monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Ultimately, the House Intelligence Committee conducting the probe will draft and submit a report to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Judiciary Committee will then decide if the evidence warrants a House vote on impeachment. If there is a successful vote to impeach Trump next month, the case could proceed to a trial in the Senate as early as January.

The committee has not publicly noticed any depositions or hearings for next week, though they could in theory continue if Democrats decide they need more to bolster their case. “I think the assessment has to be made about what did we learn, what have we gotten, what do we need to know?” says Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, one of the committees leading the inquiry.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Friday he is "embarrassed" for his former Senate colleague Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., over his request for documents pertaining to Hunter Biden and Ukraine.

But Biden's further remarks about Graham drew a response on Twitter from Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who wrote that Biden's comments amounted to "a threat to a US Senator," and reminded the former federal prosecutor of "my old mafia cases."

During an interview with CNN's Don Lemon, Biden also criticized President Trump, claiming Graham cannot break with the president for fear of losing his Senate seat in 2020.

GRAHAM DEMANDS DOCUMENTS ON UKRAINE, BIDENS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FROM 2016

Lemon told Biden that Graham once called him the "nicest person" and recalled how the two worked together for many years.

After a pause, Biden turned to Lemon and said, "They're asking Lindsey Graham. They have him under their thumb right now. They know he knows if he comes out against Trump he’s got a real tough road for reelection."

Former CIA Director: We worried arming Ukraine would hand technology to Russian spies

Under Obama the military opposed giving Javelin missiles to Ukraine because of fear Russia would get access to sensitive tech, said ex-CIA chief Brennan.

Nov. 22, 2019, 4:26 PM CST
By Ken Dilanian

WASHINGTON — Republicans made a point of emphasizing during the impeachment hearings that President Donald Trump provided sophisticated weapons to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression, in contrast to the Obama administration, which declined to do so.

President Obama's decision was portrayed as an example of his timidity in foreign policy. But the story is more complicated than that, said former CIA Director John Brennan.

In particular, said Brennan, now an NBC News analyst, the military was opposed to providing Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainians during the Obama administration "because of fear that the Russians would get access to Javelin's sensitive technology," he said.

"The Russians had deep penetrations of Ukrainian intelligence, security, and military forces in the aftermath" of that country's 2014 revolution that overthrew a pro-Russian government he said, "and it took time to rid those forces of Russian moles, agents, and spies. That was the purpose of my visit to Kiev less than eight weeks after the Revolution of Dignity."

A robust debate ensued within the Obama administration about the provision of lethal aid, he said, and there were some who argued it would escalate the situation and provoke Russia. That's how Russian expert Fiona Hill described the Obama administration's thinking in her testimony.

"Some [officials] argued strenuously to provide lethal assistance, but the ultimate decision made by [Obama] was to provide only non-lethal military and economic assistance," Brennan said. "It was a tough decision. The Javelin issue is being misrepresented as a simple decision devoid of other considerations, and that was not the case."

Brennan points out that the Javelins are currently "under lock and key in Ukrainian rear areas, not on the front lines. Their presence in Ukraine, however, does send a strong deterrent signal to Moscow, which is good."

He added, "I believe it is appropriate that Ukrainian forces have Javelins now because of the work that has been done over the past five years to reduce Russian presence and influence, but giving Javelins to the Ukrainians earlier would have risked compromising a very important and sensitive weapon system that could have come back to haunt U.S. forces on the battlefield."

Ken Dilanian
Ken Dilanian is a correspondent covering intelligence and national security for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

by Taboola
Sponsored Stories
ULTRA FAST WIFI BOOSTER
New Wifi Booster Everybody in United States is Talking About
TACT WATCH"Some [officials] argued strenuously to provide lethal assistance, but the ultimate decision made by [Obama] was to provide only non-lethal military and economic assistance," Brennan said. "It was a tough decision. The Javelin issue is being misrepresented as a simple decision devoid of other considerations, and that was not the case."

Brennan points out that the Javelins are currently "under lock and key in Ukrainian rear areas, not on the front lines. Their presence in Ukraine, however, does send a strong deterrent signal to Moscow, which is good."

He added, "I believe it is appropriate that Ukrainian forces have Javelins now because of the work that has been done over the past five years to reduce Russian presence and influence, but giving Javelins to the Ukrainians earlier would have risked compromising a very important and sensitive weapon system that could have come back to haunt U.S. forces on the battlefield."

Ken Dilanian
Ken Dilanian is a correspondent covering intelligence and national security for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya. The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Not only did Qaddafi endanger the momentum of the nascent Arab Spring, which had recently swept away authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, but he also was poised to commit a bloodbath in the Libyan city where the uprising had started, said the president. “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” Obama declared. Two days after the UN authorization, the United States and other NATO countries established a no-fly zone throughout Libya and started bombing Qaddafi’s forces. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead.

In the immediate wake of the military victory, U.S. officials were triumphant. Writing in these pages in 2012, Ivo Daalder, then the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, then supreme allied commander of Europe, declared, “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.” In the Rose Garden after Qaddafi’s death, Obama himself crowed, “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives.” Indeed, the United States seemed to have scored a hat trick: nurturing the Arab Spring, averting a Rwanda-like genocide, and eliminating Libya as a potential source of terrorism.

That verdict, however, turns out to have been premature. In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state.

Chomsky notes:

Quote:

The consequences are hard to predict. If the donor class succeeds in nominating a centrist candidate, progressive activist forces might be disillusioned and reluctant to do the work on the ground that will be needed to prevent the tragedy — repeat, tragedy — of four more years of Trumpism. If a progressive candidate does gain the nomination, centrist power and wealth may back away, again opening the path to tragedy. It will be a fateful year. It will be even more important than usual to remain level-headed and to think through with care the consequences of action, and inaction.

British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen has said if Facebook had existed in the 1930s it would have allowed Hitler a platform for his anti-Semitic beliefs.

The Ali G star singled out the social media company in a speech in New York.

He also criticised Google, Twitter and YouTube for pushing "absurdities to billions of people".

Social media giants and internet companies are under growing pressure to curb the spread of misinformation around political campaigns.

Twitter announced in late October that it would ban all political advertising globally from 22 November.

Earlier this week Google said it would not allow political advertisers to target voters using "microtargeting" based on browsing data or other factors.

Analysts say Facebook has come under increasing pressure to follow suit.

The company said in a statement that Baron Cohen had misrepresented its policies and that hate speech was banned on its platforms.

"We ban people who advocate for violence and we remove anyone who praises or supports it. Nobody - including politicians - can advocate or advertise hate, violence or mass murder on Facebook," it added.

Addressing the Anti-Defamation League's Never is Now summit, Baron Cohen took aim at Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg who in October defended his company's position not to ban political adverts that contain falsehoods.

"If you pay them, Facebook will run any 'political' ad you want, even if it's a lie. And they'll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect," he said.

"Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his 'solution' to the 'Jewish problem'."

Baron Cohen said it was time "for a fundamental rethink of social media and how it spreads hate, conspiracies and lies". He also questioned Mr Zuckerberg's characterisation of Facebook as a bastion of "free expression".

"I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims," he added.

Earlier this month, an international group of lawmakers called for targeted political adverts on social media to be suspended until they are properly regulated.

The International Committee on Disinformation and Fake News was told that the business model adopted by social networks made "manipulation profitable".

A BBC investigation into political ads for next month's UK election suggested they were being targeted towards key constituencies and certain age groups.

Chomsky notes:
The consequences are hard to predict. If the donor class succeeds in nominating a centrist candidate, progressive activist forces might be disillusioned and reluctant to do the work on the ground that will be needed to prevent the tragedy — repeat, tragedy — of four more years of Trumpism. If a progressive candidate does gain the nomination, centrist power and wealth may back away, again opening the path to tragedy. It will be a fateful year. It will be even more important than usual to remain level-headed and to think through with care the consequences of action, and inaction.

Lash wrote:
It means that progressives are the only ones who take climate change seriously and Centrists are a barrier to our country doing something about it.

I wish you would explain how you go from the quoted paragraph to your statement. There is a distance between the two which maybe we are too dense to see the connection and you as a teacher could teach it to us.

The donor class is clearly perturbed by Warren’s critique of wealth and corporate power, and even more so by Sanders, who committed a major crime: inspiring a popular movement that doesn’t just show up every four years to push a button and then leave matters to their betters, but continues its activism and the engagement in public affairs that is none of their business, according to long-standing democratic theory. The intense hatred of [Labour Party leader Jeremy] Corbyn in England, I think, has a similar basis. These have been concerns of the self-described “men of best quality” since the first modern democratic revolution in 17th-century England, and they haven’t abated.

The consequences are hard to predict. If the donor class succeeds in nominating a centrist candidate, progressive activist forces might be disillusioned and reluctant to do the work on the ground that will be needed to prevent the tragedy — repeat, tragedy — of four more years of Trumpism. If a progressive candidate does gain the nomination, centrist power and wealth may back away, again opening the path to tragedy. It will be a fateful year. It will be even more important than usual to remain level-headed and to think through with care the consequences of action, and inaction.

1. If the donor class succeeds in nominating a centrist candidate, progressive activist forces might be disillusioned and reluctant to do the work on the ground that will be needed to prevent the tragedy — repeat, tragedy — of four more years of Trumpism.


2. If a progressive candidate does gain the nomination, centrist power and wealth may back away, again opening the path to tragedy.