Yabberz for AndroidDownload

Students Across US Renew Demand For Gun Safety In Second Walkout

8
Posts
130
Points
7
Users

      Today, is the second National School Walkout where thousands of students across the nation are saying "We won't stop" working for gun safety. These students, in the thousands, are taking action against gun violence, and adults are also supporting them.

      Each time zone will see students leaving their class rooms at 10 a.m. where they will be observing moments of silence for those who have already been victims of gun violence, and then many will be going to rallies after the walk out chanting ""Enough is enough. Children are dying. Children are being hurt. We won't stop."

      For the second time in two months, thousands of students from across the country are streaming out of class Friday as part of a National School Walkout to demand action on gun reform -- even as Florida police investigate a fresh shooting that injured a student Friday morning.

      Before Friday's walkouts began, the latest school shooting happened in Ocala, Florida, northwest of Orlando. Police said a student was shot in the ankle at Ocala's Forest High School, and a suspect is in custody

      Friday's walkouts, while drawing momentum from February's mass shooting at South Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, also marks the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in which two gunmen killed 12 students and a teacher.

      I think the youth are the movement that is going to change and better our country."

      Read he entire report: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/us/national-school-walkout/index.html

      more less
      Pundit Post

      Democratic Party Files Lawsuit Alleging Russia And The Trump Campaign

      271
      Posts
      3482
      Points
      30
      Users


          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/ar-AAw6YTh?li=BBnb7Kz

          President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin talk at a November 2017 summit in Danang, Vietnam.

          The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Friday against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump.

          The complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there.

          “During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.

          This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency,” he said.

          The case asserts that the Russian hacking campaign — combined with Trump associates’ contacts with Russia and the campaign’s public cheerleading of the hacks — amounted to an illegal conspiracy to interfere in the election that caused serious damage to the Democratic Party.

          Senate investigators and prosecutors for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III are still investigating whether Trump associates coordinated with the Russian efforts. Last month, House Intelligence Committee Republicans said they found no evidence that President Trump and his affiliates colluded with Russian officials to sway the election or that the Kremlin sought to help him — a conclusion rejected by the panel’s Democrats.

          The president has repeatedly rejected any collusion or improper activity by his campaign. This week, he referred again in a tweet to the “phony Russia investigation where, by the way, there was NO COLLUSION (except by the Dems).”

          Suing a foreign country may present legal challenges for the Democrats, in part because other nations have immunity from most U.S. lawsuits. The DNC’s complaint argues Russia is not entitled to the protection because the hack constituted a trespass on the party’s private property.

          The lawsuit echoes a similar legal tactic that the Democratic Party used during the Watergate scandal. In 1972, the DNC filed suit against former president Richard Nixon’s reelection committee seeking $1 million in damages for the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building.

          The suit was denounced at the time by Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, who called it a case of “sheer demagoguery” by the DNC. But the civil action brought by former DNC chair Lawrence F. O’Brien was ultimately successful, yielding a $750,000 settlement from the Nixon campaign that was reached on the day in 1974 that Nixon left office.

          The suit filed Friday seeks millions of dollars in compensation to offset damage it claims the party suffered from the hacks. The DNC argues that the cyberattack undermined its ability to communicate with voters, collect donations and operate effectively as its employees faced personal harassment and, in some cases, death threats.

          The suit also seeks an acknowledgment from the defendants that they conspired to infiltrate the Democrats’ computers, steal information and disseminate it to influence the election.

          To support its case, the lawsuit offers a detailed narrative of the DNC hacks, as well as episodes in which key Trump aides are alleged to have been told Russia held damaging information about Clinton.

          The suit does not name Trump as a defendant. Instead, it targets various Trump aides who met with people believed to be affiliated with Russia during the campaign, including the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner, his campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates.

          Manafort and Gates were charged with money-laundering, fraud and tax evasion in a case brought by special prosecutors last year. In February, Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI and is cooperating with investigators. Manafort has pleaded not guilty.

          The DNC lawsuit also names as a defendant the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, which has been accused by the U.S. government of orchestrating the hacks, as well as WikiLeaks, which published the DNC’s stolen emails, and the group’s founder Julian Assange.

          The lawsuit was also filed against Roger Stone, the longtime Trump confidante who claimed during the campaign that he was in contact with Assange.

          The Trump advisers and associates have denied assisting Russia in its hacking campaign. Stone has denied any communication with Assange or advance knowledge of the document dumps by WikiLeaks, saying his comments about Assange were jokes or exaggerations.

          The DNC lawsuit argues that the Russian government and the GRU violated a series of laws by orchestrating the secret intrusion into the Democrats’ computer systems, including statutes to protect trade secrets, prohibit wire tapping and prevent trespassing.

          The party said the Trump defendants committed conspiracy through their interaction with Russian agents and their public encouragement of the hacking, with the campaign itself acting as a racketeering enterprise promoting illegal activity.

          The complaint was filed on behalf of the party by the law firm of Cohen Milstein.

          The suit contains previously undisclosed details, including that the specific date when the Russians breached the DNC computer system: July 27, 2015, according to forensic evidence cited in the filing.

          The analysis shows the system was breached again on April 18, 2016. The hackers began siphoning documents and information from DNC systems on April 22. The suit notes that four days later, Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos was informed by Josef Mifsud, a London-based professor, that the Russians were in possession of thousands of emails that could be damaging to Clinton.

          The list of defendants in the suit includes Papadopoulos and Mifsud, as well as Aras and Emin Agalarov, the wealthy Russian father and son who hosted the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013. Trump, who owned the pageant, attended the event.

          The father and son also played a role in arranging a meeting for a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York in 2016, at which Donald Trump Jr. had expected to be given damaging information about Clinton.

          more less

          Did The FBI Leak Information About Hillary Clinton To Rudy Giuliani?

          85
          Posts
          2125
          Points
          22
          Users

              https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.p...

              The Hammer Is About To Fall As DOJ To Release Report On NY FBI Leaking Clinton Email Info To Giuliani

              It’s coming. The DOJ watchdog report on James Comey’s public announcements 11 days before the election about Hillary Clinton’s private email server and if the New York FBI leaked the info to hurt her to Trump campaign adviser Rudy Giuliani is coming.

              “The report also is expected to address whether active and retired FBI agents in New York leaked information about investigations of the Clinton Foundation charitable organization and the discovery of a trove of Clinton-related emails.

              Law enforcement officials previously told Reuters the information was leaked to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an adviser to the Trump campaign who subsequently discussed the contents on Fox News,” Reuters reports.

              You might be thinking that this will not be untouched by President Trump, since he has refused to honor the separation between the White House and the DOJ. And you might be right. However, the investigation was launched a week before Trump took office. The department’s inspector general Michael Horowitz launched it.

              Comey’s reason for the announcement of the reopening of the investigation into Clinton’s emails days before the election continues to not make sense for me, and I say that with all respect for James Comey. I simply have not heard an explanation that makes sense yet. The only thing I can think of that would be in keeping with his reputation for honor is that New York FBI agents were leaking it already and he wanted to get ahead of the story.

              Because in reality, while many have tried to justify this and justify the Republican obsession with Clinton’s emails and claim that it was so different and special it deserved all of this, the truth is:

              https://www.politicususa.com/2018/04/19/doj-report...

              more less

              Pope Francis Declares ‘There Is No Hell’ - Vatican Disagrees

              102
              Posts
              1980
              Points
              36
              Users

                  Oh my goodness! We can't allow this to happen. I mean think about it, that would be the end of Christianity and a host of other religions too.

                  But think for a moment...

                  What would happen if the Pope wasn't corrected and it was announced, "there is no hell"? Would the world go into a flux of demise? Would murders increase? Theft be a huge problem? Would religious literature disappear and humans go into a frenzy of sin? Severe riots all over the world would happen?

                  Or would the world call it fake news and shun it? Or would it be the world leaders that step up to the plate and denounce the Pope and the Vatican?

                  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhum...

                  more less
                  29
                  Posts
                  925
                  Points
                  18
                  Users

                      This can't be laid at the feet of the NRA, with the possible exception to them opposing more comprehensive training and regulation concerning obtaining a concealed carry permit. One regulation that I would suggest is that there be a compelling reason to even have that permit.

                      So, what is the scenario for a 3 year old to accidentally fire a medium size handgun like a Glock 9MM:

                      There has to be a round in the chamber.

                      The hammer has to be cocked with no other safeties engaged. (is a 3 year old strong enough to pull the trigger with a double action gun?)

                      The firearm has to be easily accessible.

                      Most of all, the owner of the firearm has to be a total idiot.

                      All 4 of those conditions have been met in this particular preventable tragedy. And, this case is not unique.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-girl-accidentally-sh...

                      more less

                      N.Y. Attorney General Seeks Power To Bypass Presidential Pardons

                      30
                      Posts
                      605
                      Points
                      14
                      Users

                          This is one of the biggest concerns with respect to Trump and his potential for granting wholesale pardons to his aides who have committed crimes while Trump himself is being investigated for crimes. Trump even went on to ask if he could pardon himself which makes one wonder just how guilty is Trump and exactly why does Trump think he needs to pardon himself?


                          One of the reasons for impeaching Trump as fast as humanly possible is to prevent Trump from protecting the guilty and giving out wholesale pardons to his former aides and associates.

                          Granting pardons to people convicted of crimes associated with an ongoing investigation of the current president handing out these pardons should not be allowed. That isn't a pardon but rather a flagrant abuse of the law. If Trump decides to pardon those people Mueller is investigating could this not impact the impeachment of Trump which is not allowed as defined in our Constitution?


                          https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/schnei...

                          more less
                          83
                          Posts
                          2195
                          Points
                          23
                          Users

                              The Russia Probe has caused conflict among members in Congress. Along with the Democrats, some Republicans in both the House and the Senate are seeking protection from the dismissal of Robert Mueller, but it looks like that probably won't happen.

                              In the House of Representatives, some members have been making noise about the need to protect Mueller from Trump. Representative Dent wants to keep Mueller from being fired, but he has become so disillusioned that he will be leaving next month instead of waiting until the end of the year.

                              On Friday, Dent filed legislation that would protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation from any attempt by Trump or his administration to remove him. He's one of three House Republicans who have signaled support for such a measure in recent days.

                              Dent clashed with Trump during a brutal 2017 fight over replacing Obamacare, which ultimately failed. At the time, the New York Times Magazine reported that Trump confronted Dent during a White House meeting and accused him of "destroying the Republican Party."

                              Rep. Charlie Dent has been in elected office since 1991, Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AFP/Getty Images

                              It should come as no surprise that Senate Republicans who have voiced the need to have legislation that protects Mueller from Trump are being dismissed by Mitch McConnell.

                              In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee wanted to put forth a bill that would shield Mueller from being fired by Trump's Administration, but McConnell is not allowing it. He says that such a bill will never see the Senate floor.

                              Mitch McConnell is just saying no.There will be no Senate vote on protecting special counsel Robert Mueller.

                              The Senate majority leader said on Tuesday that the bill is "not necessary" and that Trump would never sign it. And though McConnell doesn't want Trump to fire Mueller, he is making sure that the only viable legislation to offer a backstop for Mueller won't see the Senate floor.

                              "I'm the one who decides what we take to the floor. That's my responsibility as the majority leader and we'll not be having this on the floor of the Senate," McConnell told Fox News's Neil Cavuto on Tuesday afternoon.

                              Mitch McConnell is pictured. | Getty Images

                              Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImageSenate


                              Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded that McConnell is making a "mistake."

                              "We ought to head off a constitutional crisis at the pass, rather than waiting until it’s too late. I hope the Judiciary Committee moves forward with a bill, and that members of Senator McConnell’s caucus push him to reconsider," Schumer said.

                              To read the entire reports, click on the following links

                              https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/charlie-dent-resigns-528605

                              https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/mueller-mconnell-russia-probe-531326


                              more less
                              Pundit Post

                              Gorsuch Swings Against Trump In Deportation Case

                              68
                              Posts
                              1010
                              Points
                              23
                              Users

                                  The decision, the first in which Gorsuch swung the court by joining the four Democrat-appointed justices, could complicate the administration's drive to expel 'criminal aliens.'

                                  In a surprise decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with Liberals in a federal case that involved foreign visitors, violence and deportation. Evidently the law is not clear, and as a result, justice Gorsuch ruled that deportation based on an unclear law was unconstitutional.

                                  This is the first case in which he has sided with the court's four Liberal justices, and of course Trump was certainly not too happy about that.

                                  Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with his liberal colleagues that a clause in federal law allowing deportation of foreigners found guilty of "a crime of violence" is unconstitutional because it is overly vague. | Saul Loeb/Getty Image

                                  In a decision that ruffled feathers at the White House, Gorsuch agreed with the court's four Democratic-appointed justices that a clause in federal law allowing the deportation of foreigners found guilty of "a crime of violence" is unconstitutional because it is overly vague.

                                  "What does that mean?" Gorsuch asked in a concurring opinion. "Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows."

                                  "The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more," Gorsuch added.

                                  Continue reading: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/immigrat...
                                  more less
                                  Pundit Post

                                  Parents Of Children Who Died In Sandy Hook Shooting Sue Alex Jones

                                  80
                                  Posts
                                  1725
                                  Points
                                  30
                                  Users

                                      It's about time someone took on this sick depraved psychopath Alex Jones. I mean how sick does one have to be to create some bogus conspiracy about the mass murder of all those children who died at Sandy Hook elementary school was a hoax? It is no wonder that the courts ruled against Jone's request to get sole custody of their children. Who would want such a person around anyone's children? I so hope Jones not only loses this lawsuit but that other parents from Sandy Hook sue him as well. We need to get sick people like Jones off the air.

                                      Listen to what his wife had to say about him.


                                      http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/383467-pare...

                                      more less

                                      Yabberz Search

                                      Topics Found

                                      Members

                                      Posts

                                      Load More Posts
                                      Hi There,

                                      Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

                                      Do you have an email group that shares news items?

                                      It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

                                      This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home
                                      0

                                          Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                                          Click to confirm you want to see post

                                          more less

                                          Posts
                                          Points
                                          Users
                                              more less
                                              Block User
                                              This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock this user, visit the blocked user tab found on your about me profile page. Click confirm block to complete.
                                              loading...
                                              Last Heard: a minute ago
                                              Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                              Followers: 100
                                              Points: 100,000