***Official Political Discussion Thread***

elpablo21 said:

Click to expand...

elpablo21 said:

Click to expand...

elpablo21 said:

Click to expand...

elpablo21 said:

Click to expand...

itsaboutthattime said:

Click to expand...

whywesteppin said:

let us all take a moment to thank dwalk, aepps, and ninja for being the voice of reason in here over this past year.

we were stupid and foolish. we really bought into this whole Russia witch hunt libbie propaganda, hook line and sinker.

they say a sucker is born every minute but seems like a lot of us were born at the same time RustyShackleford @rexanglorum whywesteppin EddieDoyers etc etc

we should've listened to you when you told us that this whole thing was a obummer/Hillary/rino plot to get revenge at the cost of the country because we just couldn't get over the historic election win by Mister President Donald Trump.

I'm sorry we ever doubted your political and legal expertise.

the country is running like a well-oiled machine, the world respects us once again, Trump's approval rating has skyrocketed and Republicans will get super-majorities in both chambers in 2018, we are tired of winning, Obamacare is gone, my new health plan is dirt cheap, Hillary is the only politician in legal trouble, and most important of all the coal industry is booming.

Click to expand...

11:35 a.m.

The Associated Press has confirmed the identities of two foreign nationals at the center of contacts between Russia and a former adviser to President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Emails obtained by the AP show that George Papadopoulos’ conversations, cited in court papers, were with Joseph Mifsud and Ivan Timofeev.

Mifsud is a professor and honorary director of the London Academy of Diplomacy. Ivan Timofeev is director of programs at the Russian International Affairs Council in Moscow.

Court papers filed by special counsel Robert Mueller did not name the men. They say a professor told Papadopoulos in April 2016 that the Russians had “dirt” on Democrat Hillary Clinton in the form of emails. They also say Papadopoulos had discussions with the other man, described as having connections to the Russian foreign ministry.

Click to expand...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says he sees nothing wrong with a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump reaching out to a Kremlin-linked think tank.

Court papers unsealed on Monday revealed that George Papadopoulos who worked on the Trump campaign had reached out to a Russian he believed to have links to the Russian foreign ministry to arrange a meeting between the Trump team and Russian officials.

The Russian International Relations Council has confirmed contact with Papadopoulos, but said a meeting never took place. The council insisted that it was an independent advisory body and that it hosts many politicians at various public meetings.

Asked about the man mentioned in the indictment, Lavrov told reporters on Tuesday that he “does not see anything illegal” in the interaction.

Click to expand...

Belgium said:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ed-campaign-approved-meeting-between-campaign
Ex-Trump staffer claimed campaign approved meeting with Russian officials: report

Former Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos claimed in an email to a Russian contact that top campaign officials had approved a meeting between campaign officials and representatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday.

Papadopoulos sent an email to the Russian contact a week before the Republican National Convention in the summer of 2016, saying a meeting between campaign staffers and Russian officials “has been approved by our side," according to Bloomberg.



He reportedly suggested in the email that the meeting take place in August or September in the United Kingdom and that “my national chairman and maybe one other foreign policy adviser” attend, along with members of Putin's office and Russia's foreign ministry.

The email was not included in the court documents revealing that Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contact with Russian officials, but was in an FBI affidavit about criminal charges against the former staffer, according to Bloomberg.

A supervisor in the Trump campaign had told Papadoppoulos to make a trip to Russia "if it is feasible" to take a meeting with Russian officials, according to court documents. Though the meeting in question never actually took place.

The Washington Post late Monday identified the campaign official who encouraged him to set up the meeting as Sam Clovis, Trump's nominee for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Clovis’s lawyer Victoria Toensing told the Post that Clovis “always vigorously opposed any Russian trip for Donald Trump and/or the campaign” and described Clovis’s statements to Papadopoulos as him “being polite.”




https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-clovis-spoke-mueller-team-grand-jury-n816106
Top Trump Campaign Aide Clovis Spoke to Mueller Team, Grand Jury

Click to expand...

Belgium said:

Paging aepps20

Click to expand...

aepps20 said:

Excellent post as usual. Don is really under selling how much coal is BACK but LIBBIE CONJECTURE AND INNUENDO won't let him speak.

Click to expand...

ninjahood said:

i mean its not rocket science b. look at this thread from a macro level...none of ya Trump haters have forced me to abandon support for da donald... multiple that by millions of people who are berated daily by da media smears against Trump and continue to support him, even being accused to "bigotry" and "racism" for there effort.

dems have to beat Trump with ideas, not sit back and let da media try to beat em for you... hasn't worked yet, word to access Hollywood.

Click to expand...

Belgium said:

I'm not even sure how long Aepps has been in character anymore
I remember he was even staying true to the role in the Game Of Thrones thread

Click to expand...

boris said:

lol ok. You're giving Trump supporters too much credit here.

Click to expand...

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency upended the agency’s key advisory groups on Tuesday, announcing plans to jettison scientists who have received EPA grants.

The move sets in motion a fundamental shift, one that could change the scientific and technical advice that historically has guided the agency as it crafts environmental regulations. The decision to bar any researcher who receives EPA grant money from serving as an adviser appears to be unprecedented.

“It is very, very important to ensure independence, to ensure that we’re getting advice and counsel independent of the EPA,” Administrator Scott Pruitt told reporters Tuesday.

He estimated that the members of three different committees — the Scientific Advisory Board, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee and the Board of Scientific Counselors — had collectively accepted $77 million in EPA grants over the last three years. He noted that researchers will have the option of ending their grant or continuing to advise EPA, “but they can’t do both.”

EPA will not impose a similar litmus test on scientific advisers who receive grants from outside sources. But Pruitt said they will undergo the same sort of ethics review that is already in place “to ensure that there aren’t issues of potential conflict with areas that they’re working upon.”


The agency made an effort to enlist researchers from a wider range of states to broaden the panels’ outlook, he said. Members will include experts from 40 states and the District of Columbia, he said, reflecting the addition of researchers from Alaska and several states in the middle of the country.

“We want to ensure geographical representation,” he said. “We want to ensure the independence and integrity of the process through the decisions we’re making.”

Pruitt did not announce his selections for new appointees to the Science Advisory Board, but a list obtained by The Washington Post from multiple individuals familiar with the likely appointments includes several categories of experts — voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations. They would replace a number of scientists who currently have agency grants and whose terms are expiring.

Terry F. Yosie, who was the advisory board’s director during the Reagan administration, said the changes “represent a major purge of independent scientists and a decision to sideline the SAB from major EPA decision-making in the future.”

Environmental and scientific groups were quick to condemn the changes and question Pruitt’s motives on Tuesday.

“Pruitt is turning the idea of ‘conflict of interest’ on its head — he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn’t,” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “The consequences of these decisions aren’t just bad for a few scientists. This could mean that there’s no independent voice ensuring that EPA follows the science on everything from drinking water pollution to atmospheric chemical exposure.”

But industry groups and conservative lawmakers, including longtime EPA critic Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who attended the announcement, applauded the action.


“The changes announced today will help ensure EPA’s scientific review panels are well balanced with perspectives from qualified scientists of diverse backgrounds and board members are free of any disqualifying conflicts of interest,” American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley said in a statement.

Pruitt had foreshadowed the sweeping changes in a speech this month at the Heritage Foundation that he planned to rid the agency’s scientific advisory boards of researchers with EPA funding. He argued that the current structure raises questions about their independence, though he did not voice similar objections to industry-funded scientists.

“What’s most important at the agency is to have scientific advisers that are objective, independent-minded, providing transparent recommendations,” Pruitt said at the time. “If we have individuals who are on those boards, sometimes receiving money from the agency . . . that to me causes questions on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way.”

Among the expected appointees are sharp proponents of deregulation who have argued both in academic circles and while serving in government that federal regulators need to raise the bar before imposing new burdens on the private sector.

John D. Graham, who now serves as dean of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, launched a major deregulatory push while head of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under George W. Bush. He repeatedly informed agencies that they had not sufficiently justified the rules they wanted to enact, establishing a process under the Data Quality Act that allowed petitioners to ask agencies to withdraw information that did not meet OMB standards for “quality, objectivity, utility and integrity.”

Anne Smith, who serves as managing director of NERA Economic Consulting and co-heads its environmental practice, belongs to a firm that has done extensive work for groups that fought the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda. In June, President Trump cited a report NERA produced for the American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when announcing his decision to exit the international Paris climate agreement. The report projected that meeting America’s commitment under the accord would mean “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”

That study was based on several assumptions, including the idea that the United States would meet its emissions targets not by maximizing energy efficiency or other low-cost approaches but by forcing the industrial sector to cut emissions by 40 percent between 2005 and 2025. The report did not take into account potential benefits from lowered greenhouse gas emissions or technological advances that could make cutting carbon emissions cheaper.

At least three potential appointees have backgrounds working for large corporations with activities now or potentially regulated by the EPA, including the French oil giant Total, Phillips 66 and Southern Co., one the largest U.S. utilities.

One of them, Larry Monroe, was previously chief environmental officer at Southern, which has millions of customers in the Southeast. Monroe has particular expertise in how the EPA regulated emissions from coal-fired power plants and criticized the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which Pruitt is trying to roll back. Monroe argued that the plan, intended to reduce carbon emissions, was “unworkable and would increase electricity prices to customers while hurting reliability.”

In addition, the group includes those who have, like Pruitt, battled the EPA in the past. One is Michael Honeycutt, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division, who Pruitt announced Tuesday as the new head of the Science Advisory Board. Honeycutt has suggested that the health risks associated with smog are overstated.

The move to prohibit anyone receiving EPA grant money from serving on the board has prompted questions and criticism from independent researchers and from some of the agency’s current advisers, who noted that they follow strict ethics procedures to avoid conflicts of interest.

Robyn Wilson, an Ohio State University professor and an advisory board member who specializes in risk analysis, said in an interview that she received a grant this year to work on a project evaluating the extent to which federal funds spent on restoring the Great Lakes have made an impact. The agency approved a roughly $750,000 grant that will be divided among about 10 researchers at three different institutions; about $150,000 would go to Ohio State.

“You want people there with expertise, who have experience with the issues EPA is dealing with,” Wilson said, adding that with each assignment board members must “go through a pretty elaborate conflict of interest process” to make clear that they don’t have a stake in the outcome.

Angela Nugent, who previously worked for the EPA as the designated federal officer for the board, said that the determination regarding EPA grants would differ from how the agency used to determine when a conflict of interest had occurred.

“It would be a major departure from current policy” to assume that board members have a conflict of interest merely based on their grants, she said.

In the past, Nugent said, the board has required financial disclosures from members in relation to each particular study or project on which they were advising. Determinations of conflict of interest were then made relating to the specifics of the subject matter conflicts, rather than a blanket bar because an individual had an EPA grant.

Current advisory members reached out to Pruitt on Sept. 13, formally asking him to meet with them so they could discuss his agenda and their role in advising the agency.

“Such a meeting would afford you the opportunity to highlight EPA activities and priorities and would allow for a dialogue on how best the SAB can work to ensure the highest quality science supports Agency’s policies and decisions,” wrote board chair Peter Thorne, a professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa. “The SAB stands ready to serve and encourages you to take full advantage of the vital resource we can provide.”

Pruitt never met with the group.

Click to expand...

elpablo21 said:

I knew it!

Click to expand...

biggie62 said:

God damned democrats. Deport them all!

Click to expand...