“The Swedish strategy is very much relying on the individual’s trust in the state,” one Swede told NBC News.
Emoluments case tried to stop Trump’s businesses from accepting payments from foreign governments
Different types of rule-breaking leaders can appeal to transgressive parts of ourselves.
Source: Trump the transgressor: the psychological appeal of leaders who break the rules : The Conversation
Former prime minister Tony Blair was seeking funding from the EU while lobbying for a second referendum, it has been reported. The ex-Labour leader pushed this year for a second referendum and has
- Shamima Begum was seen perched on a sofa on a sun-blasted Syrian hillside
- She is not wearing a veil and wears a diamante nose stud and possible lip gloss
- In the past six months she says she has not spoken to anyone from the UK
In the corner of a cabin behind a wire fence on a sun-blasted Syrian hillside, a girl from Bethnal Green is perched on a sofa, regarding me warily. The first things I notice about her are the absence of a veil, the glint of a fashionable diamante nose stud and the application of what looks very much like lip gloss.
There is also the cheerful plum-coloured — rather than Islamist black — hijab. From beneath her long grey skirt a baby-blue nylon trainer is peeping. All these aspects of her appearance are new and unexpected. Yet her face is instantly recognisable. She is the British teenage Isis bride, Shamima Begum.
For the past six months no one from her home country has spoken to her, she says. That is, no one outside this internment centre whose name can be loosely translated as Camp Sunshine.
An Extract from the Politiclite UK article and if true shows you can not trust any politicans, especially Theresa May.
With contributions from Dr Niall McCrae, John Ashworth, Ariane Loening and Lawyers for Britain.
Cast your mind back to summer last year. The Cabinet gathered at the Prime Minister’s country retreat of Chequers, on the sylvan Chiltern downs. There was very important business: Theresa May, flanked by senior civil servant Olly Robbins, presented the draft agreement for Britain’s departure from the EU. For the first time, ministers (including Brexit secretary David Davis and foreign secretary Boris Johnson) saw the proposed terms – and the extent to which May would abide by her pledge of ‘Brexit means Brexit’. The chief whip instructed that nobody could leave without consenting to the Withdrawal Agreement, unless they resigned – and must then find their way home without ministerial transport.
For Leavers in the Cabinet, it was a shocker. Scarcely anything appropriate for a renewed sovereign nation could be found in this document, which seemed an abject surrender to Messrs Barnier and Juncker. For Brexit voters, it was hard to believe that their government would consider such punitive clauses; their faith in Theresa May, until then buoyant, was shattered. And this document, we were told, was only the initial negotiating stance – it could get worse. In the morass since the referendum on 23rd June 2016, this has been the most significant subsequent event to date.
It was widely reported that Theresa May paid a visit to Angela Merkel in Berlin shortly before the Chequers meeting. What did they discuss? We weren’t told at the time. According to a confidential source who has seen a complete transcript of the meeting, the two leaders agreed to a plan that Mrs May allegedly told the Chancellor would “appease” Brexit voters while nonetheless enabling her to get rid of those Tories who were (in her words) “against progress and unity in the EU.” According to the transcript, Mrs May is also reported to have agreed “to keep as many EU laws and institutions in effect as she could despite the current groundswell of anti-EU hysteria in Britain” (again, apparently her words). It is claimed that both leaders agreed that the only realistic future for the UK was as a member of the EU, and that in the likely course of events Britain would re-join the EU in full at some time after the next general election.
The transcript also indicated that the Withdrawal Agreement was essentially a German production, with the original draft completed in May 2018 in Berlin. It was then sent to the Cabinet Office marked “Secret”. After much to-ing and fro-ing in the subsequent few weeks, including several telephone calls between Mrs May and the Chancellor the final draft was completed late in June, with the Chancellor telling Mrs May that she was happy with it. However, a few more small concessions by the UK would be needed later on, just to keep the EU happy.
David Davis was kept in the dark about this planning, as were other pro-Brexit ministers. The EU, by contrast, was happy to circulate the transcript of the final May/Merkel meeting to key EU and German embassies. What is more, Mrs May was probably unaware that the Chancellor had made a recording of this private meeting! Perhaps our Prime Minister would not have spoken so freely had she realised her words were being noted for posterity.
If this account of the meeting between the PM and the German Chancellor is accurate, this paints a very different picture of the Brexit process from that reported to the public by the BBC and other mainstream media. There is one obvious objection: these explosive claims are impossible to prove in the absence of a copy of the transcript of either the May/Merkel meetings or of the briefings given to EU embassies. My source, however, has been accurate in the past: several other tip-offs of EU intentions passed to me were revealed two or three days later by the press.
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is successful then justice, truth and honesty is failing in the US.
Brett Kavanaugh is a political hack who should not have received the Court of Appeals appointment he has, and should have been rejected by the Senate committee as a nominee for Supreme Court without calling Christine Blasey Ford to testify,
He got his start helping special prosecutor Ken Starr investigate Bill Clinton, was part of the legal team that challenged the voter recount in Florida in 2000 and then worked for White House Special Counsel Alberto Gonzalez in the George W. Bush administration.
There are questions as to whether he was involved in discussions of warrantless surveillance, warrantless detentions and torture, and George W. Bush’s sweeping assertions of presidential authority in signing statements. Kavanaugh has said these issues weren’t part of his job, while the Trump administration has held back on releasing the documentary record of Kavanaugh’s service.
What Kavanaugh thinks about these questions goes to the heart…
View original post 438 more words
Trump’s siblings doubted their brother could repay them because his collection of condominium buildings, casinos, hotels and other assorted properties was collapsing under the weight of billions of dollars in bank loans he couldn’t repay. So they made him pledge his future share of his father’s estate as collateral and loaned him the money. Trump gave me his “word” that none of that had happened, but I wrote about it anyway. When he later unsuccessfully sued me for libel he was forced to acknowledge under oath during the litigation that he had, indeed, borrowed from his family.
“We would have literally closed down,” a former Trump Organization employee with direct knowledge of Trump’s attempts to keep his company and himself afloat told me in 2005. “The key would have been in the door and there would have been no more Donald Trump. The family saved him.”
It wasn’t really the entire family that saved Trump, of course. It was Fred, the man who held the purse strings. And the president, who is 72, has spent about five decades pretending not only that his father never rescued him from bankruptcy but that he played a minimal role in his business successes.
“It has not been easy for me,” Trump said in 2015 during the presidential race. “My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”
As I noted in a column in 2016, Trump was lying when he said that — allowing him to also gloss over how central his father was to his career.
When Trump entered the Manhattan real estate business in the mid-1970s, Fred cosigned bank loans for tens of millions of dollars, making it possible for Trump to develop early projects like the Grand Hyatt hotel. When he targeted Atlantic City’s casino market, Fred loaned him about $7.5 million to get started. When he floundered there in the ’90s, Fred sent a lawyer into a Trump casino to buy $3.5 million in chips so his son could use the funds for a bond payment and avoid filing for corporate bankruptcy. There are many other examples like these.
Who are these charities there for their members or the Government. Where the Government is acting against their members interest then these charities should be speaking out, otherwise are they could be working outwith their constitution.
Police officials in Sacramento, California, boast about their use of body cameras, and the quick release of the footage they capture, as centerpieces of a larger effort to improve the public’s trust.
But the fatal shooting by police officers last week of an unarmed black man, Stephon Clark, has exposed a potential flaw in that effort and opened up a new front in the national debate over body cameras: officers’ ability to turn off the microphone on the device.
Body cam footage from the two officers who shot Clark in a residential backyard after dark on March 18 includes the chase, one officer shouting “gun” in a mistaken belief that Clark was armed, then the gunfire. It also covers the aftermath, as backup arrives and the officers walk to the street. During their exit, one officer says, “Hey, mute.” Then the audio on both cameras goes silent while the video continues to show authorities responding to the scene.
Source: Police shot Stephon Clark. Then their bodycams went mute. : NBC News