soleimani hadn’t been assassinated, Iran wouldn’t have launched a strike against a US base If Iran hadn’t launched the strike, a Ukrainian plane wouldn’t have been shot down 176 people lost their lives unnecessarily because of Trump’s reckless foreign policy decisions — Edward Hardy (@EdwardTHardy) January 9, 2020
Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat. My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of all 176 souls lost aboard this flight. https://t.co/zWaVgWxfdL — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) January 9, 2020
Television personality Piers Morgan wasted no time in blasting the Iranian statement, saying, “After lying for days, Iran finally admits killing 176 innocent people by ‘accidentally’ shooting down a passenger plane. They blame ‘U.S. adventurism’. No, it was Iran’s reckless stupidity. And this terrible tragedy is far, FAR worse than killing a despicable terror chief.”
After lying for days, Iran finally admits killing 176 innocent people by ‘accidentally’ shooting down a passenger plane.
They blame ‘U.S. adventurism’.
No, it was Iran’s reckless stupidity.
And this terrible tragedy is far, FAR worse than killing a despicable terror chief. pic.twitter.com/s6YCYOeyvV — Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 11, 2020
According to later reports, however, the plane may have actually been targeted intentionally. Not because the Iranians intended to take down a civilian target, but because someone made the wrong call with a limited window to determine whether it was a plane or an incoming missile.
Iranian general says they had 10 seconds to decide if they wanted to shoot what could‘ve been a cruise missile & unintentionally shot down a Ukrainian plane. So this is now not an accident while shooting into Iraq, but a direct hit at the wrong target *even from Iran’s narrative* https://t.co/uTSG7nhpfu — Hassan Hassan (@hxhassan) January 11, 2020
Both Canada and Ukraine have demanded a “full admission of guilt” from Iran.
“Iran must take full responsibility,” Canadian PM Justin Trudeau said after Iran admitted to unintentionally shooting down a Ukrainian plane. 63 Canadians were killed in the crash. https://t.co/8azXNFObSp pic.twitter.com/EfebDPHvqn — CNN (@CNN) January 11, 2020
Iran admitted it accidentally shot down the Ukrainian passenger jet and blamed human error, saying the plane had taken a sharp, unexpected turn that brought it near a sensitive military base. Ukraine’s president wants “a full admission of guilt” from Iran.https://t.co/6Dc9hKo04q — The New York Times (@nytimes) January 11, 2020
Most of the passengers onboard that flight were either Canadian or Ukrainian.


bonginoreport--2020-01-11--California County Introduces Plan to Evict Tenants to Give Housing to Homeless Instead

SANTA ROSA ( KPIX ) — A controversial plan to solve the homeless crisis has people fired up in Sonoma County where officials plan to spend millions of dollars to buy three properties that would be used to house the homeless .
All three properties have one thing in common .
They ’ re big and have multiple units , but many of those units are currently occupied by tenants .
“ I ’ m sure the tenants have been asked to leave , ” said Allen Thomas .
He lives near one of the three properties , 811 Davis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s counterproductive to evict renters to house the homeless .
“ It ’ s just insanity , ” said Karen Sanders , who also lives in Santa Rosa .
Sonoma County leaders plan to buy two properties in Santa Rosa and one in Cotati .
They ’ ll spend roughly one million dollars for each property .
One county worker said they ’ re already in contract to buy the property on Davis Street .
“ Million dollar homes ; million dollar homes for these transients living on the trail , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the homeless out of an encampment on the Joe Rodota Trail .
Many neighbors of those three properties worry the new neighbors will bring along crime and other quality of life issues .
“ I ’ m not NIMBY , but we ’ ve done enough , ” said Sher Ennis , a neighbor who lives near the Davis street property .
She said she was attacked in her home by a man from a re-entry housing program years ago .
She worries about her safety .
“ We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals ?
Are we getting felons ?
Or are we getting people who are simply down on their luck , ” said Ennis .
“ I don ’ t think that it makes [ the neighborhood ] any less safe , no , ” said Andrew Atkinson .
He said the county has to act now .
“ It ’ s going to take more than this , I think , to solve the problem .
But I ’ m glad to see they ’ re trying , ” said Atkinson .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a community meeting Friday night in Santa Rosa .
County leaders will talk about the plan to buy the houses and other solutions to house the homeless .

SANTA ROSA (KPIX) -- A controversial plan to solve the homeless crisis has people fired up in Sonoma County where officials plan to spend millions of dollars to buy three properties that would be used to house the homeless.
All three properties have one thing in common. They're big and have multiple units, but many of those units are currently occupied by tenants.
ALSO READ:
"I'm sure the tenants have been asked to leave," said Allen Thomas. He lives near one of the three properties, 811 Davis Street in Santa Rosa.
Neighbors said it's counterproductive to evict renters to house the homeless.
"It's just insanity," said Karen Sanders, who also lives in Santa Rosa.
Sonoma County leaders plan to buy two properties in Santa Rosa and one in Cotati. They'll spend roughly one million dollars for each property. One county worker said they're already in contract to buy the property on Davis Street.
"Million dollar homes; million dollar homes for these transients living on the trail," said Sanders.
The county wants to get the homeless out of an encampment on the Joe Rodota Trail. Many neighbors of those three properties worry the new neighbors will bring along crime and other quality of life issues.
"I'm not NIMBY, but we've done enough," said Sher Ennis, a neighbor who lives near the Davis street property.
She said she was attacked in her home by a man from a re-entry housing program years ago. She worries about her safety.
"We don't know. Are we getting dangerous criminals? Are we getting felons? Or are we getting people who are simply down on their luck," said Ennis.
Another neighbor supports the county's plan.
"I don't think that it makes [the neighborhood] any less safe, no," said Andrew Atkinson.
He said the county has to act now.
"It's going to take more than this, I think, to solve the problem. But I'm glad to see they're trying," said Atkinson.
Many upset neighbors plan to voice their concerns at a community meeting Friday night in Santa Rosa. County leaders will talk about the plan to buy the houses and other solutions to house the homeless.


bonginoreport--2020-01-11--Roadside Bomb Kills Two Troops in Afghanistan

Two U.S. service members were killed and two others injured when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan , the U.S. military said in a statement Saturday .
In keeping with defense department rules , the U.S. military did not identify the service members .
The Taliban immediately took responsibility for the attack .
A Taliban spokesman , Qari Yusouf Ahmadi , said it occurred in the southern Kandahar province .
More than 2,400 U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan .
Last year was one of the deadliest for the United States , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington engaged in peace talks with the Taliban .
The latest attack seemed certain to stall fresh efforts to restart the on-again , off-again peace talks between Washington and the Taliban .
U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has been pressing the insurgents to declare a cease-fire or at least reduce violent attacks .
That would give a window in which the U.S. and the Taliban could forge an agreement to withdraw all of America ’ s troops .
That agreement would also set out a road map for direct Afghan-to-Afghan talks , mapping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Taliban leadership decided at the end of December to support a temporary cease-fire to allow for a peace deal to be signed , but they never said when it would go into effect .
The final approval required from their leader , Maulvi Hibatullah Akhundzada , was never announced .
Earlier Saturday , both NATO and Afghan officials had confirmed a roadside bomb hit a U.S. army vehicle , without mentioning casualties .
In a short statement , a NATO spokesman said that officials were still “ assessing the situation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available.
” An Afghan official said the attack had taken place in the Dand district of Kandahar province .
The official was not authorized to speak with media and requested anonymity .
The Taliban now control or hold sway over roughly half of Afghanistan .
The militants continue to stage near-daily attacks targeting Afghan and U.S. forces , even as they hold peace talks with the U.S. Scores of Afghan civilians are also killed in the crossfire or by roadside bombs planted by militants .
In November , two U.S. service members were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Logar province .
The U.S. military at the time said preliminary reports did not indicate it was caused by enemy fire , although the Taliban claimed to have shot down the helicopter — a claim the U.S military dismissed as false .
The U.S. currently has about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan .
About 5,000 of them are doing counterterrorism missions .
The remainder are part of a broader NATO mission to train , advise and assist the Afghan security forces .
U.S .
Ambassador John Bass left Kabul last week , ending his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomat .
Associated Press writer Kathy Gannon in Islamabad contributed to this report .

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Two U.S. service members were killed and two others injured Saturday when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, the Pentagon said in a statement.
Military officials identified the two soldiers killed as 29-year-old Staff Sgt. Ian P. McLaughlin of Newport News, Virginia; and 21-year-old Pfc. Miguel A. Villalon of Joliet, Illinois. Both soldiers were assigned to 307th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina..
The Taliban took responsibility for Saturday’s attack. A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yusouf Ahmadi, said it occurred in the southern Kandahar province.
More than 2,400 U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan. Last year was the deadliest for U.S. service members since 2014, with 23 American troops killed, even as Washington engaged in peace talks with the Taliban.
The latest attack seemed certain to stall fresh efforts to restart the on-again, off-again peace talks between Washington and the Taliban.
U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has been pressing the insurgents to declare a cease-fire or at least reduce violent attacks. That would give a window in which the U.S. and the Taliban could forge an agreement to withdraw all of America’s troops. That agreement would also set out a road map for direct Afghan-to-Afghan talks, mapping out the country’s post-war future.
The Taliban leadership decided at the end of December to support a temporary cease-fire to allow for a peace deal to be signed, but they never said when it would go into effect. The final approval required from their leader, Maulvi Hibatullah Akhundzada, was never announced.
Earlier Saturday, both NATO and Afghan officials had confirmed a roadside bomb hit a U.S. army vehicle, without mentioning casualties. In a short statement, a NATO spokesman said that officials were still “assessing the situation and will provide more information as it became available.”
An Afghan official said the attack had taken place in the Dand district of Kandahar province. The official was not authorized to speak with media and requested anonymity.
The Taliban now control or hold sway over roughly half of Afghanistan. The militants continue to stage near-daily attacks targeting Afghan and U.S. forces, even as they hold peace talks with the U.S. Scores of Afghan civilians are also killed in the crossfire or by roadside bombs planted by militants.
In November, two U.S. service members were killed when their helicopter crashed in eastern Logar province. The U.S. military at the time said preliminary reports did not indicate it was caused by enemy fire, although the Taliban claimed to have shot down the helicopter — a claim the U.S military dismissed as false.
The U.S. currently has about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. About 5,000 of them are doing counterterrorism missions. The remainder are part of a broader NATO mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces.
U.S. Ambassador John Bass left Kabul last week, ending his two-year tenure as America’s top diplomat.
___
Associated Press writer Kathy Gannon in Islamabad contributed to this report.
___
This story was first published on January 11, 2020. It was updated on January 12, 2020 to correct that 2019 was the deadliest year for U.S. service members since 2014, but most earlier years of the conflict saw higher numbers of American military deaths.


bonginoreport--2020-01-12--DOJ Picks Man Who Justified FISA Abuses to Reform FISA System

• Former DOJ official David Kris was picked Friday to oversee the FBI ’ s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general ’ s report .
• Kris was an ardent defender of the FBI ’ s surveillance of Carter Page .
He was also a vocal critic of Republicans who suggested the FBI misled the surveillance court in its applications to wiretap Page .
• In one essay , Kris endorsed a suggestion that Rep. Devin Nunes should face obstruction of justice charges .
• Nunes told the Daily Caller News Foundation the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inexplicable.
” A former Justice Department official picked Friday to oversee the FBI ’ s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general ’ s report was one of the many pundits during the Russia probe to defend the bureau ’ s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page .
David S. Kris , a former assistant attorney general for national security , was also an outspoken critic of Rep. Devin Nunes and other congressional Republicans who accused the FBI of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An inspector general ’ s ( IG ) report released Dec. 9 , 2019 , largely vindicated Republicans and Page .
The report identified 17 errors and omissions the FBI made in its four applications to surveil Page .
The IG also said the FBI was unable to corroborate allegations that Page was a Russian agent .
Judge James E. Boasberg , who presides over the FISC , tapped Kris serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI ’ s handling of the Page surveillance warrants .
In that role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FISC in assessing the FBI ’ s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in the IG report .
Nunes and Page both panned the choice of Kris given his past commentary defending the FBI .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside Comey , McCabe , or Schiff , ” Nunes , the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee , told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Page also weighed in on Kris ’ s selection to oversee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess , it extinguished with David Kris ’ appointment , ” he told The DCNF .
“ Nobody trying to fix the rampant abuse and coverup plaguing the entire FISA process would have picked Kris , ” continued Page , who called Kris a “ longtime FISA apologist.
” “ Instead , you appoint Kris for only one reason : you don ’ t want the system fixed .
You just want it to look like you do.
” Kris , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2011 , asserted in his writings during the Trump-Russia probe that Republicans had “ falsely accused ” the FBI of misleading the FISC in its wiretap applications .
He also accepted the FBI ’ s assertion that there was probable cause to believe that Page was a foreign agent of Russia — an allegation that was all but debunked by the special counsel ’ s report and the inspector general ’ s report .
“ It ’ s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Kris wrote in an essay March 1 , 2018 , at Lawfare , a blog operated by the Brookings Institution .
Kris ’ s assessment — which echoed that of many Democrats and liberals in the media — accepted the FBI ’ s claim at face value that Page was a Russian asset .
The FBI made the assertion in four applications to the FISC to wiretap Page .
The basis for the allegation was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier .
The Justice Department inspector general ’ s report offered a brutal rebuke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Page .
It also offered a scathing portrait of Christopher Steele , the former British spy who wrote the dossier .
The IG report said the FBI withheld information regarding Page , a former Naval officer , that undercut the idea that he was a Russian agent .
FBI agents also failed to disclose information that raised questions about Steele ’ s credibility and reliability .
The FBI failed to inform the FISC that one of Steele ’ s main dossier sources told agents in January 2017 that Steele misrepresented and exaggerated information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( RELATED : Steele Dossier Was ‘ Central And Essential ’ To FBI ’ s Decision To Obtain Carter Page FISA ) The IG report said FBI agents inaccurately stated in the FISA applications that Steele had provided information in the past that the bureau used in indictments and search warrants .
The report said the claim was inaccurate , and that Steele ’ s associates had given mixed reviews about his reliability .
FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the FBI on Dec. 17 , 2019 , to provide a plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Collyer criticized the FBI for providing “ false ” and “ misleading ” information about Page in order to obtain four warrants to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser .
( RELATED : FBI Chief Apologizes For Carter Page FISA Failures ) FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a response to Collyer ’ s order Friday .
He apologized for the errors in the wiretap applications submitted to the FISC , and said he plans to implement dozens of reforms to address the problems identified in the IG report .
Kris is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible to serve as an amicus curiae , which are designed to act as neutral arbitrators in issues involving the FISA process .
Boasberg did not provide a rationale for choosing Kris .
None of the other seven potential amici curiae have spoken out publicly about the Page FISA issue or the Trump-Russia probe .
Kris was also among the many pundits dismissive of Republican allegations that the FBI mishandled information in the Steele dossier .
One of Kris ’ s main targets was Nunes , a California Republican who relentlessly pursued information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his March 1 , 2018 , essay at Lawfare , Kris wholeheartedly defended the FBI ’ s actions in the Trump-Russia probe , while criticizing Nunes over a memo he released Feb. 2 , 2018 , laying out a list of alleged problems with the FBI ’ s rationale to surveil Page .
Kris asserted that Nunes “ falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.
” He also questioned whether Nunes and other Republicans would “ face any consequences for their dishonesty.
” “ The Nunes memo was dishonest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand , we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy , ” wrote Kris , who is now a consultant at Culper Partners and frequent guest on MSNBC .
Kris went as far as entertaining the possibility , first proposed by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe , that “ Nunes might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
” Kris also wrote that the memo ’ s central claim that the FBI misled the FISC about Christopher Steele “ was not true.
” Kris has acknowledged since the release of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ significant and serious ” errors in its Carter Page FISA applications .
He also conceded in a Lawfare essay published Dec. 23 , 2o19 , that Nunes ’ s assertion that the FBI engaged in irregular behavior was “ correct.
” But for Kris , the biggest takeaway from the IG report were the findings that reflected positively on the FBI .
He wrote on Twitter the day the report was released that “ the most important take-away ” from the report was that the FBI did not exert political bias in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also wrote that the errors identified in the IG report “ don ’ t support any claim of deep-state conspiracy or political bias.
” “ The FISC chose a guy who utterly denied the abuses of the Carter Page FISA warrant and then downplayed them when the Inspector General reported on them , ” Nunes told the DNCF .
A request for comment submitted to Kris ’ s consulting firm , Culper Partners , was not returned .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Former DOJ official David Kris was picked Friday to oversee the FBI’s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general’s report.
Kris was an ardent defender of the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page. He was also a vocal critic of Republicans who suggested the FBI misled the surveillance court in its applications to wiretap Page.
In one essay, Kris endorsed a suggestion that Rep. Devin Nunes should face obstruction of justice charges.
Nunes told the Daily Caller News Foundation the choice of Kris is “shocking and inexplicable.”
A former Justice Department official picked Friday to oversee the FBI’s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general’s report was one of the many pundits during the Russia probe to defend the bureau’s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
David S. Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security, was also an outspoken critic of Rep. Devin Nunes and other congressional Republicans who accused the FBI of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in applications to wiretap Page.
An inspector general’s (IG) report released Dec. 9, 2019, largely vindicated Republicans and Page. The report identified 17 errors and omissions the FBI made in its four applications to surveil Page. The IG also said the FBI was unable to corroborate allegations that Page was a Russian agent.
Judge James E. Boasberg, who presides over the FISC, tapped Kris serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI’s handling of the Page surveillance warrants. In that role, Kris will “assist” the FISC in assessing the FBI’s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in the IG report.
Nunes and Page both panned the choice of Kris given his past commentary defending the FBI.
“It’s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside Comey, McCabe, or Schiff,” Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“The choice is shocking and inexplicable.”
Page also weighed in on Kris’s selection to oversee the FBI’s reforms.
“If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess, it extinguished with David Kris’ appointment,” he told The DCNF.
“Nobody trying to fix the rampant abuse and coverup plaguing the entire FISA process would have picked Kris,” continued Page, who called Kris a “longtime FISA apologist.”
“Instead, you appoint Kris for only one reason: you don’t want the system fixed. You just want it to look like you do.”
Kris, who served at the Justice Department from 2009 to 2011, asserted in his writings during the Trump-Russia probe that Republicans had “falsely accused” the FBI of misleading the FISC in its wiretap applications.
He also accepted the FBI’s assertion that there was probable cause to believe that Page was a foreign agent of Russia — an allegation that was all but debunked by the special counsel’s report and the inspector general’s report.
“It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent,” Kris wrote in an essay March 1, 2018, at Lawfare, a blog operated by the Brookings Institution.
Kris’s assessment — which echoed that of many Democrats and liberals in the media — accepted the FBI’s claim at face value that Page was a Russian asset. The FBI made the assertion in four applications to the FISC to wiretap Page. The basis for the allegation was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier.
The Justice Department inspector general’s report offered a brutal rebuke of the FBI’s surveillance of Page. It also offered a scathing portrait of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier.
The IG report said the FBI withheld information regarding Page, a former Naval officer, that undercut the idea that he was a Russian agent. FBI agents also failed to disclose information that raised questions about Steele’s credibility and reliability.
The FBI failed to inform the FISC that one of Steele’s main dossier sources told agents in January 2017 that Steele misrepresented and exaggerated information in the dossier, including about Page. (RELATED: Steele Dossier Was ‘Central And Essential’ To FBI’s Decision To Obtain Carter Page FISA)
The IG report said FBI agents inaccurately stated in the FISA applications that Steele had provided information in the past that the bureau used in indictments and search warrants. The report said the claim was inaccurate, and that Steele’s associates had given mixed reviews about his reliability.
FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the FBI on Dec. 17, 2019, to provide a plan to address problems identified in the IG report. Collyer criticized the FBI for providing “false” and “misleading” information about Page in order to obtain four warrants to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser. (RELATED: FBI Chief Apologizes For Carter Page FISA Failures)
FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a response to Collyer’s order Friday. He apologized for the errors in the wiretap applications submitted to the FISC, and said he plans to implement dozens of reforms to address the problems identified in the IG report.
Kris is one of eight individuals designated by FISC as eligible to serve as an amicus curiae, which are designed to act as neutral arbitrators in issues involving the FISA process.
Boasberg did not provide a rationale for choosing Kris. None of the other seven potential amici curiae have spoken out publicly about the Page FISA issue or the Trump-Russia probe.
Kris was also among the many pundits dismissive of Republican allegations that the FBI mishandled information in the Steele dossier. One of Kris’s main targets was Nunes, a California Republican who relentlessly pursued information from the FBI about the Trump-Russia probe.
In his March 1, 2018, essay at Lawfare, Kris wholeheartedly defended the FBI’s actions in the Trump-Russia probe, while criticizing Nunes over a memo he released Feb. 2, 2018, laying out a list of alleged problems with the FBI’s rationale to surveil Page.
Kris asserted that Nunes “falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” He also questioned whether Nunes and other Republicans would “face any consequences for their dishonesty.”
“The Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy,” wrote Kris, who is now a consultant at Culper Partners and frequent guest on MSNBC.
Kris went as far as entertaining the possibility, first proposed by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, that “Nunes might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.”
Kris also wrote that the memo’s central claim that the FBI misled the FISC about Christopher Steele “was not true.”
Kris has acknowledged since the release of the IG report that the FBI committed some “significant and serious” errors in its Carter Page FISA applications. He also conceded in a Lawfare essay published Dec. 23, 2o19, that Nunes’s assertion that the FBI engaged in irregular behavior was “correct.”
But for Kris, the biggest takeaway from the IG report were the findings that reflected positively on the FBI.
He wrote on Twitter the day the report was released that “the most important take-away” from the report was that the FBI did not exert political bias in order to undermine the Trump campaign. He also wrote that the errors identified in the IG report “don’t support any claim of deep-state conspiracy or political bias.”
“The FISC chose a guy who utterly denied the abuses of the Carter Page FISA warrant and then downplayed them when the Inspector General reported on them,” Nunes told the DNCF.
A request for comment submitted to Kris’s consulting firm, Culper Partners, was not returned.
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.


bonginoreport--2020-01-13--Top House Democrat Won’t Answer When Asked If AOC Is Good for Democrats

A top House Democrat repeatedly declined to say Sunday morning whether Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is good for the Democratic caucus .
A news anchor asked Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos , who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( DCCC ) , four times on CNN whether Ocasio-Cortez was “ good for the Democratic caucus.
” She declined to give a “ yes ” or “ no ” answer each time .
Ocasio-Cortez is currently feuding with the DCCC over her refusal to pay $ 250,000 in fundraising dues to the committee , which aims to help Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The division between Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic leadership was evident in Bustos ’ s interview Sunday morning .
“ Is she good for the Democratic caucus in the House ?
” CNN host Victor Blackwell asked Bustos , who proceeded to dodge the question .
“ She has a lot of followers .
I have respect for her , ” Bustos said .
“ She brings a new voice to Congress , ” she said , before Blackwell repeated the question .
Once again , Bustos did not give a straight answer .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from all different spectrums .
I respect her and she brings a new voice and I think that ’ s always welcome , ” Bustos said .
( RELATED : Ocasio-Cortez ’ s Chief Of Staff Admits What The Green New Deal Is Really About — And It ’ s Not The Climate ) “ It ’ s interesting , I have the chairwoman of the DCCC whose job it is to support incumbents and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is one .
I ’ m asking you just a straightforward question : Is she good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Blackwell asked again .
“ Look , she brings a voice .
We have members from all different spectrums of the Democratic Party , ” Bustos said .
“ Look , I come from a district that [ President ] Donald Trump won .
My politics are somewhat different than hers , but she brings a voice that ’ s welcome , ” she added .
“ And I have great appreciation for that.
” Blackwell said : “ She raised more money in the third quarter of 2019 than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speaker of the House .
She has given , as she counts , $ 300,000 to other incumbents , including some in swing districts , and I ’ m asking the chairwoman of the DCCC if this member , who is right now in the top 10 of House members raising money , if she ’ s good for the caucus.
” “ Look , I have respect for all 235 of the Democrats in our caucus .
She is bringing a new voice , ” Bustos said , adding : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts of money and the fact that she just announced that she ’ s willing to help our candidates who need — who could benefit with that financial help — that ’ s welcome .
And , look , you ’ re asking a ‘ yes ’ or ‘ no ’ question .
I ’ m a former reporter , Victor , so I understand what you ’ re trying to get at.
” “ Yes , I ’ m trying to get to a simple answer , ” Blackwell said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome her into our delegation and I ’ m very happy that she ’ s willing to help our candidates , ” Bustos said , concluding the interview without giving a straight answer to the question .
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 .

A top House Democrat repeatedly declined to say Sunday morning whether Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is good for the Democratic caucus.
A news anchor asked Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), four times on CNN whether Ocasio-Cortez was “good for the Democratic caucus.” She declined to give a “yes” or “no” answer each time.
Ocasio-Cortez is currently feuding with the DCCC over her refusal to pay $250,000 in fundraising dues to the committee, which aims to help Democrats in House races across the country.
The division between Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic leadership was evident in Bustos’s interview Sunday morning. “Is she good for the Democratic caucus in the House?” CNN host Victor Blackwell asked Bustos, who proceeded to dodge the question.
“She has a lot of followers. I have respect for her,” Bustos said.
“She brings a new voice to Congress,” she said, before Blackwell repeated the question. Once again, Bustos did not give a straight answer.
“Look, we’ve got members from all different spectrums. I respect her and she brings a new voice, and I think that’s always welcome,” Bustos said. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief Of Staff Admits What The Green New Deal Is Really About — And It’s Not The Climate)
“It’s interesting, I have the chairwoman of the DCCC whose job it is to support incumbents and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is one. I’m asking you just a straightforward question: Is she good for the Democratic caucus in the House?” Blackwell asked again.
“Look, she brings a voice. We have members from all different spectrums of the Democratic Party,” Bustos said.
“Look, I come from a district that [President] Donald Trump won. My politics are somewhat different than hers, but she brings a voice that’s welcome,” she added. “And I have great appreciation for that.”
Blackwell said: “She raised more money in the third quarter of 2019 than any other Democrat in the House, including the speaker of the House. She has given, as she counts, $300,000 to other incumbents, including some in swing districts, and I’m asking the chairwoman of the DCCC if this member, who is right now in the top 10 of House members raising money, if she’s good for the caucus.”
“You can’t give me a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’?” Blackwell pressed.
WATCH:
“Look, I have respect for all 235 of the Democrats in our caucus. She is bringing a new voice,” Bustos said, adding:
“The fact that she has raised unbelievable amounts of money and the fact that she just announced that she’s willing to help our candidates who need — who could benefit with that financial help — that’s welcome. And, look, you’re asking a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. I’m a former reporter, Victor, so I understand what you’re trying to get at.”
“Yes, I’m trying to get to a simple answer,” Blackwell said. (RELATED: CNN’s Chris Cillizza Perfectly Demonstrates Why Trust In Media Is So Low)
“I have respect for her, I welcome her into our delegation and I’m very happy that she’s willing to help our candidates,” Bustos said, concluding the interview without giving a straight answer to the question.
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.


bonginoreport--2020-01-13--Nancy Pelosi Indicates House May Subpoena John Bolton if Senate Doesn’t

On Sunday ’ s broadcast of ABC ’ s “ This Week , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said if the Senate does not subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton , the House will .
Pelosi said , “ We are in court on the witnesses .
It could take a very long time on the witnesses we have been in court .
And we haven ’ t limited the possibility of ever having subpoena and going forward with Bolton .
But he has said in this two weeks ’ period , another piece of progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a subpoena from the United States Senate .
But the fact is is that the president of the United States , again , quite different from President Clinton .
President Clinton allowed witnesses to come forward .
President Trump has prevented that from happening.
” Host George Stephanopoulos asked , “ So if the Senate does not subpoena John Bolton and other witnesses , will the House move to subpoena ?
” Pelosi said , “ It ’ s not excluded .
We ’ ll see what they do .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence to remove the president from office .
”

On Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said if the Senate does not subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton, the House will.
Pelosi said, “We are in court on the witnesses. It could take a very long time on the witnesses we have been in court. And we haven’t limited the possibility of ever having subpoena and going forward with Bolton. But he has said in this two weeks’ period, another piece of progress that we made, he would respond to a subpoena from the United States Senate. But the fact is is that the president of the United States, again, quite different from President Clinton. President Clinton allowed witnesses to come forward. President Trump has prevented that from happening.”
Host George Stephanopoulos asked, “So if the Senate does not subpoena John Bolton and other witnesses, will the House move to subpoena?”
Pelosi said, “It’s not excluded. We’ll see what they do. But we do think that there’s enough evidence to remove the president from office.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


bonginoreport--2020-01-12--Trump Critic: Impeachment Has Only Made Trump More Popular

Impeachment was never going to deliver the president ’ s scalp .
“ We all know how this is going to end , ” Mitch McConnell , the Republican senate majority leader , told Fox News on 12 December , shortly before the House of Representatives voted 230-197 to impeach Donald Trump .
“ There ’ s no chance the president is going to be removed from office.
” This common knowledge – that a Republican-controlled Senate would never vote to eject Trump – has gone missing among some US Democrats .
In March last year , Nancy Pelosi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , advised her fellow Democrats against impeachment : “ I don ’ t think we should go down that path.
” After three years of declaring Trump an existential threat to the nation , Pelosi knew that the Democrats would only help the president if they took action that was not only guaranteed to fail to remove him , but which would allow Trump to reprise his favourite role : Phoenix Rising from the Headlines .
But Pelosi was in a bind .
Like Theresa May , she has become the manager of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Faced with a revolt among Democratic lawmakers who need strong anti-Trump credentials to win their congressional primaries , she eventually yielded to their determination to remove Trump via legal means .
Trump ’ s 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelensky , seemed to provide all the ingredients that the soup of the Mueller report lacked : a Mafioso-style quid-pro-quo ; a tampering with the US electoral process during , as opposed to before , Trump ’ s presidency ; and , on top of it all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump – with his consideration of delaying the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kiev – was endangering national security by not sufficiently escalating tensions with Russia .
There is little question that Trump committed an impeachable offence by encouraging the Ukrainians to publicise an investigation into Joe Biden ’ s dealings in Ukraine .
But impeachable relative to what ?
Many presidents have committed impeachable offences in office – whether Franklin Roosevelt ’ s IRS auditing of political opponents , Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush ’ s Iran-Contra scandal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ignite the Iraq war ( a 2008 CNN interview has been making the rounds , in which the civilian Trump expresses disappointment that Pelosi did not try harder to impeach Bush for the Iraq war ) .
These comparisons make Democratic claims that to not impeach Trump would effectively mean shredding the constitution seem more than a little over-heated .
However much constitutional obligation may appear to necessitate impeachment , in the end it is always a political choice .
The irony is that Trump is now impatient for his own Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expects will bring the public more to his side .
During the House ’ s impeachment proceedings , Trump ’ s approval ratings rose six points .
McConnell has not so much as bothered with the usual lip service about conducting an impartial trial .
On 12 December , he told Fox News , “ We ’ ll be working through this process , hopefully in a fairly short period of time , in total coordination with the White House counsel ’ s office.
” On 3 January , he made the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the US constitution had always intended impeachment to be a deeply political affair , which is why they designated the Senate to try presidents instead of the judiciary .
Pelosi , sensing the depth of the opposition , has delayed sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate , which has raised the legal question of whether Trump has in fact been impeached at all .
Either way , the circling tactic appears doomed to fail .
Even if they are armed with court orders to make crucial witnesses appear , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resource – sensational television – for much longer without wearying the public ’ s patience and taking the sting out of their original intent to remove him .
In 2001 , the historian Perry Anderson argued that critics of US empire should have embraced the impeachment of Bill Clinton : any body blow against the imperial presidency was surely something good for the rest of the world .
Today , liberals and legal scholars argue that impeachment will at least weaken the forward march of Trumpism , much as Clinton ’ s impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gore .
The trouble is that the impeachment of Clinton resulted in the opposite of presidential impairment : his approval reached an all-time postwar high of 73 % during his Senate trial .
Like Clinton ’ s bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal , Trump may have diverted some attention away from his impeachment with the assassination of Qassem Suleimani .
Yet this impeachable offence – engaging in an act of war without Congress ’ s approval – is unlikely to be added to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The presidency has accrued war powers at a rate since 9/11 that only accelerated under Obama .
It would now take sweeping congressional legislation to reverse the tide .
In the absence of this political will , Pelosi and the Democrats have proposed an emergency bill to make any Trump-led war on Iran only slightly more difficult .
Trump may not enjoy a popularity bump like Clinton ’ s during his own Senate carnival , even with McConnell as ringmaster .
But however much less mystique Americans attach to their presidents since Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an aura .
For the Democrats to set themselves against it , instead of concentrating their fire on an electoral victory in November , could further inflate the executive .
Their best chance for cutting the imperial presidency down to size is for them to back a presidential challenger who is dedicated to the cause of restoring Congress ’ s war powers .
• Thomas Meaney is a fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , Washington DC

Impeachment was never going to deliver the president’s scalp. “We all know how this is going to end,” Mitch McConnell, the Republican senate majority leader, told Fox News on 12 December, shortly before the House of Representatives voted 230-197 to impeach Donald Trump. “There’s no chance the president is going to be removed from office.”
This common knowledge – that a Republican-controlled Senate would never vote to eject Trump – has gone missing among some US Democrats. In March last year, Nancy Pelosi, the veteran Democratic leader of the House, advised her fellow Democrats against impeachment: “I don’t think we should go down that path.” After three years of declaring Trump an existential threat to the nation, Pelosi knew that the Democrats would only help the president if they took action that was not only guaranteed to fail to remove him, but which would allow Trump to reprise his favourite role: Phoenix Rising from the Headlines.
But Pelosi was in a bind. Like Theresa May, she has become the manager of a process she never wanted to happen. Faced with a revolt among Democratic lawmakers who need strong anti-Trump credentials to win their congressional primaries, she eventually yielded to their determination to remove Trump via legal means. Trump’s 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed to provide all the ingredients that the soup of the Mueller report lacked: a Mafioso-style quid-pro-quo; a tampering with the US electoral process during, as opposed to before, Trump’s presidency; and, on top of it all, the irresistible charge of cold war vintage that Trump – with his consideration of delaying the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kiev – was endangering national security by not sufficiently escalating tensions with Russia.
Pelosi: I'll send impeachment articles to Senate 'when I'm ready' – video
There is little question that Trump committed an impeachable offence by encouraging the Ukrainians to publicise an investigation into Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine. But impeachable relative to what? Many presidents have committed impeachable offences in office – whether Franklin Roosevelt’s IRS auditing of political opponents, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush’s Iran-Contra scandal, or George W Bush’s lying to ignite the Iraq war (a 2008 CNN interview has been making the rounds, in which the civilian Trump expresses disappointment that Pelosi did not try harder to impeach Bush for the Iraq war).
These comparisons make Democratic claims that to not impeach Trump would effectively mean shredding the constitution seem more than a little over-heated. However much constitutional obligation may appear to necessitate impeachment, in the end it is always a political choice.
The irony is that Trump is now impatient for his own Senate trial to start, which he reasonably expects will bring the public more to his side. During the House’s impeachment proceedings, Trump’s approval ratings rose six points. McConnell has not so much as bothered with the usual lip service about conducting an impartial trial. On 12 December, he told Fox News, “We’ll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office.” On 3 January, he made the case on the Senate floor that the authors of the US constitution had always intended impeachment to be a deeply political affair, which is why they designated the Senate to try presidents instead of the judiciary. Pelosi, sensing the depth of the opposition, has delayed sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, which has raised the legal question of whether Trump has in fact been impeached at all.
‘Mitch McConnell, the Republican senate majority leader, has not so much as bothered with the usual lip service about conducting an impartial trial.’ Photograph: UPI/Barcroft Media
Either way, the circling tactic appears doomed to fail. Even if they are armed with court orders to make crucial witnesses appear, the Democrats cannot deny Trump his favourite resource – sensational television – for much longer without wearying the public’s patience and taking the sting out of their original intent to remove him.
In 2001, the historian Perry Anderson argued that critics of US empire should have embraced the impeachment of Bill Clinton: any body blow against the imperial presidency was surely something good for the rest of the world. Today, liberals and legal scholars argue that impeachment will at least weaken the forward march of Trumpism, much as Clinton’s impeachment supposedly hobbled his chosen successor, Al Gore. The trouble is that the impeachment of Clinton resulted in the opposite of presidential impairment: his approval reached an all-time postwar high of 73% during his Senate trial.
Like Clinton’s bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Trump may have diverted some attention away from his impeachment with the assassination of Qassem Suleimani. Yet this impeachable offence – engaging in an act of war without Congress’s approval – is unlikely to be added to Trump’s bill of offences. The presidency has accrued war powers at a rate since 9/11 that only accelerated under Obama. It would now take sweeping congressional legislation to reverse the tide. In the absence of this political will, Pelosi and the Democrats have proposed an emergency bill to make any Trump-led war on Iran only slightly more difficult.
Trump may not enjoy a popularity bump like Clinton’s during his own Senate carnival, even with McConnell as ringmaster. But however much less mystique Americans attach to their presidents since Nixon and Clinton, the office still retains an aura. For the Democrats to set themselves against it, instead of concentrating their fire on an electoral victory in November, could further inflate the executive. Their best chance for cutting the imperial presidency down to size is for them to back a presidential challenger who is dedicated to the cause of restoring Congress’s war powers.


bonginoreport--2020-01-12--Trump’s Tweet in Support of Iran Protesters Sets Record for “Most Liked Persian Tweet”

President Trump 's tweet in Farsi expressing his support for Iranians protesting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already earned over 200,000 likes , making it the `` most liked Persian tweet '' in the social media giant 's history , according to a leading think tank adviser .
On Saturday , protesters in the country called upon Khamenei to step down after Iran admitted to shooting down a commercial airliner on which dozens of Iranian citizens were traveling .
That evening , the president sent out a tweet in Farsi , saying that he stands with their efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people : I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you .
We are following your protests closely .
Your courage is inspiring , ” Trump wrote .
After just one hour , the tweet had received over 100,000 likes and has since more than doubled that number .
`` This tweet by @ realDonaldTrump with more than 100k likes is already the most liked Persian tweet in the history of Twitter , '' Saeed Ghasseminejad , senior adviser and financial economist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , claimed .
`` A strong show of support by Iranians for Trump 's Iran policy , something the MSM does not and will not report . ''
FDD is a policy institute based in Washington , D.C. , that focuses on national security and foreign policy .
Described as hawkish , the group is highly critical of Tehran 's theocratic regime , and its members advise the Trump administration on its Iran policy .
Born and raised in Iran , Ghasseminejad also teaches finance at Baruch College of New York .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news shortly after , with Dan Scavino Jr. , the assistant to the president and director of the White House 's social media , tweeting in Farsi , `` Excellent . ''
Iran responded to the U.S. ' recent killing of its top Gen. Qassem Soleimani by firing off over a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases housing American troops in Iraq this week .
While the missiles were being launched , a Boeing 737 carrying over 176 people from Tehran to Kyiv , Ukraine , crashed , killing everyone on board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` unintentionally '' shooting down the plane after originally claiming there was a mechanical problem and blamed `` human error , '' sparking the protests .

President Trump's tweet in Farsi expressing support for Iranians protesting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already earned over 200,000 likes, making it the "most liked Persian tweet" in the social media giant's history, according to a leading think tank adviser.
On Saturday, protesters in the country called upon Khamenei to step down after Iran admitted to shooting down a commercial airliner on which dozens of Iranian citizens were traveling. That evening, the president sent out a tweet in Farsi, saying that he stands with their efforts.
“To the brave and suffering Iranian people: I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely. Your courage is inspiring,” Trump wrote.
به مردم شجاع و رنج کشیده ایران: من از ابتدای دوره ریاست جمهوریم با شما ایستاده‌ام و دولت من همچنان با شما خواهد ایستاد. ما اعتراضات شما را از نزدیک دنبال می کنیم. شجاعت شما الهام بخش است. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2020
After just one hour, the tweet had received over 100,000 likes and has since more than doubled that number.
"This tweet by @realDonaldTrump with more than 100k likes is already the most liked Persian tweet in the history of Twitter," Saeed Ghasseminejad, senior adviser and financial economist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, claimed. "A strong show of support by Iranians for Trump's Iran policy, something the MSM does not and will not report."
This tweet by @realDonaldTrump with more than 100k likes is already the most liked Persian tweet in the history of Twitter. A strong show of support by Iranians for Trump's Iran policy, something the MSM does not and will not report. https://t.co/4tZ0IgDZmx — Saeed Ghasseminejad (@SGhasseminejad) January 11, 2020
FDD is a policy institute based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on national security and foreign policy. Described as hawkish, the group is highly critical of Tehran's theocratic regime, and its members advise the Trump administration on its Iran policy. Born and raised in Iran, Ghasseminejad also teaches finance at Baruch College of New York.
The president's inner circle began celebrating the news shortly after, with Dan Scavino Jr., assistant to the president and director of the White House's social media operation, tweeting in Farsi, "Excellent."
Iran responded to the United States's recent killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by firing off over a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases housing American troops in Iraq. An Iranian missile took down a Boeing 737 carrying well over a hundred people from Tehran to Kyiv, Ukraine, killing everyone on board.
On Friday, Iran admitted to "unintentionally" shooting down the plane, blaming "human error" after originally claiming there was a mechanical problem, sparking the protests.


bonginoreport--2020-01-12--Marianne Williamson’s Campaign Lasted 70 Days Longer Than “Rising Star” Beto O’Rourke’s

Author and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race Friday , outlasting such candidates as Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D. , Calif. ) .
Williamson , a non-factor in polling who had failed to qualify for a debate since July , announced her decision to withdraw in a letter to supporters , saying she believed `` love will prevail . ''
In her longshot bid for the nomination , the eclectic candidate outlasted O'Rourke—who quit Nov. 1—by 70 days .
She outlasted Harris—who ended her campaign Dec. 3—by 38 days .
Williamson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the race .
Williamson has never held office , but her self-help books and lectures had a large following .
She met the polling and fundraising thresholds for the first Democratic debate earlier than seasoned lawmakers like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D. , N.Y. ) .
She drew attention for oddball moments during debates .
She said her first call as president would be to New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern to challenge Ardern 's promise to make her country the best place in the world for a child to grow up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Girlfriend , you are so on , because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up , ' '' Williamson said .
Williamson further set herself apart by saying the other candidates ' policy proposals were not going to be enough to defeat President Donald Trump .
`` If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in the country , then I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some very dark days , '' she said in July .
Williamson also drew criticism for receiving advice from an anti-vaccination attorney , and for falling for an online hoax claiming that Trump had pardoned deceased murderer Charles Manson .

Author and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race Friday, outlasting such candidates as Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.).
Williamson, a non-factor in polling who had failed to qualify for a debate since July, announced her decision to withdraw in a letter to supporters, saying she believed "love will prevail."
A politics of conscience is still yet possible. And yes….love will prevail.https://t.co/BqTKQFI338 — Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) January 10, 2020
In her longshot bid for the nomination, the eclectic candidate outlasted O'Rourke—who quit Nov. 1—by 70 days. She outlasted Harris—who ended her campaign Dec. 3—by 38 days. Williamson is the 15th Democrat to drop out of the race.
Williamson has never held office, but her self-help books and lectures had a large following. She met the polling and fundraising thresholds for the first Democratic debate earlier than seasoned lawmakers like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.).
She drew attention for oddball moments during debates. She said her first call as president would be to New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern to challenge Ardern's promise to make her country the best place in the world for a child to grow up.
"I would tell her: 'Girlfriend, you are so on, because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up,'" Williamson said.
Williamson further set herself apart by saying the other candidates' policy proposals were not going to be enough to defeat President Donald Trump.
"If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in the country, then I'm afraid Democrats are going to see some very dark days," she said in July.
Williamson also drew criticism for receiving advice from an anti-vaccination attorney, and for falling for an online hoax claiming that Trump had pardoned deceased murderer Charles Manson.


bonginoreport--2020-01-12--Michael Bloomberg: “I’m Spending All My Money to Get Rid of Trump”

SAN ANTONIO , Texas ( Reuters ) - U.S. presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg told Reuters he is ready to spend much of his vast fortune to oust Republican President Donald Trump from the White House in 2020 , rejecting criticism from rivals for the Democratic nomination that the billionaire is trying to buy the U.S. election .
Ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest American , Bloomberg has flooded U.S. airwaves and social media feeds with messages that he stands the best chance to beat Trump , spending more on campaign ads since he launched his campaign in November than his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
“ Number one priority is to get rid of Donald Trump .
I ’ m spending all my money to get rid of Trump , ” Bloomberg told Reuters aboard his campaign bus on Saturday , during a nearly 300-mile ( 483-km ) drive across Texas , one of the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday on March 3 .
“ Do you want me to spend more or less ?
End of story.
” U.S .
Senator Elizabeth Warren , one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , blasted Bloomberg when he launched his campaign with a $ 37-million TV advertising blitz , accusing the former New York City mayor of trying to buy American democracy .
“ These are just political things they say , hoping they catch on and they don ’ t like me doing it , because it competes with them , not because it ’ s bad policy , ” Bloomberg said .
After entering the race late and missing the first six Democratic debates , Bloomberg generally sits fifth in national public opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren and Pete Buttigieg .
But not just the two liberal standard-bearers of Warren and Sanders , all of the four are too liberal to beat Trump , Bloomberg said .
“ One of the reasons I ’ m reasonably confident I could beat Trump is I would be acceptable to the moderate Republicans you have to have , ” said Bloomberg , a former Republican who made his fortune selling financial information to Wall Street firms .
“ Whether you like it or not , you can ’ t win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross the line .
The others are much too liberal for them and they would certainly vote for Donald Trump.
” After a late entry into the race , he is skipping the first four Democratic nomination contests in Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada and South Carolina all due to take place in February .
Instead , Bloomberg is waging a nationwide campaign to capture delegates in later contests such as Texas , which will be the second largest prize among the 14 Super Tuesday states .
At campaign events in San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Saturday , Bloomberg said his bipartisan nature made it more likely he could deliver on his pledges to expand health insurance coverage , fight climate change and reduce gun violence .
While his speeches drew modest crowds of no more than a few hundred in Austin and fewer still in San Antonio , many who attended said they were independents or former Trump supporters who had learned about Bloomberg through his massive advertising campaign .
“ He ’ s better than Trump , ” said Marcelo Montemayor , 75 , who listened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in San Antonio .
Montemayor voted for Trump in 2016 but worries the president ’ s conservative appointees to federal courts could undermine abortion rights .
Bloomberg ’ s television ads have dominated the airwaves both nationwide and in Texas .
In the top four media markets in the Lone Star State , which include Houston and Dallas , Bloomberg has spent more than $ 15 million on television ads through mid-January , said Mark Jones , a political scientist at Houston ’ s Rice University , who analyzed Federal Communications Commission records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined spending nationwide by Democratic frontrunners in 2019 , according to a Wesleyan Media Project analysis of Kantar/CMAG television ad data through mid-December .
And for this year ’ s Super Bowl broadcast on Feb. 2 in Miami , Trump and Bloomberg both plan to air a 60-second television commercial , a prime example of their ability to devote vast resources to reach millions of viewers .
Trump campaign officials said the campaign paid $ 10 million for air time .
Last year ’ s National Football League championship game drew nearly 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get to 330 million people by shaking hands .
Television is still the magic medium , ” Bloomberg said .
“ If the Super Bowl wasn ’ t a place to get to an awful lot of people they wouldn ’ t be charging a lot , or nobody would be paying it .
This is capitalism at work .
”

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg told Reuters he is ready to spend much of his vast fortune to oust Republican President Donald Trump from the White House in 2020, rejecting criticism from rivals for the Democratic nomination that the billionaire is trying to buy the U.S. election.
Ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest American, Bloomberg has flooded U.S. airwaves and social media feeds with messages that he stands the best chance to beat Trump, spending more on campaign ads since he launched his campaign in November than his main Democratic rivals have over the last year.
“Number one priority is to get rid of Donald Trump. I’m spending all my money to get rid of Trump,” Bloomberg told Reuters aboard his campaign bus on Saturday, during a nearly 300-mile (483-km) drive across Texas, one of the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday on March 3.
“Do you want me to spend more or less? End of story.”
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders who has vowed to get money out of politics, blasted Bloomberg when he launched his campaign with a $37-million TV advertising blitz, accusing the former New York City mayor of trying to buy American democracy.
“These are just political things they say, hoping they catch on and they don’t like me doing it, because it competes with them, not because it’s bad policy,” Bloomberg said.
After entering the race late and missing the first six Democratic debates, Bloomberg generally sits fifth in national public opinion polls behind Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Warren and Pete Buttigieg.
But not just the two liberal standard-bearers of Warren and Sanders, all of the four are too liberal to beat Trump, Bloomberg said.
“One of the reasons I’m reasonably confident I could beat Trump is I would be acceptable to the moderate Republicans you have to have,” said Bloomberg, a former Republican who made his fortune selling financial information to Wall Street firms.
Slideshow ( 4 images )
“Whether you like it or not, you can’t win the election unless you get moderate Republicans to cross the line. The others are much too liberal for them and they would certainly vote for Donald Trump.”
After a late entry into the race, he is skipping the first four Democratic nomination contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all due to take place in February.
Instead, Bloomberg is waging a nationwide campaign to capture delegates in later contests such as Texas, which will be the second largest prize among the 14 Super Tuesday states.
At campaign events in San Antonio, Austin and Dallas in Texas on Saturday, Bloomberg said his bipartisan nature made it more likely he could deliver on his pledges to expand health insurance coverage, fight climate change and reduce gun violence.
While his speeches drew modest crowds of no more than a few hundred in Austin and fewer still in San Antonio, many who attended said they were independents or former Trump supporters who had learned about Bloomberg through his massive advertising campaign.
“He’s better than Trump,” said Marcelo Montemayor, 75, who listened to Bloomberg speak at a taco restaurant in San Antonio.
Montemayor voted for Trump in 2016 but worries the president’s conservative appointees to federal courts could undermine abortion rights.
Bloomberg’s television ads have dominated the airwaves both nationwide and in Texas.
Slideshow ( 4 images )
In the top four media markets in the Lone Star State, which include Houston and Dallas, Bloomberg has spent more than $15 million on television ads through mid-January, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Houston’s Rice University, who analyzed Federal Communications Commission records on ad buys.
That exceeds the combined spending nationwide by Democratic frontrunners in 2019, according to a Wesleyan Media Project analysis of Kantar/CMAG television ad data through mid-December.
And for this year’s Super Bowl broadcast on Feb. 2 in Miami, Trump and Bloomberg both plan to air a 60-second television commercial, a prime example of their ability to devote vast resources to reach millions of viewers.
Trump campaign officials said the campaign paid $10 million for air time. Last year’s National Football League championship game drew nearly 100 million viewers.
“You can’t get to 330 million people by shaking hands. Television is still the magic medium,” Bloomberg said.
“If the Super Bowl wasn’t a place to get to an awful lot of people they wouldn’t be charging a lot, or nobody would be paying it. This is capitalism at work.”


bonginoreport--2020-01-12--Bernie Sanders Campaign Co-Chair Rips Joe Biden for “Repeatedly Betraying Black Voters”

The national co-chair of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s 2020 campaign tore into former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s record on race in an op-ed Sunday .
Biden has “ repeatedly betrayed black voters , ” Nina Turner argued in an op-ed published in South Carolina newspaper The State .
She hammered Biden ’ s opposition to forced desegregation busing and his work with segregationist senators and wrote : “ Biden didn ’ t just vote for bills designed to prevent black students from accessing white schools : in a series of personal letters he actively courted pro-segregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , by contrast , began his work in politics by organizing civil rights protests .
As a college student , he helped lead a local chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality in its push to desegregate housing .
Sanders participated in the Rev .
Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s March on Washington and was arrested for protesting rampant school segregation in Chicago , ” Turner wrote .
“ In addition , Sanders has been pushing an education plan that supports local efforts to combat racial segregation , ” she added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hurting Bernie Sanders Right Before Iowa ) “ Biden also fought alongside right-wing Republicans to pass so-called ‘ welfare reform ’ that reduced financial support for low-income families , ” Turner wrote , adding : “ Biden echoed former President Ronald Reagan ’ s dishonest ‘ welfare queen ’ language and wrote a column conjuring an ugly stereotype of ‘ welfare mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that mirror the rich and famous . '
” Voting for Biden would be tantamount to “ going backward for black voters , ” Turner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean “ we are going forward into a future of empowerment and equality for all.
” Biden ’ s campaign didn ’ t immediately return the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s request for comment on Turner ’ s op-ed .
Biden has been a consistent frontrunner in South Carolina , where black voters are a key constituency for Democrats .
Sanders , meanwhile , holds narrow leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire in the Democratic presidential field , according to RealClearPolitics ’ polling average for both states .
Content created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

The national co-chair of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s 2020 campaign tore into former Vice President Joe Biden’s record on race in an op-ed Sunday.
Biden has “repeatedly betrayed black voters,” Nina Turner argued in an op-ed published in South Carolina newspaper The State.
She hammered Biden’s opposition to forced desegregation busing and his work with segregationist senators and wrote: “Biden didn’t just vote for bills designed to prevent black students from accessing white schools: in a series of personal letters he actively courted pro-segregation senators to support the legislation.”
“Sanders, by contrast, began his work in politics by organizing civil rights protests. As a college student, he helped lead a local chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality in its push to desegregate housing. Sanders participated in the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington and was arrested for protesting rampant school segregation in Chicago,” Turner wrote.
“In addition, Sanders has been pushing an education plan that supports local efforts to combat racial segregation,” she added. (RELATED: Nancy Pelosi Is Hurting Bernie Sanders Right Before Iowa)
“Biden also fought alongside right-wing Republicans to pass so-called ‘welfare reform’ that reduced financial support for low-income families,” Turner wrote, adding:
“Biden echoed former President Ronald Reagan’s dishonest ‘welfare queen’ language and wrote a column conjuring an ugly stereotype of ‘welfare mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that mirror the rich and famous.'”
Voting for Biden would be tantamount to “going backward for black voters,” Turner concluded, while voting for Sanders would mean “we are going forward into a future of empowerment and equality for all.”
Biden’s campaign didn’t immediately return the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment on Turner’s op-ed.
Biden has been a consistent frontrunner in South Carolina, where black voters are a key constituency for Democrats. Sanders, meanwhile, holds narrow leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire in the Democratic presidential field, according to RealClearPolitics’ polling average for both states.
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.


bonginoreport--2020-01-14--Bernie Sanders Rescinds Prior Hawkish Stance On Illegal Immigration

We ’ ll have to wait and see if this comes up at the debates .
As I ’ m sure you all know , the Democrats running for the 2020 nomination are all in a race to prove their woke credentials , and that includes matters related to immigration , both legal and illegal .
The standard party line is that all are welcome , open borders , immigrants doing jobs Americans won ’ t… you know the drill .
But when Bernie Sanders sat down this week for an interview with the New York Times editorial board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about a previous position he held , once saying that too many foreign workers have the effect of driving down wages .
Bernie was quick to point out that the comments in question were ancient history .
Ancient ?
Hey , Bernie… we ’ re talking about 2015 here .
( Free Beacon ) In an interview transcript released on Monday , New York Times editor Nick Fox asked Sanders if he still believed that foreign workers depress wages for Americans .
“ No , ” Sanders responded .
“ That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dobbs show 250 years ago , right ?
” Sanders made that argument in 2015 on at least two occasions .
“ What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy , ” Sanders said in a Vox interview .
“ Bring in all kinds of people , work for $ 2 or $ 3 an hour , that would be great for them .
I don ’ t believe in that .
I think we have to raise wages in this country.
” Sanders reiterated his hawkish immigration views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chamber of Commerce event , arguing that if “ open borders ” advocates got their way , it would “ substantially lower wages in this country.
” Way back when ( less than five years ago ) Bernie was going on television and complaining about “ open borders advocates.
” That ’ s not going to go over very well with the actual open borders advocates in the Democratic base and the ones running against him for the nomination .
If immigration is a topic that ’ s covered during this debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden , and Buttigieg start a dogpile on him by resurrecting those comments .
The funny part is that while Sanders was blowing off the old quote by saying it was “ 250 years ago , ” he went on to make essentially the exact same point to editorial board member Binyamin Appelbaum .
Sanders “ clarified ” his position by saying the exploitation of illegal immigrants results in lower wages for domestic workers .
“ If you ’ re undocumented , and you ’ re being paid five bucks an hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her $ 12 an hour ?
” This seemed to stump Appelbaum , who said , “ You just said that again .
So , I ’ m confused about what has changed about your position.
” This led to a back and forth debate over whether illegal aliens drive down wages , with Sanders continuing to insist that they do .
In other words , after starting off by saying that his comments from 2015 were ancient history ( implying that he no longer feels that way ) , Bernie went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t changed at all .
This is an unusual slipup for Bernie Sanders .
He ’ s usually pretty sharp on the campaign trail , leaving the gaffes and “ senior moments ” to Joe Biden .
But he stuck his foot in his mouth this time , leaving an opening for his opponents .
The irony here is that Bernie ’ s position is actually the correct one .
Competition for lower-skill jobs is one of only many reasons to oppose immigration .
Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders , that puts him squarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

We’ll have to wait and see if this comes up at the debates. As I’m sure you all know, the Democrats running for the 2020 nomination are all in a race to prove their woke credentials, and that includes matters related to immigration, both legal and illegal. The standard party line is that all are welcome, open borders, immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t… you know the drill. But when Bernie Sanders sat down this week for an interview with the New York Times editorial board, including editor Nick Fox, he was asked about a previous position he held, once saying that too many foreign workers have the effect of driving down wages. Bernie was quick to point out that the comments in question were ancient history. Ancient? Hey, Bernie… we’re talking about 2015 here. (Free Beacon)
In an interview transcript released on Monday, New York Times editor Nick Fox asked Sanders if he still believed that foreign workers depress wages for Americans. “No,” Sanders responded. “That’s what I said on the Lou Dobbs show 250 years ago, right?” Sanders made that argument in 2015 on at least two occasions. “What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy,” Sanders said in a Vox interview. “Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.” Sanders reiterated his hawkish immigration views a few days later at a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event, arguing that if “open borders” advocates got their way, it would “substantially lower wages in this country.”
Way back when (less than five years ago) Bernie was going on television and complaining about “open borders advocates.” That’s not going to go over very well with the actual open borders advocates in the Democratic base and the ones running against him for the nomination. If immigration is a topic that’s covered during this debate, don’t be surprised if Warren, Biden, and Buttigieg start a dogpile on him by resurrecting those comments.
The funny part is that while Sanders was blowing off the old quote by saying it was “250 years ago,” he went on to make essentially the exact same point to editorial board member Binyamin Appelbaum. Sanders “clarified” his position by saying the exploitation of illegal immigrants results in lower wages for domestic workers. “If you’re undocumented, and you’re being paid five bucks an hour, why am I going to pay her $12 an hour?”
This seemed to stump Appelbaum, who said, “You just said that again. So, I’m confused about what has changed about your position.” This led to a back and forth debate over whether illegal aliens drive down wages, with Sanders continuing to insist that they do. In other words, after starting off by saying that his comments from 2015 were ancient history (implying that he no longer feels that way), Bernie went on to prove that his position hadn’t changed at all.
This is an unusual slipup for Bernie Sanders. He’s usually pretty sharp on the campaign trail, leaving the gaffes and “senior moments” to Joe Biden. But he stuck his foot in his mouth this time, leaving an opening for his opponents.
The irony here is that Bernie’s position is actually the correct one. Competition for lower-skill jobs is one of only many reasons to oppose immigration. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders, that puts him squarely outside the Democratic base on this issue.