Капелани будуть і в Національній поліції – Аваков
By Gromada | 17/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Суспільство
A senior White House budget official arrived on Capitol Hill Saturday to testify behind closed doors before congressional investigators who are conducting an impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump.Mark Sandy, a longtime career official with the Office of Management and Budget, is the first agency employee to be deposed in the inquiry after three employees appointed by Trump defied congressional subpoenas to testify. It remains unclear if a subpoena had been issued to Sandy.Sandy could provide valuable information about the U.S. delay of nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine last summer, allegedly in exchange for the newly-elected Ukrainian president to launch investigations into 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son at Trump’s request. Investigators are also exploring debunked claims promoted by Trump and allies that Ukraine, and not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.Sandy was among the career employees who questioned the holdup, according to people with knowledge of the matter.His signature is on at least one document that prevented the provision of the aid to Ukraine, according to copies of documents investigators discussed during an earlier deposition. A transcript of the discussion has been publicly disclosed.Sandy appears before the House foreign affairs, intelligence, and oversight and reform committees.FILE – Members of Congress head to a resticted area for a closed-door deposition held as part of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, Oct. 23, 2019.In a statement, the three Democratic-led committees said they are investigating “the extent to which President Trump jeopardized national security by pressing Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election and by withholding security assistance provided by Congress to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression, as well as any efforts to cover up these matters.”Sandy’s deposition comes one day after the ousted former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, testified at the congressional impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump that she was “shocked and devastated” over remarks Trump made about her during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.“I didn’t know what to think, but I was very concerned,” she told the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. “It felt like a threat.”Her testimony was consistent with her closed-door testimony last month when she said she felt “threatened” and worried about her safety after Trump said “she’s going to go through some things.”A career diplomat, Yovanovitch was unceremoniously recalled to Washington after Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and his allies waged what her colleagues and Democrats have described as a smear campaign against her. Two Giuliani associates recently arrested for campaign finance violations are accused of lobbying former Republican House member Pete Sessions of Texas for her ouster.Yovanovitch was mentioned in Trump’s July 25 call with Zelenskiy that triggered the impeachment probe after a whistleblower filed a complaint. According to the White House summary of the call, Trump said Yovanovitch was “bad news.”Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 15, 2019.An unusual exchange occurred during the hearing that began when Trump took to Twitter to again criticize Yovanovitch. He tweeted, “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.”Democratic committee chairman Adam Schiff interrupted the proceedings to read the tweet and asked her to respond. Yovanovitch paused before saying, “It’s very intimidating” and added: “I can’t speak to what the president is trying to do, but the effect is to be intimidating.”Schiff responded that, “Some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”Trump’s Twitter attack drew the ire of Congresswoman Liz Cheney, the third highest-ranking Republican in the House.She said Trump “was wrong” and that Yovanovitch “clearly is somebody who’s been a public servant to the United States for decades, and I don’t think the president should have done that.”The White House later issued a statement denying accusations of intimidation.“The tweet was not witness intimidation, it was simply the President’s opinion, which he is entitled to,” the statement said. “This is not a trial, it is a partisan political process—or to put it more accurately, a totally illegitimate, charade stacked against the President. There is less due process in this hearing than any such event in the history of our country. It’s a true disgrace.”Yovanovitch also told lawmakers that she was the target of a “campaign of disinformation” during which “unofficial back channels” were used to oust her.Yovanovitch said repeated attacks from “corrupt interests” have created a “crisis in the State Department,” which she said “is being hallowed out within a competitive and complex time on the world stage.”A transcript of a phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is shown during former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony on Capitol Hill, Nov. 15, 2019.The veteran diplomat said that senior officials at the State Department, right up to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, failed to defend her from attacks from Trump and his allies, including Guiliani.Yovanovitch, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from July 2016 to May 2019, also testified last month that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland had recommended she praise Trump on Twitter if she wanted to save her job.During opening remarks, Schiff said Yovanovitch was “smeared and cast aside” by Trump because she was viewed as an obstacle to Trump’s political and personal agenda.Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, described the hearings as nothing more than “spectacles” for Democrats to “advance their operation to topple a duly elected president.”Republicans, led by Nunes and their lead counsel, Steve Castor, tried to portray Yovanovitch as immaterial to the impeachment inquiry.Nunes suggested that Yovanovitch’s complaints are a personnel matter that is “more appropriate for the Subcommittee on Human Resources on Foreign Affairs” and declared she is “not a material fact witness.”Castor peppered Yovanovitch with questions aimed at proving her irrelevance, including whether she was involved in preparations for the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy or plans for a White House meeting between the two leaders. She answered in the negative to all the questions.Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, left, talks to Steve Castor, Republican staff attorney, during testimony from former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 15, 2019.Nunes also read a rough transcript of an April call Trump had with newly elected Zelenskiy that shows Zelenskiy was eager to have Trump attend his inauguration in Ukraine. The White House released the transcript just minutes after the hearing began, apparently an attempt to dispel any notions of wrongdoing by the president.“I know how busy you are, but if it’s possible for you to come to the inauguration ceremony, that would be a great, great thing for you to do to be with us on that day.”Trump vowed to have a “great representative” attend the event if he was unable to.The U.S. delegation to inauguration was led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry after Vice President Mike Pence canceled the trip.Yovanovitch’s removal sent shockwaves through the foreign service, with more than 50 former female U.S. ambassadors writing a letter to Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to protect foreign service officers from political retaliation.William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, a senior State Department official in charge of U.S. policy toward Ukraine, testified on Wednesday during the first day of the historic televised hearings that could lead to a House vote on articles of impeachment before the end of the year.George Kent, senior State Department official, left, and Ambassador William Taylor, charge d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, are sworn in at at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 13, 2019.All three diplomats have previously testified behind closed doors about Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter, and to probe a discredited conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 president election.Democrats say the open hearings will allow the public to assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Republicans hope to discredit the impeachment proceedings and poke holes in the witnesses’ testimony.Also Friday, David Holmes, a staffer at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, appeared before House investigators for closed-door testimony. Holmes testified he overheard Trump ask Sondland about the status of “investigations” during a phone call after Trump’s July 25 conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart.Sondland later explained the probes pertained to Biden, a former U.S. vice president, and his son, Hunter, according to Holmes. No wrongdoing by either Biden has been substantiated.Holmes’ testimony was one of the first direct accounts of Trump pursuing investigations of a political rival.Democrats launched the impeachment inquiry to determine if Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine unless President Zelenskiy publicly committed himself to investigating 2020 Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden for corruption.FILE – U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on the sidelines of the 74th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Sept. 25, 2019.Trump also has repeated an unfounded claim that Ukraine, and not Russia, meddled in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Democrats and their candidate, Hillary Clinton.Republicans have contended that Trump did not improperly pressure Ukraine to investigate political rivals for political advantage.Under pressure from Trump, Republican lawmakers have waged a vigorous defense of the president’s actions in dealing with Ukraine over a several-month period, and they have asserted that the Democrats’ case for impeachment against Trump is non-existent.Next week, the House panel will hold public hearings again. The schedule for testimony includes:
Tuesday: Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence; Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, Ambassador Kurt Volker, former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine; and Tim Morrison, a White House aide with the National Security Council focusing on Europe and Russia policy.
Wednesday: Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union; Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs; and David Hale, under secretary of state for political affairs.
Thursday: Fiona Hill, former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia.
By Polityk | 17/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Політика
As House Democrats bring witnesses to testify in the public impeachment inquiry, President Donald Trump continues to attack the witnesses and opposition Democrats. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara takes a look at the president’s communications strategy and at his supporters and opponents in Congress.
By Polityk | 16/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Політика
The National Rifle Association’s embattled top executive earned about $2 million last year at a time when the gun rights lobby is beating back challenges from regulators, longtime members and gun control groups, according to tax filings cited in media reports.The tax filings come as the NRA faces investigations in New York and Washington that threaten its nonprofit status. Nonprofits file tax documents every year, and they are a year behind, capturing the NRA’s finances for 2018 — the year before internal strife spilled into public view.The tax filings were not yet publicly available, but news reports in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post cited the documents. The NRA refused to make them available to The Associated Press, saying its longtime policy is only to provide paper copies by mail.According to the filings, known as 990s, longtime NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s total compensation rose to more than $2 million. His base salary went from $1.17 million to $1.27 million, he received a bonus of about $455,000, and he got about $366,000 from a deferred compensation plan, according to the documents cited in media reports.Critics outragedNRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said in a statement that compensation for LaPierre and other senior officials followed a “detailed analysis conducted by an independent compensation committee. Mr. LaPierre’s compensation includes benefits made payable under his retirement plan.”The news reports drew immediate rebukes from critics.“This is further evidence that, at this point, LaPierre is more of a burden than an asset to American gun owners,” said Rob Pincus, a longtime NRA member and firearms instructor who is a member of Save the Second, a group calling for LaPierre’s resignation and seeking changes to the NRA.Long viewed as the most powerful gun lobby in the world, the NRA has been facing internal and external pressures over its operations and spending habits. Authorities have launched investigations, and there has been a revolt by members who are questioning the NRA’s finances and leadership.There are allegations that LaPierre expensed hundreds of thousands of dollars in luxury clothing he purchased in Beverly Hills and that the NRA has made tens of thousands of dollars in payments to a handful of influential board members.FILE – Images of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, Legislative Director Chris Cox and President Oliver North displayed during the National Rifle Association annual meeting at the Indiana Convention center in Indianapolis, Indiana, April 27, 2019.The NRA’s president, Oliver North, stepped down amid a rancorous annual meeting last spring. And Chris Cox, its top lobbyist who is widely viewed as a successor to LaPierre, resigned after being accused of being in cahoots with North in a failed attempt to oust LaPierre as CEO.The disputes even led to a split between the NRA and its longtime marketing firm, Oklahoma-based Ackerman McQueen, and each sued the other.The upheaval has left some wondering what role the NRA can play in the 2020 presidential election, especially after it was a significant source of money and support for President Donald Trump.Less debtThe latest tax filing shows that the NRA ended 2018 with a $2.7 million shortfall. That’s still a vast improvement from what it reported in 2017, when it was $17.8 million in the red, or in 2016, when it posted a shortfall of $45.8 million.“The spending of the NRA’s political arm fluctuates based on the needs of each political cycle,” Arulanandam said. “We remain a driving influence in key races where our Second Amendment freedoms are under attack, and we remain poised to further activate our funding and grassroots advocacy in support of the 2020 election.”Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun control advocacy group, said the tax filings show the NRA’s true motivations.“This eye-popping raise and other inside dealing is yet more evidence that the NRA is abandoning its members to focus on what is apparently its chief mission: enriching executives. Given the multiple ongoing investigations, I’d bet that come 2020, the NRA won’t be writing political checks, they’ll be answering subpoenas.”However, NRA President Carolyn Meadows said LaPierre’s compensation is justified, reflecting “his enormous contributions to our members and the freedoms for which they fight. His contributions to the NRA have been transformative.”
By Polityk | 16/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Політика
Twitter’s new ban on political ads will cover appeals for votes, solicitations for campaign contributions and any political content. But the company quickly acknowledged Friday that it expects to make mistakes as individuals and groups look for loopholes. Twitter is defining political content to include any ad that references a candidate, political party, government official, ballot measure, or legislative or judicial outcome. The ban also applies to all ads — even non-political ones — from candidates, political parties, and elected or appointed government officials. However, Twitter is allowing ads related to social causes such as climate change, gun control and abortion. People and groups running such ads won’t be able to target those ads down to a user’s ZIP code or use political categories such as
conservative'' orliberal.” Rather, targeting must be kept broad, based on a user’s state or province, for instance. News organizations will be exempt so they can promote stories that cover political issues. While Twitter has issued guidelines for what counts as a news organization — single-issue advocacy outlets don’t qualify, for instance — it’s unclear if this will be enough prevent partisan websites from promoting political content. FILE – Attendees walk past a Facebook logo during Facebook Inc.’s F8 developers conference in San Jose, Calif.Twitter announced its worldwide ban on political ads October 30, but didn’t release details until Friday. The policy, which goes into effect next Friday, is in stark contrast to Facebook’s approach of allowing political ads, even if they contain false information. Facebook has said it wants to provide politicians with a
level playing field for communication and not intervene when they speak, regardless of what they’re saying. Response to Twitter’s ban has been strong and mixed, with critics questioning the company’s ability to enforce the new policy given its poor history in banning hate speech and abuse from its service. The company acknowledges it will make mistakes but says it’s better to start addressing the issue now rather than wait until all the kinks are worked out. Aside from concerns about foreign interference in elections, the political advertising issue rose to the forefront in recent months as Twitter, along with Facebook and Google, refused to remove a misleading video ad from President Donald Trump’s campaign that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. In response, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, another presidential hopeful, ran her own ad on Facebook taking aim at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The ad claimed — admittedly falsely to make its point — that Zuckerberg had endorsed Trump for re-election. Over the past several weeks, Facebook has been pressed to change its policy. But it was Twitter instead that jumped in with its bombshell ban. Drew Margolin, a Cornell University communications professor who studies social networks, said Twitter’s broad ban is a reflection that
vetting is not realistic and is potentially unfair.'' He said a TV network might be in a position to vet all political ads, but Twitter and Facebook cannot easily do so. While their reliance on automated systems makes online ads easier and cheaper to run, Margolin said, it also makes them anattractive target” for spreading misinformation. Political advertising makes up a small sliver of Twitter’s overall revenue. The company does not break out specific figures each quarter but said political ad spending for the 2018 midterm election was less than $3 million. It reported $824 million in third-quarter revenue. Because of this, the ban is unlikely to have a big effect on overall political advertising, where television still accounts for most of the money spent. In digital ads, Google and Facebook dominate. FILE – A woman walks past the logo for Google at the China International Import Expo in Shanghai, Nov. 5, 2018.Unlike Facebook, which has weathered most of the criticism, Google has been relatively quiet on its political ads policy. It has taken a stance similar to that of Facebook and does not review whether political ads tell the truth. Twitter, Facebook and Google already take steps to prevent political manipulation by verifying the identities of some political advertisers — measures prompted by the furor over Moscow’s interference. But the verifying systems, which rely on both humans and automated systems, have not been perfect.
By Polityk | 16/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Політика
White House hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Friday outlined how she would implement Medicare for All during her first term, including new legislation in her first 100 days that would give all Americans the option to enroll in the government health insurance plan.Warren’s timeline envisions a progression that would initially retain many aspects of the current system, including employer-based private insurance, while transitioning Americans to the government’s Medicare health insurance plan that currently covers individuals 65 and older.The proposal could help blunt criticism, including from a number of the Massachusetts U.S. senator’s Democratic presidential rivals, that her Medicare for All plan is too disruptive.”By the end of my first 100 days, we will have opened the door for tens of millions of Americans to get high-quality Medicare for All coverage at little or no cost. But I won’t stop there,” Warren wrote on the website Medium.FILE – Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Oct. 23, 2019.In the crowded field vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination to take on President Donald Trump in November 2020, Warren and progressive rival U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders argue the best route to cover millions of uninsured Americans and lower costs is to replace private insurance with Medicare for All.Moderate candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, support expanding the Affordable Care Act, while retaining forms of private insurance.In an acknowledgement of the steep road her proposal would face in Congress if she were elected, Warren said she would use a Senate procedural tactic to pass the first phase, requiring a simple 51-vote majority instead of the usual 60 votes.Such a move would likely hinge on Democrats regaining control of the Senate, where Republicans currently hold 53 seats in the 100-seat chamber. Democrats control the U.S. House of Representatives, although all 435 seats will also be on ballots in 2020.FILE – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, responds to a question during a forum in Las Vegas, Nevada, Oct. 2, 2019.Warren’s first phase would lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, offer other Americans the choice to buy into the government program, and provide coverage for children and low-income families.By the third year, Warren said, she would pass Medicare for All legislation that would allow only “supplemental private insurance that doesn’t duplicate the benefits of Medicare for All.”Biden’s campaign said it “doesn’t change the reality that Medicare for All will deny Americans the right to choose their insurance.”Buttigieg’s campaign said it would “eradicate choice.”Warren’s transition plan comes two weeks after she released a detailed proposal to pay for a Medicare for All system her campaign estimates would cost $20.5 trillion in additional government spending over a decade.
By Polityk | 16/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Політика
Як відомо, 15 жовтня 2019 року український ПриватБанк виграв апеляцію в суді Лондона в суперечці з екс-власниками банку ігорем коломойським і геннадієм боголюбовим. Апеляційний суд виніс рішення, яким підтвердив, що англійський суд має! юрисдикцію розглядати позов Приватбанку про шахрайство коломойського і боголюбова, скоєне за попередньою змовою осіб.
Апеляційний суд в повному обсязі задовольнив апеляційну скаргу ПриватБанку з усіх питань. Судді дійшли висновку, що український Приватбанк має достатньо підстав для повного відшкодування 3 млрд дол США із врахуванням відсотків, і що судовий наказ про всесвітній арешт активів коломойського і боголюбова, який був отриманий в грудні 2017 року, залишається в силі. Крім того, Апеляційний суд Лондона відмовив коломойському і боголюбову у дозволі на оскарження цього рішення.
Розуміючи, що пахне смаженим, а витрати на дорогущих адвокатів вимірюються шестизначними цифрами, ізраїльський шахрай коломойський дає інтерв’ю The New York Times, в якому яскраво демонструє своє зневажливо-презирлеве відношення до українців. А також прояснює своє безрадісне майбутнє.
Він признається, що зараз американці і британці у його життєвій схемі “принижуйся і принижуй”, категорично відмовились бути для нього господарем. Бо для них мати справу із міжнародним злодієм, шахраєм і вбивцею є категорично неприйнятним. А тому у нього залишається єдиний шлях – смоктати у дідугана путіна. Хоча коломойський розуміє, що цей шлях не ідеальний і він може призвести до тюрми, чи могили. Але шанс, як у гобліна-кримського у нього є і бєня прагне ним скористатися.
Та кривавий карлик поставив перед коломойським ряд завдань та умов, які можливо вбережуть останнього від наглої смерті і принесуть значний гешефт.
1.Змусити нинішнє клоунське українське керівництво відмовитися від співпраці з Міжнародним валютним фондом.
2.Навколішки просити кредити у кривавого кацапського карлика.
3.Терміново забути усіх загиблих і поранених українських Героїв та зробити вигляд, що їх подвиги були марними.
4.Швиденько попроситися у нову московську колонію і радіти, коли українські хлопці будуть гинути за рассею по всьому світу.
5.Всіляко залякувати українців та їх нинішніх клоунів-керівників, що якщо вони не погодяться, то кацапські танки скоро стоятимуть біля Кракова та Варшави. А НАТО, в цей час, забруднить свої штани й купить «памперси», – додав коломойський. Бо він добре пам’ятає, як у нього самого завжди регулярно виникали такі казуси у скрутні моменти життя.
6.Якщо ж наведені кроки все ж не приведуть українців у кацапське ярмо, то підлесливим голоском потрібно пояснити їм, що насправді Сполучені Штати просто використовують Україну, щоб ослабити свого геополітичного суперника – мокшандію. А саме вона і тільки вона є справжнім другом і братом українців.
Сподіваючись на шалені гроші від дідугана путіна, коломойський сьогодні наймає одного з найдорожчих американських адвокатів Марка Касовіца (Marc Elliot Kasowitz). Останній відомий тим, що на протязі декількох років працював із Дональдом Трампом. Бєня сподівається, що з його допомогою вдасться врятувати бізнес і нерухомість у США, які були куплені на вкрадені в українців гроші.
Щиро бажаємо ізраїльському шахраю коломойському, щоб результат в суді штату Делавер був аналогічний рішенню Апеляційного суду Лондона плюс багатомільйонні втрати на адвокатів.
By Vyborec | 16/11/2019 | Повідомлення
Український режисер і письменник, колишній політв’язень Олег Сенцов закликає звільнити журналіста Станіслава Асєєва, якого утримує в заручниках угруповання «ДНР».
Як повідомляє директор української служби Радіо Свобода Мар’яна Драч, Сенцов взяв участь у заході Пен-клубу в Лондоні, що розпочався із флемобу на підтримку журналіста.
Правозахисна акція #FreeAseyev відбувалася 15 листопада також у Києві у артпросторі IZONE, відомо також, що до неї долучились також, зокрема, у Вашингтоні та Нью-Йорку.
З кінця 80-х років минулого століття за ініціативи Міжнародного ПЕН 15 листопада відзначають День ув’язненого письменника або День порожніх стільців (Empty Chair Day). Порожні стільці на правозахисних акціях цього дня символізують авторів, які не можуть бути з нами через ув’язнення, переслідування чи зникнення. Такі події покликані привернути увагу до справ ув’язнених письменників і журналістів, а також закликати їхніх колег та представників місцевої і міжнародної влади використовувати кожну нагоду для їхнього звільнення.
За даними Центру громадянських свобод, у Росії та окупованому Криму лишилося за ґратами щонайменше 86 людей. Також, згідно з інформацією Служби безпеки України, бойовики на Донбасі утримують у полоні 227 українців. Під час акції #FreeAseyev кожен охочий зможе написати і передати листи для українських заручників Кремля.
By Gromada | 16/11/2019 | Повідомлення, Суспільство