(WND.com) Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort will testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., revealed Friday morning.
Nunes, the committee chairman, also said he has asked FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers to testify in a closed session on Tuesday.
They are likely to be presented with information that contradicts their testimony before the committee on Monday that they had no information to support President Trump’s claims that President Obama spied on him.
While the NSA has agreed to turn over more reports on the apparent spying by the Obama administration, the FBI is apparently stalling or stonewalling.
Nunes said the FBI still has not agreed to his request to provide its intelligence reports on the Trump transition team.
Theses are the latest developments in a rapidly expanding story that could confirm President Trump’s accusation that the Obama administration spied on him and his inner circle.
A source told Fox News the NSA will provide the House Intelligence Committee with potential “smoking gun” documentation proving the Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team, and maybe even the president-elect.
Multiple sources said the intelligence information will prove the Obama administration misused information gained from legitimate surveillance of foreign targets to spy on the president-elect.
That is said to include the “unmasking”, or revealing the identity of those spied upon and sharing those identities in the intelligence community, which would be a criminal offense.
Sources told Fox, “[T]he paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration.”
Nunes said he expects the full extent of the spying to be disclosed Friday, and that he also expects the NSA documentation will provide more intelligence than he has already seen.
That will apparently include additional information that would appear to contradict testimony before the House Intelligence committee on Monday by Comey and Rogers that they had no information to support President Trump’s claims that President Obama spied on him.
It is not clear if any of that information will be made public on Friday, but it will likely take congressional investigators some time to examine the documents and determine their significance.
Nunes said on CNN that after reading reports he was confident the Obama administration “had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with.”
Nunes would not rule out the possibility that Obama was personally involved in the surveillance.
The Intelligence Committee chair revealed on Wednesday, as WND reported, that he had learned from intelligence sources that “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
And that details about those people “were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting” even though they had “little or no apparent foreign intelligence value.”
Nunes also confirmed that names of Trump transition team members were unmasked, quite possibly in violation of the law, which the congressman said he found “alarming.”
The NSA documentation to be delivered to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday will reportedly verify the information Nunes revealed on Wednesday, and add to it.
Nunes said the committee will try to find out who saw the classified information, why the reports were not reported to Congress, and who requested and authorized the unmasking of those who were surveilled.
Perhaps of the greatest significance to former Obama administration officials, and Obama himself, is that the committee will also try to learn whether the intelligence community was ordered to spy on president-elect Trump.
When asked, Nunes said he could not rule out that Obama ordered the spying.
On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was grilled about an AP report published Wednesday that claimed Manafort “secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to ‘greatly benefit the Putin Government,’” during the administration of President George W. Bush.
Peppered with reporters’ questions as to whether that proved some kind of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, Spicer repeatedly noted that the business dealings examined in the report were from the last decade.
And that Manafort was only involved with the Trump campaign for five months, ending in August.
He also noted, “Nothing in this morning’s report referenced any actions by the president, the White House or any Trump administration official.”
Spicer went on to turn the tables on the media narrative about Russia meddling in the election. He observed that, just recently, “John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chair, sat on the board of a Russian-based energy company. This was something tied to Hillary Clinton, who was the face of the failed Russia reset policy.”
Spicer also noted: “As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, along with the Obama administration, approved a deal that gave Russia one-fifth of America’s uranium reserves.
“Hillary’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, received over half-a-million dollars by a paid speech by a bank connected to the uranium deal. And Vladimir Putin personally called the former president and thanked him for giving the speech.”
The press secretary charged that the Clintons had far more extensive ties to Russia than did Manafort, and, “while secretary of state, Hillary was crafting a policy she said was designed to ‘strengthen Russia.’”
Spicer warned “members of the media trying to conflate Paul’s role in activities with Monday’s hearing” by Nunes’ committee on possible meddling by Russia in the 2016 election campaign.
“Numerous individuals,” recounted the press secretary, “including former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and acting CIA Director Mike Morrell and members of the intelligence community from both parties who have been briefed, have said across the board that they have seen zero evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.”
“And,” he concluded, “that’s not going to be changed by former business dealings of a campaign staffer from a decade ago.”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Hegel Knew There Would Be Days Like These
There have been places and periods of history when only a congenital optimist could have had any hope for the future of our species. Think of the end of Athens’s golden age, the fall of the Roman Empire, the petering out of the Renaissance, the close of the Enlightenment, the rise of fascism…
It’s when things look bleak indeed that it pays to remember the German 19th century philosopher Hegel. In his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, published in 1830, Hegel offered us a way of looking at the darker periods of history that neither glosses over their pain nor refuses to give up hope — but intelligently helps us to understand why human progress cannot be linear while encouraging us to trust that it does occur nevertheless.
For Hegel, history moves forward in what he termed a dialectical way. A dialectic is a philosophical term for an argument made up of three parts:
- A thesis
- An antithesis
- And a synthesis
Both the thesis and the antithesis contain parts of the truth, but they are also exaggerations and distortions of the whole, and so need to clash and interact, until their best elements find resolution in a synthesis.
Lady Liberty leading the People
Hegel thought this pattern a constant in history. The world makes progress by lurching from one extreme to another, as it seeks to compensate for previous mistakes and generally requires three moves before the right balance on any issue can be found.
For example, the Ancient Athenians discovered the idea of individual liberty, but their regime was blind to the need for collective discipline and organisation. The Ancient Persians knew all about that and were thereby able to conquer the Athenians on the battlefield, yet they were also despotic enemies of free thought, which with time became its own liability. It took many centuries for the correct synthesis between liberty and discipline to be worked out in the form of the Roman Empire.
In Hegel’s own era, the stifling, unfair 18th-century system of inherited monarchy had been abolished by the French Revolution — but what should have been the peaceful birth of representative government ended up in the anarchy and chaos of the Terror. This in turn led to the emergence of Napoleon, who restored order but became a military brute, trampling on the liberty he had professed to love. Only after forty years and much bloodshed did the modern ‘balanced constitution’ emerge, an arrangement which more sensibly balanced up popular representation with the rights of minorities.
Or to take another example, the European Enlightenment had stressed the importance of Reason, but it had in many parts been sterile and reductive. The movement known as Romanticism had then swept in to assert the importance of Emotion but this had carried excesses of its own. Only eventually had a correct reconciliation been worked out between the legitimate, competing needs of Reason and Emotion.
Hegel’s argument has a highly consoling feel at moments when it seems that one kind of progress has been entirely lost. He is on hand to reassure us that we are merely seeing the pendulum swing back for a time. Yet he also wisely counselled that this was needed because the initial move forward had been blind to a range of crucial insights. All sides on a matter will contain important truths lodged amidst exaggerations, and bombast — yet will eventually be sifted through the wisdom of time.
Hegel reminds us that big overreactions are eminently compatible with events broadly moving forward in the right direction. The dark moments aren’t the end, they’re a challenging but even in some ways necessary part of an antithesis that will — eventually — locate a wiser point of synthesis.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SCHOOL OF LIFE
The Book of Life is brought to you by The School of Life — a global organisation dedicated to developing emotional intelligence. We apply psychology, philosophy and culture to everyday life. You can find our classes, films, books, games and much more online and in our branches around the world.
Controversial new alcohol guidelines follow recommendation that infants also receive foods containing peanuts to avoid nut allergies
The National Institute of Health (NIH) announced on Friday that parents should give babies a shot of alcohol regularly, starting at 6 months or even earlier, as a way to help prevent later alcoholism.
The recommendation comes on the heels of new guidance announced this week by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that children be fed foods containing peanuts to help avoid nut allergies as they grow older.
“We realize our new alcohol guidelines fly in the face of conventional wisdom,” said Dr. Mortimer P. Banzer, Director of the NIH, “but the research is clear — a shot of tequila, vodka, whiskey, even a pint of beer every other day, can help fortify a toddler’s body against the affects of alcohol addiction in adulthood.”
The new national health guidelines calling for parents to give their infants a shot of booze early and often has parents concerned, but Dr. Banzer was adamant. “Overloading the body with the offending addictive agent or allergen at a young age is precisely what works. There’s a window of time when the body is more likely to tolerate a shot of hooch than react to it, and if you can educate the body during that window, alcohol addiction is much less likely to occur. It’s counter-intuitive but parents needn’t worry. This is well-researched — it’s completely safe to do so.”
Dr. Banzer said that a bigger threat may be parents joining their babies in doing a shot, “which could lead to irresponsible parenting.” But he added that a little impulse control should do the trick.
The NIH is also experimenting with giving newborns one cigarette a week as a way to prevent nicotine addiction, but results from that study, while promising, are not yet conclusive.
Owsley Stanley was a sound engineer, an LSD cook, and the co-designer of the iconic Grateful Dead “Steal Your Face” symbol. There are a lot of things you can learn – even if you are over 60 like me – click the link below the graphic. It’s safe.
This is an independent media publication in Grand Rapids which dares to question the status quo. Here is my own piece offered on Medium: https://medium.com/@realTomUrich/artprize-turns-grand-rapids-into-a-giant-theme-park-7cf29f34baef#.o0tlqoxo9
On Saturday, MLive ran yet another questionable story on the political influence of the DeVos Family, entitled, How the DeVos family has helped shape education policy in Michigan. This story is on the heals of an article that MLive ran last Monday that also demonstrates lazy journalism on the leading Grand Rapids news source.
The article is centered around President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. However, the story frames the issue in such a way as to soften, even minimize, the level of influence that the DeVos Family has had on education policy in Michigan.
In the second paragraph, the MLive article states:
“In addition to DeVos’ leadership roles for several education policy organizations, she and her family have used their money and influence as a means to shape major education policy initiatives in Michigan.”
The article never mentions what leadership roles Betsy DeVos plays in…
View original post 892 more words
There are so many common sense thoughts returning to the fore and so much garbage political correctness BS going where it belongs. I have not been this HAPPY since…………..wait for it………….Bush. Egads!
In less than 24 hours since Donald Trump has been named the President-elect of the greatest nation on this earth, it’s become apparent he’s being given far more credit than he’s due. There’s anguished cries of, ‘How will my children grow up knowing not to discriminate?’ or, ‘How can I look my daughter in the eye and tell her she has purpose?’ Really? Really, America? You have given Donald Trump, a mere mortal man, far more credit than he deserves, especially considering the man hasn’t even taken office yet. Trump does not have the power to mold our families, that is our flat-out our responsibility.
Your children will learn to love or hate, be respectful or disrespectful, wise or foolish, not by the character of the family in the White House, but by the family in their house. May I submit to you that your sons and daughters will be…
View original post 375 more words